From david.burleigh at gmx.com Thu Jul 14 14:25:35 2016 From: david.burleigh at gmx.com (David Burleigh) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:25:35 -0400 Subject: [General] Future of Tox Message-ID: <20160714102535.66b79385@dz> I've been trying out Tox (via qTox) with a handful of friends, in hopes that it will prove to be the best alternative to Skype. I'm part of a network of 50 or so alternative communities around the world, who keep in close contact with one another. I'm on the verge of officially recommending that we all make the switch together, but I'm just a little apprehensive because of some of the negativity in some of the various blogs and forums where Tox security or longevity are being discussed. I take it with a grain of salt, but at the same time it puzzles me that there is not much activity on the Tox mailing lists that I subscribed to (this one and the dev list). Is Tox development alive and well? -- David Burleigh 828-475-5126 From greg at grayhatter.com Thu Jul 14 15:34:08 2016 From: greg at grayhatter.com (Gregory Mullen) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:34:08 -0700 Subject: [General] Future of Tox In-Reply-To: <20160714102535.66b79385@dz> References: <20160714102535.66b79385@dz> Message-ID: Yes, we're very active at https://github.com/toktok/ On Jul 14, 2016 07:25, "David Burleigh" wrote: > I've been trying out Tox (via qTox) with a handful of friends, in hopes > that it will prove to be the best alternative to Skype. I'm part of a > network of 50 or so alternative communities around the world, who keep > in close contact with one another. I'm on the verge of officially > recommending that we all make the switch together, but I'm just a > little apprehensive because of some of the negativity in some of the > various blogs and forums where Tox security or longevity are being > discussed. I take it with a grain of salt, but at the same time it > puzzles me that there is not much activity on the Tox mailing lists > that I subscribed to (this one and the dev list). Is Tox development > alive and well? > > -- > David Burleigh > 828-475-5126 > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > General at lists.tox.chat > https://lists.tox.chat/listinfo/general > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zetok at openmailbox.org Thu Jul 14 16:10:26 2016 From: zetok at openmailbox.org (Zetok Zalbavar) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:10:26 +0100 Subject: [General] Future of Tox In-Reply-To: <20160714102535.66b79385@dz> References: <20160714102535.66b79385@dz> Message-ID: <5787B972.9050308@openmailbox.org> On 14.07.2016 15:25, David Burleigh wrote: > I've been trying out Tox (via qTox) with a handful of friends, in hopes > that it will prove to be the best alternative to Skype. I'm part of a > network of 50 or so alternative communities around the world, who keep > in close contact with one another. I'm on the verge of officially > recommending that we all make the switch together, but I'm just a > little apprehensive because of some of the negativity in some of the > various blogs and forums where Tox security or longevity are being > discussed. I take it with a grain of salt, but at the same time it > puzzles me that there is not much activity on the Tox mailing lists > that I subscribed to (this one and the dev list). Is Tox development > alive and well? > Yep. Sorry, it's just that MLs aren't the primary, or even secondary medium of communication. Vast majority of the stuff is being discussed, etc. on github / IRC. There are now some #qtox logs available[1]. The main purpose of MLs is to provide a medium of communication for people who don't want to / can't use github / freenode, so there indeed isn't a lot of traffic on them. Yes, there's plenty of crappy opinions on the net made by (presumably) people who have no idea what they're talking about. How could such thing happen on the internet, I wonder.. ;) The other "main" category of people who dis Tox are people who do have (some?) knowledge, but criticize it for not using "already existing protocols", without actually looking into Tox further. So, yeah, totally an informed opinion.. As for negativity in discussions / posts ? I have yet to hear proper critique of Tox coming from a person with actual knowledge who did their homework. On a side note, you might be interested in watching some thought-inducing stuff[1]. Whole thing is good to watch. Not that I'm suggesting anything, just pointing out bigger picture :) [1]: https://github.com/qTox/qtox-irc-logs [2]: http://video.fosdem.org/2014/Janson/Sunday/NSA_operation_ORCHESTRA_Annual_Status_Report.webm -- Kind regards, Zetok Zalbavar ---- My Tox ID: 29AE62F95C56063D833024B1CB5C2140DC4AEB94A80FF4596CACC460D7BAA062E0A92C3424A0 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From david.burleigh at gmx.com Thu Jul 14 16:20:43 2016 From: david.burleigh at gmx.com (David Burleigh) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:20:43 -0400 Subject: [General] Future of Tox In-Reply-To: <5787B972.9050308@openmailbox.org> References: <20160714102535.66b79385@dz> <5787B972.9050308@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <20160714122043.59bb78a5@dz> Thank you, Zetok, that is very helpful! On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:10:26 +0100 Zetok Zalbavar wrote: > Yep. Sorry, it's just that MLs aren't the primary, or even secondary > medium of communication. Vast majority of the stuff is being > discussed, etc. on github / IRC. There are now some #qtox logs > available[1]. > > The main purpose of MLs is to provide a medium of communication for > people who don't want to / can't use github / freenode, so there > indeed isn't a lot of traffic on them. > > Yes, there's plenty of crappy opinions on the net made by (presumably) > people who have no idea what they're talking about. How could such > thing happen on the internet, I wonder.. ;) > > The other "main" category of people who dis Tox are people who do have > (some?) knowledge, but criticize it for not using "already existing > protocols", without actually looking into Tox further. So, yeah, > totally an informed opinion.. > > As for negativity in discussions / posts ? I have yet to hear proper > critique of Tox coming from a person with actual