[General] Tox vs Ring.cx
zetok at openmailbox.org
Thu Jul 21 18:25:10 UTC 2016
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
qTox could make some use of people testing PRs, 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
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 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.
> 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:
My Tox ID:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the General