Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Said To Resume Talks With Skype

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-are-they-using-a-skype-connection dept.

Cloud 58

An anonymous reader writes "You may soon be able to start a Skype video call with your friends on Facebook. The latest rumor suggests that Facebook and Skype have resumed talks about integrating the video conferencing technology on the social network. The two companies first talked about a potential partnership in September 2010, but they could not reach an agreement. When Skype 5.0 was released in October 2010, the new version offered voice calling between Facebook friends, but it did not include a video chatting feature."

cancel ×

58 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why? (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403806)

If I want to talk to my friends, I'm going to just call them. I'm certainly not going to login to a website and send messages through a proprietary system to them. And I'm *certainly* not going to login to the website, find their page or find them in some contact list, then call them via skype. Instead, I'm going to . . . you know, pick up the fucking phone.

Besides, Skype isn't in keeping with the spirit of Facebook. Facebook (like all social networking) is NOT about one on one communication. Social networking sites are all about "I AM SO IMPORTANT... I AM **SO** IMPORTANT . . . . that I can't be bothered to let the people important to me in y life know about things or talk with them. Instead, I'm going to broadcast it to the entire world so I can put in the least amount of effort and personal interaction to accomplish telling EVERYONE on earth about X, Y, and Z. . ."

The only way this would keep in spirit with facebook is if it only broadcast everything you said via Skype into some massive 1,200 person distribution list that they can then *listen* to.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403830)

Well for once i would sure love an alternative to Mr. Bloaty ak.a. Skype. That thing takes a ton of memory and is prone to bugging out and pegging one of my cores at 100% use...

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403978)

Had this same problem, Turns out you have XP compatibility mode on when you're in windows vista/seven, I did this because they removed the "feature" to pretty much make it go onto your task bar icons when you click the close icon.

I did something drastic (google) and many people complained, and said that it was because of the compatibility mode, sure enough once I turned that off, I stopped getting 3 cores being maxed out, and it doesn't use more then 60MB of ram! Woah!

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403842)

You do realise that people use Skype precisely because there are situations in which it is impractical or uneconomical to use a regular old phone line? The people who use Facebook to communicate to overseas relatives would probably be very happy to give Skype their money and make a voice call if they only knew it existed.

Re:Why? (0)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404112)

Yes, yes, that is all fine. But why do you need Facebook for that ?

Re:Why? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404184)

Who said you did?

Re:Why? (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404934)

You're being deliberately obtuse. Here are some of the possible benefits I can think of immediately:

  • There is a wealth of contact information made up of people who have shared their phone number.
  • Not having to dual key or type those contacts from facebook
  • Not having to run Skype's resource hungry client
  • Not having to use Skype's nightmare-ish firefox plugin
  • See when friends are online with regards to facebook chat, meaning that you know they're likely to be able to take your call.

Keep this line for later, you can include it in your future posts:

I'm too unimaginative to appreciate X and so I think X is useless to everyone.

Re:Why? (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407742)

Yeah, this is true.

I was wondering if people knew more than I did because I don't really use Facebook.

But I guess it is mostly convience, no double administration and less setup time.

Re:Why? (1)

olden (772043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404160)

If one's main concern is cost, then regular VoIP (the open kind, with competition and all) wins hands down.
E.g: http://progx.ch/home-voip-prixbetamax-3-1-2.html [progx.ch]

Re:Why? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404190)

I'm not sure how you can reason that Skype isn't in competition with those services. Unless you have a different sense of "competition" than I.

A perfect storm of lock-in (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404642)

The lock-in of Facebook combined with the lock-in of Skype. Poor Average Joes are going be stuck on them forever. Good thing I never put any personal info into Skype, I'm sure Facebook would love to make me a profile based on my Skype info.

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403848)

I guess you don't use irc or IM then either. Besides, Skype is free while calling with phone isn't.

That also isn't the spirit of Facebook, anyone can use it how they want to. Facebook just provides the tools. Personally I don't have any people on my friends that spam mindless shit (or I have hidden them from my wall) and most people also use the facebook chat feature for one to one conversation. They've even stopped logging in to MSN Messenger because everyone they know is on Facebook anyway (I have internet friends so doesn't hold true for me tho)

Re:Why? (1)

CProgrammer98 (240351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403918)

Why? becauise Skype to Skype is free, anywhere in the world, anytime of day. Your phonecall to your freind in ObscureCountry at peak time won't be free.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404068)

I think a significantly better question is "Why not"?

Just because you can't think of a good reason to use it, doesn't mean anyone else can't think of a reason to use it.

You further display a remarkable amount of ignorance as to the platforms actual usage. I'm sure some people use it worthlessly, just like Twitter, but it is also a meaningful way to communicate and share what interests you. It, in fact, lets you know some people better than you otherwise might, and can be used to have interesting conversations both online and offline.

I don't understand why people have such a hate on for social networking, as if it "doesn't count" or whatever. It's just another way to communicate. It's damn convenient for showing the world what you care about - and I'm sure you think that people just lie, but that's just not true. Friends like that, are not friends - they are enemies. Why would you be friends with a liar or deceiver in real life?

Also, let us not forget that the advent of the telephone brought about fears of people never seeing each other due to the incredible ease of calling someone.

Some people, of course, use it wrong or annoyingly - those people are ignored. This shit ain't hard, people.

Re:Why? (1)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35411930)

My sentiments exactly. To doubt the potential of a technology simply because, "Well, uh...I don't need it" doesn't mean it's useless for everyone else.

Projecting, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404256)

It sounds like you're projecting the reason you would use facebook, or similar services, onto everyone that uses them. I personally don't use Facebook because I think I'm so damn important that everyone needs to know how my last BM went, but because it's a fantastic tool to keep up with people I otherwise wouldn't. There are some people that use it for the reason you described, but they are the exception, not the rule, in my experience.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35405880)

Besides, Skype isn't in keeping with the spirit of Facebook. Facebook (like all social networking) is NOT about one on one communication. Social networking sites are all about "I AM SO IMPORTANT... I AM **SO** IMPORTANT . . . . that I can't be bothered to let the people important to me in y life know about things or talk with them. Instead, I'm going to broadcast it to the entire world so I can put in the least amount of effort and personal interaction to accomplish telling EVERYONE on earth about X, Y, and Z. . ."

No, that's what Facebook is about for you and a minority of very vocal people. The rest of us use it to keep contact with friends (sometimes messaging them! How personal of us!), arrange events, update people on events they missed with pictures and picture comments, and status updates.

Must suck to be an antisocial shut-in...

Re:Why? (1)

Morty (32057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407486)

I have a fair number of friends who I met via the Internet. I don't know their phone numbers. Voice chat rocks.

A perfect storm for civil rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35408674)

Why would they do this?
1. Well...like Seumas here has said, "so it could broadcast everything you said via Skype into some massive 1,200 person distribution list that they can then *listen* to."
2. And being that this is then considered "broadcasting", into the public, the courts will find that it must be filtered for copyright (etc...it's never just copyright).
3. BINGO, so will every other similar service.

Re:Why? (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35411944)

I hate this about facebook, it seems my sister who planned to come over to our house, had already cancelled the trip to come over because of x y z, but had posted it on facebook, and did not bother calling me to cancel....I do not have facebook, and found out from another family member that she updated her postings and was not coming, and I thought, what the f*ck...seriously, what little respect people have, you are that too busy, you can not even be bothered to properly confirm a cancellation....that was the last time I really set any plans with her...

priorities (4, Interesting)

bguiz (1627491) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403866)

I'd love to see Skype come out with a supported, up to date version of their client for Linux first. Oh, and also, not to drop my calls as often. Et cetera.

Mustard/ gravy is a nice to have, but not very useful when the steak and potatoes aren't already on the plate.

Re:priorities (2)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403914)

Yeah, there's not much in the way of information about the Linux client. I've been thinking about investigating Google video chat. Anyone have any thoughts on if it's better? Or indeed, more open?

Re:priorities (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405390)

If you're going to switch to something unpopular, use SIP. It's the Linux of the VoIP world. Totally open and clearly superior (however with a few technical gotchas), but unpopular because an easy-to-use but inferior and closed commercial product made it to Average Joe's desktop first.

Google Chat is basically just a Skype clone from Google. I haven't used the desktop clients, my N900's communications suite just has support for it when I log in with my Google account.