knowledge who did > their homework. > > On a side note, you might be interested in watching some > thought-inducing stuff[1]. Whole thing is good to watch. Not that I'm > suggesting anything, just pointing out bigger picture :) > > [1]: https://github.com/qTox/qtox-irc-logs > [2]: > http://video.fosdem.org/2014/Janson/Sunday/NSA_operation_ORCHESTRA_Annual_Status_Report.webm -- David Zerubbabel 828-475-5126 From javier.ruere at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 13:04:38 2016 From: javier.ruere at gmail.com (Javier Ruere) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:04:38 +0300 Subject: [General] Tox vs Ring.cx Message-ID: <01f38bad-6680-dc70-1b22-81ae5929a1cd@gmail.com> Hi guys, I've tried Tox but gave up as voice communication with several people does not work well for us. There are also some issues with video but they were not very important. I found tickets for all these problems and more. When I started to look for alternatives, I found ring.cx. At first glance it appears to provide the same functionality as Tox but it appears to be much more mature. I'm unable to assess it's security claims. Has anyone taken a look? How does it compare to Tox security-wise? Best regards, Javier Ruere From david.burleigh at gmx.com Thu Jul 21 13:21:31 2016 From: david.burleigh at gmx.com (David Burleigh) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:21:31 -0400 Subject: [General] Tox vs Ring.cx In-Reply-To: <01f38bad-6680-dc70-1b22-81ae5929a1cd@gmail.com> References: <01f38bad-6680-dc70-1b22-81ae5929a1cd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160721092131.151f933a@dz> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:04:38 +0300 Javier Ruere wrote: > Hi guys, > I've tried Tox but gave up as voice communication with several people > does not work well for us. > There are also some issues with video but they were not very > important. I found tickets for all these problems and more. > > When I started to look for alternatives, I found ring.cx. > At first glance it appears to provide the same functionality as Tox > but it appears to be much more mature. > > I'm unable to assess it's security claims. Has anyone taken a look? > How does it compare to Tox security-wise? > > Best regards, > Javier Ruere > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > General at lists.tox.chat > https://lists.tox.chat/listinfo/general I also looked into Ring, but found it very confusing, not intuitive (of course, that is very subjective). I had been a satisfied user of their earlier SFLPhone and am sad that it is no longer available. But I would very much like to hear from others who have actually used Ring, and how it compares with Tox. -- David Burleigh 828-475-5126 From zetok at openmailbox.org Thu Jul 21 18:25:10 2016 From: zetok at openmailbox.org (Zetok Zalbavar) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:25:10 +0100 Subject: [General] Tox vs Ring.cx In-Reply-To: <01f38bad-6680-dc70-1b22-81ae5929a1cd@gmail.com> References: <01f38bad-6680-dc70-1b22-81ae5929a1cd@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57911386.2070101@openmailbox.org> On 21.07.2016 14:04, Javier Ruere wrote: > Hi guys, > I've tried Tox but gave up as voice communication with several people > does not work well for us. > There are also some issues with video but they were not very important. > I found tickets for all these problems and more. As always, quality of the software depends not only on people who write it, but also on the whole community, which should be doing testing for stuff, not only things that are "released", but also all the PRs that are proposed. qTox could make some use of people testing PRs[1], since there have been times when something looking ok was merged, but resulted in some regressions. Regressions that could be avoided if people tested stuff before merge.. And yes, some of regressions were in A/V code. Note that testing & building qTox should be as easy & straightforward as possible. There's even `test-pr.sh` script[2] that allows one to easily get PR code; e.g. if you want to get PR `1234`, you just need to: $ ./test-pr.sh 1234 and build qTox. If it's not easy to test/build, please don't hesitate to make an issue about it :) > When I started to look for alternatives, I found ring.cx. > At first glance it appears to provide the same functionality as Tox but > it appears to be much more mature. lol. > I'm unable to assess it's security claims. Has anyone taken a look? How > does it compare to Tox security-wise? A little bit: https://github.com/tux3/qTox/issues/3435#issuecomment-229300524 [1] https://github.com/tux3/qTox/pulls [2] https://github.com/tux3/qTox/blob/ff92a5595002a4156bada85eeffe4bdb3cdd7f8e/test-pr.sh -- Kind regards, Zetok Zalbavar ---- My Tox ID: 29AE62F95C56063D833024B1CB5C2140DC4AEB94A80FF4596CACC460D7BAA062E0A92C3424A0 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From javier.ruere at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 19:27:33 2016 From: javier.ruere at gmail.com (Javier Ruere) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:27:33 +0300 Subject: [General] Tox vs Ring.cx In-Reply-To: <57911386.2070101@openmailbox.org> References: <01f38bad-6680-dc70-1b22-81ae5929a1cd@gmail.com> <57911386.2070101@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <1b022f99-e63b-9925-6ef5-7eccf4cc999a@gmail.com> On 21/07/16 21:25, Zetok Zalbavar wrote: > On 21.07.2016 14:04, Javier Ruere wrote: >> Hi guys, >> I've tried Tox but gave up as voice communication with several people >> does not work well for us. >> There are also some issues with video but they were not very important. >> I found tickets for all these problems and more. > [...] > >> When I started to look for alternatives, I found ring.cx. >> At first glance it appears to provide the same functionality as Tox but >> it appears to be much more mature. > lol. > > >> I'm unable to assess it's security claims. Has anyone taken a look? How >> does it compare to Tox security-wise? > A little bit: > https://github.com/tux3/qTox/issues/3435#issuecomment-229300524 > > > [1] https://github.com/tux3/qTox/pulls > [2] > https://github.com/tux3/qTox/blob/ff92a5595002a4156bada85eeffe4bdb3cdd7f8e/test-pr.sh > The discussion on the referenced ticket was enlightening. Thanks. Best regards, Javier