Yes if people have ideas from Skype to implement into GM, then I'm all ears. However, we have opposite directions, and I really see Skype as a toy. But my advice is extremely biased. Actually, people who tell the audio quality is better than with GM (just like the Skype FAQ advertises : superior audio quality) are wrong. Skype is using iLBC, just like GnomeMeeting, but with the whole bandwidth dedicated to audio. The only real advantage is transparent NAT support, we have several alternatives in GM CVS : - transparent NAT support if one of the endpoints is not-NATted or NAT- aware - NAT-awareness through STUN support - NAT-awareness through IP Translation but no transparent NAT support. Craig, Robert and me have been discussing an idea to achieve this, I think Craig will work on it. Le mer, 07/07/2004 à 18:22 +0200, Alexandre Aractingi a écrit : > Le mer 07/07/2004 à 18:17, Robert Vojta a écrit : > > Yes, but with Gnomemeeting and not with Skype. When you read the email > > from him carefully, you have to feel that he spent just 5 minutes with > > Skype :-) > > I promise I'll spend more time on Skype when it has gatekeeper and > Quicknet support... > Just kidding :-), as I said I indeed spent too little time on Skype, > I'll redo cleaner and more accurate tests and post the results here. > Regards, > -- _ Damien Sandras (o- GnomeMeeting: http://www.gnomemeeting.org/ //\ FOSDEM : http://www.fosdem.org v_/_ H.323 phone : callto:ils.seconix.com/dsandras seconix com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=