Re: [GnomeMeeting-devel-list] Skype vs. GnomeMeeting

[Damien Sandras <dsandras seconix com>]

I really agree with everything in that mail, thanks for the long
explanation.


Le dim 21/09/2003 à 22:35, Christian Strauf a écrit :
> > "Which protocols does Skype use? 
> > Skype uses a proprietary protocol which we have developed. We looked at
> > many available protocols when designing Skype and none were good enough
> > for us. We hope you agree!"
> Very cute.
> 
> Well, this basically shows where to place Skype.
> 
> Apart from that, I really don't think that P2P in Skype's sense of the
> word is the way to go with GM. I strongly believe that basing the calls
> (session initialization and also the codecs) on a common basis (meaning
> loyalty-free open standards) is the right way to go (goto: H.323, SIP,
> etc.). How else would one be able to insure interoperability? If there'd
> be a good open protocol that allows P2P-VoIP/Vid-Conf in Skype's sense,
> sure, why not include it even if there might be some disadvantages. But
> I'm really not aware of such a protocol, especially none that can
> seriously be called an "open standard". Don't get me wrong. I don't
> think that GM must generally stay the way it is right now. I really
> believe that getting rid of ILS and replacing it e.g. with LDAP would be
> a good idea, for example. And I think that, including SIP and also
> looking into multicast with its established open standards and
> mechanisms is the next logical thing to do.
> 
> But clearly, the Skype people don't aim at providing other developers
> with an open standard (at least that's what I make out of what they say
> in their FAQ). And that's why I think that, while I agree with Matthias
> that it's important to keep an eye on projects like Skype and its users,
> it is for the moment not necessary for GM to swim with the P2P wave that
> Skype's creating for VoIP/Vid-Conf. BTW: what's P2P supposed to mean
> anyhow?! If it means "communication of one peer with another without the
> use of intermediary instances (servers, etc.)", then GM already is P2P.
> The only difference is the session establishment. While you need to
> register to an ILS for the moment to establish a random (not direct)
> session with another user (which was also the case with Napster which
> is, despite this fact, commonly said to be one of the first P2P apps in
> the popular sense of the word), this is the only principal thing that's
> different in Skype. The only things that are worth thinking about are
> the privacy element and the NAT-traversal -- having encrypted streams
> between two GM peers (as it can be done with Skype) would be a nice
> thing to have, and easier NAT traversal would also help (even better:
> kill NAT and use IPv6 -- the best way to go ;-) ). But that's something
> one could try to implement and standardize (or better the other way
> around). So, as nice a hype Skype is right now, I really don't see why
> one should "pollute" the Net with another bandwidth-stealing "P2P" app
> if a construct like GM with P2P-connectivity and a centralized listing
> server does a good job. And concerning the users: I believe that serious
> VoIP/Vid-Conf users wouldn't use a program like Skype. Especially
> companies need to stick with standards that are widely supported
> software- and hardware-wise. Even if Skype promises NAT-traversal, I
> really don't think companies would go for such a solution if there's
> another one that can interoperate with a vast number of products that
> stick to the established standards.
> 
> Just my 2-¤-Cents.
> Christian
> 
> P.S.: Sorry for the long mail. I sometimes get a little carried away by
> those "P2P"-discussions...
-- 
 _	Damien Sandras
(o-	GnomeMeeting: http://www.gnomemeeting.org/
//\	FOSDEM 2003:  http://www.fosdem.org
v_/_	H.323 phone:  callto://ils.seconix.com/dsandras seconix com
echo
'12245692587856285105409351sn[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb[q]salbxq'|dc