[General] Tox vs Ring.cx

Zetok Zalbavar 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
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.


> 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:

[1] https://github.com/tux3/qTox/pulls


Kind regards,
Zetok Zalbavar
My Tox ID:

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.tox.chat/pipermail/general/attachments/20160721/735afbb9/attachment.sig>

More information about the General mailing list