Re:priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406176)

Google Talk uses XMPP (Jabber) and is compatible with many IM clients. I wouldn't call it Google's Skype, because I can't make my own client for Skype, but I could for Google Chat.

Re:priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404212)

I agree, it is totally crazy how badly the call quality degrades and out right drops when between the same two computers other applications can stream video without issues let alone simple voicecoms.

Re:priorities (0)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404398)

I'd love to see Skype come out with a supported, up to date version of their client for Linux first.

I want a pony.

But Facebook brings 700 million users to the table.

Careful what you wish for (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405416)

You do realize that the "up to date" Skype client is a horrible piece of adware/nagware, while the old one is just a nice quiet application? Be careful what you wish for.

Re:priorities (1)

Enigma23 (460910) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406686)

As I recall, the latest Linux Skype client has been version Skype 2.1 Beta 2 for Linux [skype.com] for well over a year now, with no sign whatsoever of it progressing any further. Then again, I'm not too bothered about that, as newer Windows versions I have used have all been more bloated then previous ones with no appreciable additional functionality worth speaking of.

XMPP to skype? (2, Interesting)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403884)

Since facebook uses XMPP, this would mean that they would create a gateway between skype and XMPP.
This would be frikkin awesome since then I could finally dump skype.

Re:XMPP to skype? (2)

mr_jrt (676485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404000)

I really don't see that being the outcome. The Skype stuff will probably just be in parallel to the XMPP stuff. In fact, I wouldn't put it past Skype to try and get Facebook to shut down the XMPP stuff so more users have to use Skype clients to even text chat outside of the Facebook website. Big companies like walled gardens and proprietary protocols.

What I'd have much preferred to have seen would be a XMPP-video based feature, a-la Google's GMail/XMPP Jingle video. Incidentally, does anyone have any idea why the GTalk client doesn't support it, but ruddy GMail and the N900 does? ...the mind boggles.

The lack of any decent Jingle clients on Windows isn't such a hurdle if Facebook were to use a browser plugin like GMail (or indeed, sort out using the same one).

Re:XMPP to skype? (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404730)

...why the GTalk client doesn't support it...

Because Google hasn't properly updated the Google Talk client in years and is trying to phase it out in favour of Gmail's chat client.

Re:XMPP to skype? (1)

mr_jrt (676485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405594)

Yeah, I'd pretty much figured that was the case as well. A shame, as it's much more practical to have an application sitting in the system tray than a browser tab/window hogging tab bar/taskbar space.

Re:XMPP to skype? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404088)

Since facebook uses XMPP, this would mean that they would create a gateway between skype and XMPP.
This would be frikkin awesome since then I could finally dump skype.

This doesn't mean they would release it opensource, or release it at all

Re:XMPP to skype? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404278)

They don't even expose their xmpp network to the outside world so I don't see much hope of them doing that for voice... In other words they only "support XMPP" in the sense that you can use another client in Facebook chat: connecting to people outside of Facebook is still forbidden.

potential to transmit/post video of murder/torture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403926)

that's probably going to need some 'tweaking'? does anybody know why all those millions of folks (men, women, children) are gathering together facing insurmountable odds/almost certain death, all over the world (not here)? better not to think about it? definitely better not to see it? you call this weather? 'in talks'. phewww

I'm Not Sure... (2)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403952)

I like how Facebook is adopting "new" technologies so people can better connect with each other, but I'm not sure I want it as the standard for everything on the internet. I think there are some improvements you can make to a universal online, profile system like Facebook. I mean, at some point, there's gonna be clashes between your image and anonymity, because of all the integration. Is Facebook going to be that image? Eh...I certainly hope not. But it almost seems for certain that anonymity is in many respects, a thing of the past. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, as Facebook integrates themselves more and more with peoples' lives, you're gonna have a correlation between the person posting on some obscure website, to the person walking outside to pick up their morning newspaper.

Facebook is becoming our 20th century metaphorical lightbulb, so to speak--it's an advancement that we can't seem to do without, but at the same time, let's start making the switch over to AC instead of DC current. Yea? Alrighty then.

Re:I'm Not Sure... (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404030)

At the risk of overstretching an analogy, people used to plug everything into their light socket because they got electricity for the lightbulbs (facebook) and other useful applications for electricity began to appear later (???) which they needed to plug them in somewhere. (?facebook connect?).

I think "at the risk of" should've read "quite absolutely certainly".

Re:I'm Not Sure... (1)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35411328)

Yea, I sort of got carried away there. Maybe just a tad.

Google must be quaking on its boots (2)

Virtual_Raider (52165) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403972)

I've been on the waiting list for google's phone service for ages because its not available on my country. With something like this it will make Facebook even more widespread and convenient for regular folks and it will make it even harder for google to compete 'socially'. I know lots of people still think that the goog is unbeatable and can't be unseated but Facebook is making all the right moves and all the right noises, and they are expanding their tentacles outside of their walled garden.

A lot of commentators seem to think that all they want is to suck content and people inside Facebook but these kind of partnerships and integrations such as their comment board initiative will help them spread and break outside of their own realm as well.

coalition of those willing to stop the killing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404016)

there has been almost no address of this. the 'inclination' sounds to be; let's work hard to sell arms to the 'opposition' (soon to include every being on the planet, in some form). a couple weeks ago they were people. now they're referred to as (poorly) armed REBELS. nothing to discuss? the bips grow anxious.

the south(ern hemisphere) will 'rise' again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404056)

looks like it's doing something? nothing to do with US 'northerners'? haven't seen anything on cnn/fox? just some stuff on how we should learn to hate those who disrupt our right to do 'commerce'. some say it's really mostly environmental rape & pillaging, but there's rumors that we've expanded our fortunes in some other highly odoriferous stuff too. never a better time to 'square up' & 'get right' with ourselves, & whosonever (babys?) 'it' is, that's staging our rescue, however it's happening, & it is.. see you there?

rescue from what? what's wrong with you? stop it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404116)

we're perfectly able to solve any problems, should any arise, that our leaders need our help with? & we don't need babys, or stupid spirit stuff (all you need is love, blah blah blah blah blah!@#$), that can't be real, because we've heard that more of us (not here) are being abused in more ways than ever? so just go away. most of us are here trying to learn how to 'make' money, & feel good about ourselves. & you obviously aren't.

Thank heavens for the progress in speech-to-text.. (2)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404028)

Hate to think Facebook would only have audio of phone sex to make "freely-available to developers and other interested parties"....

lolll...although I suppose your Skype calls might be the exception-to-the-Facebook-rule, and so be kept private...but being a gambling man, that wouldn't be the wager I would make. Not when I consider the size of the forces that want to ensure that the 'net is never considered to be a common carrier...and not when Facebook seems to be willing to make a buck for Zuck from all of the rest of your "confidential you hope" data.

Alternatives (1)

Nomen (679850) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404114)

So, Seen [jointheseen.com] 's already available as a way of free voice/videocalling between FB users via iPhone. Shame there's no Android or in-browser support yet though :(

Re:Alternatives (1)

AndruUK (578299) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405062)

Just tried this. Video quality is surprisingly good (on iPod 4G), considering that they seem to be using VP8. When will there be an Android client?

Re:Alternatives (1)

mattjgalloway (2010684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405108)

The Android build is almost done - plus we're standards based (SIP, RTP, ICE, VP8, Speex) unlike Skype. I may be biased though, as I'm one of its developers ;-).

of course it will play out like this... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404180)

1st month: it's discovered any one of your FB friends can initiate a video call (which is conveniently automatically "accepted") leading to hilarity as someone you don't know now can see you in your skivvies.

2nd month: it's discovered that your FB friends (and their friends) can play with the URL bar to get access to your call history and, in some cases, play back phone calls. Which are, of course, recorded and passed through filters counting the number of times you say Bieber, restaurant and Google.

3rd month: A service "upgrade" publishes data for telemarketers (oh yeah, remember all those companies you've been "liking"?) for VoIP calls. Which happens to also include your cell phone information. FaceBook releases a statement that oh yeah, we forgot about that Do Not Call registry.

6th month: It's revealed that FB charges the Feds a low, low price of $0.99/time period for your call records.

Add your own below

I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404202)

Will the product be called Fape?

Ummmm...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404224)

How about fixing the fooking horrid Skype v5 user interface before getting into bed with Facebook? v5 an abortion of glacial white spaces and stoopid design.

Rape Facebook in the ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404228)

What is Freedom Box?

Freedom Box is the name we give to a personal server running a free software operating system, with free applications designed to create and preserve personal privacy.

Freedom Box software is particularly tailored to run in "plug servers," which are compact computers that are no larger than power adapters for electronic appliances.

Located in people's homes or offices such inexpensive servers can provide privacy in normal life, and safe communications for people seeking to preserve their freedom in oppressive regimes.

http://freedomboxfoundation.org/

Re:Rape Facebook in the ass (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405488)

I realize you're probably trolling/spamming, but even in a world with a fully-decentralized mesh Internet free of corporate or government control, stupid idiots would still use it to access awful privacy-destroying locked-in services like Facebook. The freedom is for the geeks to enjoy, most people want to be spoon-fed a Just Works solution :-(

If you hate Facebook, you should be promoting something like Diaspora.

Also the HSMM-MESH project is much further along than Freedom Box. If the Freedom Box guys want to help, they should be building the anonymization, universal encryption and karma system layers to work on top of HSMM-MESH.

Skype update for Linux? (2)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404552)

Linux users would love to have a Skype update that would say,,, acknowledge the existence of KDE4, QT4, PulseAudio (properly), and dare I say sometime this century - 64bits!!! We don't care about Facebook or all the other garbage that has been shoved into the Windows version of Skype. Skype users on Linux have had no update in 2 years (we don't all use that hideous brown Linux version).

Re:Skype update for Linux? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405510)

(we don't all use that hideous brown Linux version).

Ubuntu's a nice OS once you un-fuck the GUI.

Or Skype library (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 3 years ago | (#35422368)

Or at least, as they promised, feature a library handling the skype specific stuff behind closed doors (protocols, protocol-level encryption, etc.) and let all the rest (GUI, Audio/Video Input/Output, desktop integration, etc.) be handled by 3rd party clients with plugins tapping into said library ?

Fine, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406024)

I'm going to be unhappy if Skype forces me to start using a Facebook login, I don't have one nor do I wish to get one, ever.

FaceTime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406898)

Since FaceTime is installed on all the new iPhones, iPod touches, iPads and Macs, not to mention that it's available for 99 cents for previous Macs, wouldn't it make sense to convert everything to the FaceTime protocol instead?

AFAIK Apple has made the whole specifications open and free, so either Skype adopts the FaceTime protocol or we'll get another mess like H.264 vs WebM. Since Skype is a for-profit company, I don't see them opposing using H.264 (used by FaceTime) as it's clearly the superior choice for quality and bandwidth.

Jaded Early Adopter == Roll your own cloud. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407306)

I ran my own BBS before the Internet was available in my town.
Local communities were established and people "belonged" to many BBSes (not one provider).
My family participated in the "beta" of the Prodigy Online [wikipedia.org] Computer + Network all in one box.
I looked at its' GUI and thought -- Meh, my ASCII BBS may not have a client program, but some of my door games do, and I can't even use the computer for anything else, this is too restricted to succeed.

When the Internet came, I had a portal for my users on the BBS.
The Internet was so popular my lines were constantly tied, and no one used any other feature of the BBS.
I realized the BBS interconnectivity & long-distance restrictions had been solved via the Internet -- It must replace BBS because you can "belong" to a world of "servers" instead of just your local BBSes...

AOL was a huge BBS -- Many people didn't even use it's Internet gateway until websites got started... (Fsck AOL Kewords!) It was another centralized "everything here" system like Prodigy sans dedicated computer terminal.
It's still slogging along on momentum from back then, but I think many people would agree pure unrestricted web browser and Internet access is better than BBSes with Internet Gateways... (esp. now that Internet aware applications exist).

Yahoo got very popular, among many other IM systems -- I was just using IRC via a terminal app.

I kept seeing people join these ever increasing in size, yet still fractured communities looking to "belong" and to "connect".

Myspace & Facebook & other "networking" sites came around and got popular, but they were all sort of like the BBS (but worse, because Sysops would sometimes exchange volumes of their data to mutual benefit, where Facebook doesn't, except your private user data -- that which honorable BBS Sysops would never divulge.).

Invariably some people were info hoarders -- They have HDs full of saved websites & images (incase the site disappears or the image/video is pulled down, or they move from one service to another) -- Nothing has changed since the BBS days I thought... And then I thought about that and I realized something.

The true power of the community is its connections. The web is good because of all the connections, but the distinction between "client" and "server" is a horrible concept... Sites push out content, and some allow user uploaded contend, but they all suffer from Silo Syndrome... The info is in these Silos, not distributed among all these amazingly powerful machines. Facebook adding Skype is just further proof of the "collect it all until the system collapses on itself" Info-Silo syndrome.

Trying to gather all the data up into a pile for everyone to access is like a BBS... We learned that its better distributed. All machines could be (are already) both clients and servers (but few actually take advantage of this directly -- more in the game community, do, but only for games / chat).

I started to get the idea that there needs to be an open protocol for community connections: IM, voice, images, updates, journals, etc. Aggregators like Google can be used to "index" content and tell everyone where to find stuff, but not all data needs to be pubilc. Another tier is needed -- smaller aggregator systems that index individuals that are close to you (the people that allow you to see "friends only" data). The only way to do this securely is if the aggegator is trusted by (run by) mutal friends, or by everyone in a distributed manor. This requires goodwill on the friends part that they won't download your friend's only data and make it public (not a friend eh?).

So, different tiers of friendship, different relationships need to have their own permissions in addition to friends -- individual friends.
Everyone would have to run their own aggegators & client/servers, but some of it can be optimized in the "public" or "friends" access levels (crypographic signatures allow friends to pass along friend data and have the origin known). A natural web of trust will be formed.

So, two years ago I began working on this system, trying to integrate things like rsync, sip, XMPP, RSS, SSL, PGP. I have a day job, so I'm only about 2/3rds finished, but I'll not give up...

The system is rapidly changing so much that only private testing is being done among my friends and family -- Sure is great to see grandma's encrypted backup data being updated to my backup-store & know that my encrypted backup is securely on her system, along with 10 other friends and families; We don't pay a dime for backup service that's redundant, secure, free.) We use e-mail less because Grandma can look at all my family vacation pictures and leave text or voice comments. We use the phone less because my brother can see when I'm online and quickly pop into a voice or text chat, and if I refuse the connection it says: "I'm sort of busy, leave a message now or elevate the call's urgency by clicking here.

Yesterday I had a truly private conversation with my mother about Grandpa's health -- More private than telephone -- No one but us knew we were even having a conversation (looks like any other encrypted data -- perhaps our daily backup exchange).

I thought about getting more devs involved (will eventually open source it), but honestly, look at BBS & Fidonet -- Sometimes it's faster to get something done & usable without a committee (while we wait on the next better system/standard to come along slowly, the little guys spark interest and prepare for their arrival, like my BBS vs the Internet).

I know there must be others out there with similar ideas -- Diaspora? But, I'm thinking true P2P, no centralized "authentication" or "listings" systems -- those are inherently against the nature of P2P.

I've seen closed systems come, and die. Some more swiftly than others. I've operated info Silos (like a mini Facebook -- my BBS), and seen them disappear, get reimplemented as larger silos -- I've seen the "cloud" come in and seen them have failures due to it's centralized storage / authentication.

In the near future I hope when people say "Cloud Storage" they really mean secure, redundant, optionally free distributed storage amongst businesses, friends, family, using the powerful hardware we already have...

P.S. My Nexus S can browse & update my private cloud -- and even stream some of my private video, music & pictures -- I have a strong feeling this is the future. Goodbye: BBSs, Prodigy, AOL, Yahoo, and soon Facebook too.

Re:Jaded Early Adopter == Roll your own cloud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35408792)

Your project has some novel and interesting ideas. However, I can't help but feel like you have created another "info silo" by keeping development of this to yourself. You should really consider the need for a contingency plan should something happen to you. Throw up your project on github, even if you intend to be the sole developer for now. That way, all of your work will not be lost should you have an intimate relationship with a bus.

Better yet, consider opening up development to others. The Linux kernel would not be where it is today if Linus were still the only one working on it.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>