![]() ![]() Pair devices over local wifi/bluetooth/scanning QR code from screen to camera? That would require the clients to bring their keys with them on every device, not very practical. You cannot efficiently have shared states in pure p2p without an identity server. The only limit are shoddy NAT devices that have their tracking tables saturated by the traffic. Those queries can be run in parallel without significantly impacting latency. I can do random lookups on the bittorrent DHT (6-8M reachable nodes) that yield their first result in 600ms and returned the bulk of the results in 1500ms. It doesn't solve the case of unpunchable NATs, but I think if one is aiming for pure P2P then it would be sufficient to inform the user about it that it is "blocked by the network" or something like that. You can have rendezvous servers for holepunching on p2p networks. > This is why Skype relies on STUN like protocols => not possible in pure p2p. In case the network collapses, there is no way for it to go up again without supernodes. That would require the clients to bring their keys with them on every device, not very practical.ĥ. You WANT dedicated peers with good connection and 100% uptime.Ĥ. It's the only way to have reliable peers to introduce you to the network.ģ. Skype understood that and switched to hosted "supernodes" with their IPs hard-coded in the client. This is why Skype relies on STUN like protocols => not possible in pure p2p.Ģ. Unfortunately, since they want to stay pure p2p they have no other possibility to solve the "both clients behind a NAT router" problem. I would never do that, and anyone doing so should consider the security implications of doing so. Skype abandonned full peer to peer because it does not work if you want something fast, reliable, and feature rich.ġ. Many people naively think that Skype switched from full p2p to partially p2p to server centric because of some evil plot designed by Microsoft. I cannot see this working in the long run. Looks like a Skype clone from 10 years ago to me. At least the Signal people have tried to make a product that is fully usable by anyone who can install an app. Since they aren't likely to be seeking VC money to monetize it, then it will probably remain a cool demo for some time. social software where the usefulness depends upon other people using it and a lot of projects don't get past the cool prototype faze. There is a big difference needed when designing free software for individual productivity vs. Mainly I didn't like how it just ran seemingly crashing in the background occasionally and I never had anyone to talk to one it. This is where even marginal social networks can be functional because you can at least see the other people using them.Īlso the UI and layout left quite a bit to be desired. ![]() The other option would be some sort of friend-making mechanism. How do you convince your friends to use it. This is the primary problem with communication technologies. I mean even an app like Duo by Google is pretty functionless if you don't know anyone using it. Yeah I wasn't impressed either, unfortunately it seemed like a combination of cool ideas but lacked any sort of network effect. I would love and push hard to replace skype/xmpp with a solution of this kind, but I just cannot in the current state of affairs :( Also, off line devices do not get the messages they missed when you fire the client later on. Calls ring on all devices, but text messages are less reliable (they don't always reach all devices). It had major warts on all platforms I tested.Īlso, if anyone is curious, you can login with the same account from several devices at the same time. It may have been because I don't have a webcam.Īll in all, the experience was far from what you would expect from an 1.0 release nowadays. On linux I haven't been able to make a call, even though text chat worked. The video quality was fine, but the client did not handle screen orientation changes well (my own video feed ended up distorted). After a while it seems to have stabilized a bit, and I've been able to make a video call (to a mac). On android, the client acted really weirdly in the beginning. I've been able to register an account and make a video call, but there are several GUI issues (cut labels, missing text fields, etc.) and the name registration didn't seem to work. On a mac, the client crashes regularly. I've been testing it out, and it does not seem like an 1.0 release by any stretch of imagination.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |