×

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!

Version 2.0 Released For Open Skype Alternative Jitsi

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the chat-without-patents dept.

Communications 112

New submitter emilcho writes with news for anyone looking for a Free alternative to Skype "Among the most prominent new features people will find quality multi-party video conferences for XMPP, audio device hot-plugging, support for Outlook presence and calls, an overhauled user interface and support for the Opus and VP8 audio/video codec. Jitsi has lately shaped into one of the more viable open Skype Alternatives with features such as end-to-end ZRTP encryption for audio and video calls. The 2.0 version has been in the works for almost a year now, so this is an important step for the project." There are prebuilt packages for Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, Fedora, Windows, and OS X.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

112 comments

Great (0, Redundant)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43093865)

Re:Great (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about a year ago | (#43093937)

Skype is not a standard. What are the competing standards here?

Re:Great (2)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year ago | (#43094709)

I agree. However everyone *knows* skype. They have a huge user base. That base will be even bigger when MS finishes forcing all MSN users onto it. There are standards, and then there are defacto standards because everyone uses the same product.

I *really* like the idea of Jitsi. Unfortunately I'm also likely to never use it because I don't know a single other person that uses it, or uses other tools that share the same protocols, despite the fact that said protocols are open standards. Skype is now just another IM system I have to have an account on, which requires me to use Trillian so I don't have 50 different IM clients. Why would I want yet *another* one?

Re:Great (3, Funny)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year ago | (#43094751)

If only I could delete my post...

I got Jitsi confused with something else entirely. I'll just shut up now and sit in a corner.

Re:Great (4, Informative)

Technician (215283) | about a year ago | (#43095719)

The competing standards are SIP, standard audio codecs, and H.264 video confrencing.

Skype is propritory. SIP is standards based. Skype is for Skype only with payments required to make (Skype out) and/or receive (skype in) calls to normal telephone. Skype out and Skype in can be only purchased from one vendor.

Unlike Skype, a SIP provider can provide any and/or all of the components. Depending on provider (many) you can mix and match as you like.

Free SIP accounts can be obtined from Ekiga, Iptel, ippi, and others. Many provide free voicemail, and other features such as a gateway to Google Voice and Skype. Call your SIP friends, your Google Talk Friends, and Skype friends all with the same provider.. (personal plug.. ippi.com provides a free skype and google talk gateways) Google it.

Free softphones compatible with SIP are numerous, some of which enable encryption, including the one featured in this slashdot article. Free softphones can be obtained from Ekiga, Twinkle, iptel, ippi, and others.

Hardware phones compatibe with SIP are numberous including offerings from Cisco;/Linksis, Grandstream, Panasonic, and others. No need to keep your computer on to use it. Some even include a vidoe phone.

There are many providers of DID numbers that do the same as Skype in. You can have multiple numbers including 800, local, overseas, etc. Some providers even offer a DID number for free. IPkall is a good source for a free USA phone number. Think Skype-in but free.

You can buy a calling plan to permit placing calls. This is generaly not free, but quite cost effective.

You can tie them together in your own free open source PBX.. such as Asterisk.

If you want to buy an all in one package plan, providers such as Century Link, Comcast, Magic Jack, Ooma, Net2Phone, Vonage etc all offer complete packages for plug and play operation with less flexibility than mix and match.

Combining SIP and Google Talk allows me to place calls from Google, and receive my calls on a VOIP phone, even whtn the computer is off. After moving to SIP, I hardly use Skype at all.

Re:Great (2)

Technician (215283) | about a year ago | (#43095809)

Jitsi is a SIP client.. It works with ippi and iptel as mentiioned above. Add this to a list of SIP clients listed above, some which support encryption and video.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43098877)

Hi Technician, you seem to know what you're talking about, although half of it goes over my head (PBX? Asterisk? softphone?), so can I ask you to recommend a SIP replacement for my setup. This is what I have:

I have the Skype client running on my Ubuntu and Windows laptops, I also have a (paid) Skype Out account for unlimited calls to any phone in North America. I'm in Canada so sadly can't get Skype In. Basically whenever I want to make a call, I fire up the Skype client, plugin my headset and dial the number, most of the time the other party doesn't even realize I'm calling from Skype, and I can do this from anywhere with an internet connection. Any SIP service that offers the same type of product? I don't want to use any extra hardware beyond a regular headset. Thanks.

Re:Great (2)

trawg (308495) | about a year ago | (#43102129)

You can tie them together in your own free open source PBX.. such as Asterisk.

We do this. My sysadmins gave me Jitsi when I asked about getting a phone at home. It was dead easy to set up; I just run my VPN client, fire up Jitsi and I can make calls using my headset painlessly and easily. In fact I prefer making calls from home now because I can use my awesome gaming headset instead of the crappy handset I have on my desk phone; it's easier to hear people and I can type/take notes while I talk.

Re:Great (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#43099737)

Additionally, Jitsi doesn't represent a new standard, it's a new implementation of an already existing standard.

Re:Great (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43093951)

What competing standards? Skype does not provide end to end encryption, it's no competition for Jitsi. And Jitsi itself is using established standards, ZRTP was created by Philip Zimmerman of PGP fame and is RFC6189.

Re:Great (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43095075)

This is a very interesting protocol from a security standpoint, here's a short blurb from the article on ZRTP [wikipedia.org] :

This protocol does not require prior shared secrets or rely on a Public key infrastructure (PKI) or on certification authorities, in fact ephemeral Diffie-Hellman keys are generated on each session establishment: this allows the complexity of creating and maintaining a trusted third-party to be bypassed.

Pretty snazzy. Seems like it could have a lock on the convienence factor. Also could have a lot of exploit vectors.

Re:Great (2)

thestuckmud (955767) | about a year ago | (#43095937)

ZRTP looks solid to me. If the short authentication strings (SAS) check out, there is minimal likelihood of a successful attack on the protocol*. If you still don't trust it, jitsi can run peer to peer behind a vpn. If that's not good enough for you, you should be holding your conversations in a noisy location, away from all electronic devices, and out of sight of lip readers with telescopes.

*Jiti uses a 4 character SAS, which works out to around 24 bits for a 0.000006% chance of successful attack. Attack opportunities are strictly limited by the nature of the protocol (e.g. early commitment to an SAS; the use of cached secrets from previous conversations for authentication). Technically, this may not meet modern cryptographic standards for non-negligibility, but with a 0.999994% chance of an attack being made obvious, you will almost certainly know something is up and can take measures should it happen.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43098813)

0.999994% chance of an attack being made obvious, you will almost certainly know something is up and can take measures should it happen.

Huh? You mean with a probability of 0.999994!

Re:Great (1)

tricorn (199664) | about a year ago | (#43100699)

I suppose I should look more to see why they selected that, but I'd have preferred to see SRP used. SRP with a zero key (or any other pre-defined key) is essentially DH anyway, and the authentication is built in to the key exchange. It also has the nice feature that one side can't find out the other side's authentication credentials (and hence can't impersonate them).

SRP is typically used in a client-server relationship, but it can be used in a symmetric way as well.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43093985)

Yes, because we would have been better still using tin cans with string between them rather than the internet. Sometimes improving on older ideas is necessary to get cool stuff in the future.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43093993)

The script seems to need some tweaking...

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094047)

"http://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com] "

Jitsi is LGPL, Skype is proprietary software.
Jitsi uses the available standards/protocols, XMPP [wikipedia.org] , SIP [wikipedia.org] , and so on.
More information here [wikipedia.org] .

In other words, your xkcd does not apply.
Please hand in your geek card at the door.

Re:Great (3, Funny)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43094187)

And yet again someone quotes XKCD without having a clue what they're talking about.

Re:Great (1)

MrHanky (141717) | about a year ago | (#43094919)

To be fair to XKCD, most people on Slashdot (and elsewhere on the internet) who don't quote them are equally clueless.

Re:Great (3, Interesting)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43094527)

It seems people can only read into small details and aren't able to look at the big picture.

Skype, Facetime and all others are all incompatible with each other. Even basic text messaging services are not compatible with each others, unlike email and websites.

That's why I quoted xkcd. Not because of the standards used by other programs, but because we seriously need to force Microsoft, Apple and others to unite and support a single standard. All this fragmentation reminds me of the MS-DOS/Mac OS 9/AmigaOS/TOS days.

Re:Great (1)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year ago | (#43094979)

Come on, just admit you got this one wrong. Jitsi is software utilizes exactly those 'central standards' you refer to - XMPP may be the primary contender for messaging/voice (via Jingle over XMPP) etc. standard at the moment. The whole point is that different software can talk to one another as e.g. Jitsi supports XMPP, and other XMPP clients also do e.g. Adium. Think of Jitsi end-user software as the equivalent of a web browser and of XMPP as the equivalent of HTTP.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients#XMPP-related_features [wikipedia.org]

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43098039)

From a user point of view, Skype and Facetime are standards.
No, they don't use public, open standardized protocols - but that's only your narrow definition of the word Standard and it has no connection whatsoever to the public's perception.

When it comes to a user's choice of products for video calling, the de-facto standards are Skype and Facetime.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096299)

Summary mentioned XMPP. It's good to finally see this protocol start to enter into adoption, if that's what this is. It's used by Google Talk and Facebook, which are major services. I run my own XMPP server in the "cloud" as well.

So, it's out there. It's just the classic problem of how do you get your two friends who use Skype because all their friends except you use Skype to switch over to Google Talk so you can just use XMPP to chat with them? Not saying it's impossible. I had a friend who really only talked to me over AIM switch to Google Talk, but that's not usually how it goes.

Now if this thing has an open, distributed way to reliably to voice chat, that's great. afaik the voice chat part of Google Talk is not standard but I could be wrong, haven't looked at it for more than just basic XMPP IM much.

Slashdotted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094063)

Why not link to some official torrents uploaded to some major torrent site.

The Coral Content Distribution Network seems down too
http://www.coralcdn.org/
http://redirect.nyud.net/?url=https://jitsi.org/index.php/Main/Download

Jabber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094089)

Why hasn't this been merged yet?

Re:Jabber (1)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year ago | (#43095083)

Jabber's a server, Jitsi's a client. That would be a bit like trying to merge Apache and Webkit.

I tried the previous major release of Jitsi and all it did was crash a lot, hopefully this new one's a bit better.

Skype power (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094111)

The power of Skype is in its network and support. Skype is not open source, nor subject to standards. "Alternatives", such as OoVoo, already exist. Besides, if an "alternative" software tried using the Skype network then Microsoft could block it. This is a waste of time.

Re:Skype power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094167)

No, it's not. But your comment is.

Re:Skype power (2)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year ago | (#43095027)

They aren't trying to 'use the Skype network', they're using XMPP. XMPP is a protocol for a server that anyone can implement (e.g. Jabber is to XMPP as Apache is to HTTP, and Jitsi is to XMPP as e.g. Firefox is to HTTP). XMPP supports standard extensions for things like voice. Microsoft can't "block it" any more than they can block me from running or accessing an Apache server.

Re:Skype power (1)

xiando (770382) | about a year ago | (#43103265)

XMPP supports standard extensions for things like voice

Perhaps in theory, but XMPP voice isn't supported by even 5% of the XMPP clients out there. Jingle is supposedly supported in kopete and pidgin but good luck getting that to work or using it for any real-lift purpose

Working download URL (2)

1nt3lx (124618) | about a year ago | (#43094149)

Re:Working download URL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096153)

A pity that they only make deb's for i386 and amd64. Some of us are running on arm.

Re:Working download URL (1)

Weezul (52464) | about a year ago | (#43104561)

I've used Jitsi for over a year, but this new version has fucked me up. It now puts my facebook friends group at the top.

WTF?!? Why the hell would anyone want their facebook friend's list at the top of their IM groups. Just fucking asinine. Also the piece of shit opens the facebook friend's lists whenever anyone logs into it. What stupid behavior.

Mumble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094203)

Personally, I just run a Mumble [sourceforge.net] server. KISS.

Features (3, Informative)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#43094297)

I'm interested. Currently paying for Skype premium to do multiuser video chat. Does anyone know if this product does 1080p streams in multiuser? Skype only does it when one on one, but drops down to SD in multiuser mode. I can't check the features list because it appears the jitsi site has been slashdotted.

Re:Features (2)

spasm (79260) | about a year ago | (#43096893)

Google hangouts offer free video chat for up to 9 people at a time. My experience using it within the US and between the US and Australia is the sound quality is better than with skype too. Downside is everyone on the call has to have a g+ account.

Re:Features (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year ago | (#43097401)

Google hangouts offer free video chat for up to 9 people at a time. My experience using it within the US and between the US and Australia is the sound quality is better than with skype too. Downside is everyone on the call has to have a g+ account.

Never managed to get google angouts, or webrtc, working through a proxy.

Re:Features (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#43099785)

Downside is everyone on the call has to have a g+ account.

That sound like the same requirements as Skype: you need to register with the service provider.

Re:Features (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | about a year ago | (#43102553)

If you only call 1 person you don't need G+ (I don't have it). But get the Google video plugin from Google.com/chat/video and sign into chat at the left pane in Gmail under the folders.

Have made/received 10+ calls, and though getting through may be an issue (the gf gets script errors in Firefox on Ubuntu) you'll find it works once its going.

But now we'll try jitsi!

Re:Features (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43098131)

"Currently paying for Skype premium to do multiuser video chat."

You wouldn't need Jitsi or Skype to do that if you were on a Mac.

Re:Features (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#43099707)

"Currently paying for Skype premium to do multiuser video chat."

You wouldn't need Jitsi or Skype to do that if you were on a Mac.

Facetime only workie on mac. Jitsi and Skype work on pretty much everything, PC (macos/linux/osx), mobile (android/ios)... If I were on mac I'd still have the same dilemma. I gave up on proprietary software about 10 years ago, and now only use it when there is no other choice.

Re:Features (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43102177)

"Facetime only workie on mac."

Yes, that's true. Good point.

Now, if only I could find good instructions on how to use Jitsi to call PSTN numbers via Google Voice.

It's supposed to be possible to call out with Jitsi, with only a Google Voice telephone number. But I haven't figured out how. Apparently I did make one call, but I did not hear any ringing or the voicemail message.

Re:Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43102037)

Back when I was looking for a free Skype alternative with multiuser video chat, I found VSee (vsee.com), and it has worked really well for me. Might be close to what you're looking for.

Free alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094383)

Isn't Skype already a free alternative? I've been using Skype for free for years from all over the world. Is there a "free-er" alternative? I don't get the point of this article.

Re:Free alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094581)

It's an alternative to Skype that happens to be free as in freedom.

You can use it with many different services that may or may not cost money. For example you could setup a SIP account with a voip provider for international calls (costs $) and use jitsi as the client interface. Or you could set up a jabber account (free) and have a video conferences with your friends and family.

No Android or IOS client? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094419)

Pass. Who uses a full PC to make calls?

Re:No Android or IOS client? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094571)

Dirty, overweight OSS programmers, that's who.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (4, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#43094625)

Pass. Who uses a full PC to make calls?

Their FAQ says that and Android client is in the works and will be demoed very soon. As for Apple they claim that Apple's restrictions shuts them out of iOS - but if you have Apple you already have access to FaceTime for all your Apple devices, not that FT can do multi person calls though.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094925)

https://download.jitsi.org/jitsi/nightly/android/

Re:No Android or IOS client? (3, Informative)

tobiasly (524456) | about a year ago | (#43094983)

Pass. Who uses a full PC to make calls?

Their FAQ says that and Android client is in the works and will be demoed very soon. As for Apple they claim that Apple's restrictions shuts them out of iOS - but if you have Apple you already have access to FaceTime for all your Apple devices, not that FT can do multi person calls though.

The release page also indicates that it can already make video calls to Google Talk users on Android. Guess that's the whole point of using a standard like XMPP...

https://jitsi.org/index.php/Main/News [jitsi.org]

Re:No Android or IOS client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095369)

Meanwhile Linphone already has an Android client, along with a Windows, Mac, Linux -and- iOS client. I'd highly recommend it.

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with either project, I just happened to notice that Linphone was available in Google Play on my Galaxy Tab 2 yesterday :)

Re:No Android or IOS client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095451)

>Pass. Who uses a full PC to make calls?

Me and my family. Not everyone have a smartphone or free internet in phone (many people are using pay-as-go topup) etc. You need to learn that whole world is NOT that rich like USA.

If you are poor its very silly to spend 100$ on smart-phone and another 30$ for monthly contract. What if you would loose your work in next week/month? - u will be unable to pay for such contract...

But rich people doesn't understand that.
Also often its a false economy: many people have "free" smart-phones and 3 years contracts for 20$ per month, so in the end they end up paying more then smart-phone value.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#43096081)

If you are poor its very silly to spend 100$ on smart-phone and another 30$ for monthly contract.

You can use your smartphone, Android media player, or tablet over WiFi, saving you the monthly contract, your home Internet subscription, and the cost of a whole PC. For a while, I was using voice/texting only on my Android phone (effectively, a few dollars per month) and just used all the other services over WiFi.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095811)

Um, me? Every single call I make is through my PC, to the point that I ditched my cellphone and now use Skype exclusively.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (0)

rocket rancher (447670) | about a year ago | (#43096337)

Pass. Who uses a full PC to make calls?

Their FAQ says that and Android client is in the works and will be demoed very soon. As for Apple they claim that Apple's restrictions shuts them out of iOS - but if you have Apple you already have access to FaceTime for all your Apple devices, not that FT can do multi person calls though.

That real-soon-now claim was made for the FOSDEM 2013 conference which occurred over a month ago. There was no jitsi android client at FOSDEM 2013. For what its worth, they've made several real-soon-now claims about an android client for the past couple of years. While there *is* a jitsi android client [java.net] , it still lacks a committed user interface, so it definitely is still just a work in progress -- I suspect the devs are waiting for android's platform fragmentation problem to go away. :)

Re:No Android or IOS client? (1)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#43096915)

And sometimes I want to talk to non-Apple users, you know?

Re:No Android or IOS client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43098915)

they claim that Apple's restrictions shuts them out of iOS

It's actually a feature, that Java doesn't run on iOS... They should make an HTML5 port.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100099)

Uh, there's many ways to run Java apps on iOS [google.com] . Just because it doesn't come with a JVM doesn't mean you can't run a JVM or recompile your Java code so you don't need a JVM.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43094775)

People who don't have a good cellular connection. I regularly use a laptop to do my video conferencing as my cell phone doesn't have a forward facing camera and the internet connection has a tight cap.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095463)

Everyone at my company because Skype is the IM / video call client everyone uses.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43096749)

Most people who make video calls.
The rest uses special clients tailored for video chat which are usually tied to a manufacturer and extremely expensive.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#43096975)

productive and clueful people who do more with the internet than twaddle their thumbs with angry birds.

Re:No Android or IOS client? (1)

fa2k (881632) | about a year ago | (#43098183)

Pass. Who uses a full PC to make calls?

I hate it when there's trouble with the PC and I have to use my phone for Skype. First of all, there's a latency of 1-4 seconds, but that's partly my fault for having an old Android phone. More importantly, I don't like to sit and hold my phone for tens of minutes to point the camera at myself (In fact, I've tried to stick the phone sideways into a roll of kitchen paper just to avoid this, but it wasn't a great success, as it fell over)

Java? How about no. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094613)

It's written in Java, and everyone knows Java sucks not only with applets, but also with desktop apps.

Re:Java? How about no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097597)

...And it's not safe. ...And it's ridiculously bloated. ... And the jitsi website makes no mention that it's required. Why can't anyone make even a small program under 100 MB anymore?

Re:Java? How about no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097865)

> And the jitsi website makes no mention that it's required.

Because it's not. At least not from the user. Jitsi ships with its own JRE for Windows, it uses the default one on OS X, and has the right dependencies on Debian/Ubuntu.

As for the rest of the anti-Java comments ... well, if you've decided to hate it, we can't really do anything about it, can we :). Especially not here :)

Re:Java? How about no. (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about a year ago | (#43100083)

well, if you've decided to hate it, we can't really do anything about it, can we :). Especially not here :)

You could recant your heresy.

nice change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094689)

nice to see alternatives that don;t cost money... im assuming

Jitsi Licensing Problem? (1)

Hallow (2706) | about a year ago | (#43094863)

While Jitsi is nice and all, it looks to me like they have a licensing problem. Jitsi has a dependency on ZRTP4J, which is under the GPL, and Jitsi is under the LGPL. Can anyone explain how this is possible without a license exception? And if they have a license exception, where is it documented? and isn't transfered upstream? If so, why not just make ZRTP4J LGPL instead of GPL? And why are they releasing the whole application under the LGPL, and not the GPL anyway?

Re:Jitsi Licensing Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096735)

As I understand it, it is technically possible to have an LGPL program rely on a GPL library - because the LGPL is the less restrictive of the licenses, it requires no exception from the GPL. However, it is not possible to further use those LGPL terms on the combination to link it into a program that is not GPL compatible, so the use of the GPL library makes the choice of LGPL moot. The distinction between LGPL and GPL licenses will only matter once the GPL dependency is removed.

Re:Jitsi Licensing Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43098025)

ZRTP4J is under GPL *with classpath exception* ... IANAL but this makes it very similar to LGPL for Java.

Java?!?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094915)

From the Jitsi's Wikipedia page:

Jitsi is mostly written in Java[7] which helps reuse most of the same code over the various operating systems it works on.

Ugh!!!

Screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095055)

When posting screenshots of your products, don't include ones with filenames of pirated television ;)

Extra feature - Telepresence (1)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about a year ago | (#43095071)

I'm going to add support for the Propbridge telepresence rig to the Android version of this. All they need to do is literally add two lines of code, everything else is done by the embedded system. How can I get a hold of the dev team? There's no contact-us page.

Re:Extra feature - Telepresence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097931)

> How can I get a hold of the dev team?

Just post on the dev list. Here's a page with more details: https://jitsi.org/mailinglists .

No documentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095087)

No documentation is available. i.e. this is still a pre-release version.

No skype compatibility? And damn, you're ugly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095239)

The default skin would fit in Windows 8 - something more sober would have been better for those not in playskool OSes. Also, a Skype overlay to use the cryptography features would be awesome.

I just gave it a try (1)

menot (2583945) | about a year ago | (#43095493)

We tried it with my team, the interface is incredibly slow, but it works without problems. I just can't understand how an IM application released in 2013 manages to be so slow on a pretty modern computer.... Oh, yeah, Java. /usr/bin/java -classpath /usr/share/jitsi/lib/jdic_stub.jar:/usr/share/jitsi/lib/jdic-all.jar:/usr/share/jitsi/lib/felix.jar:/usr/share/jitsi/lib/bcprovider.jar:/usr/share/jitsi/sc-bundles/sc-launcher.jar:/usr/share/jitsi/sc-bundles/util.jar -Djna.library.path=/usr/share/jitsi/lib/native -Dfelix.config.properties=file:/usr/share/jitsi/lib/felix.client.run.properties -Djava.util.logging.config.file=/usr/share/jitsi/lib/logging.properties -Dnet.java.sip.communicator.SC_HOME_DIR_NAME=.jitsi net.java.sip.communicator.launcher.SIPCommunicator

What is it with these Open Source projects... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095827)

...with moronic tard-sounding names like "Jitsi" ?? Maybe we can call it JIZZME instead.

Other examples:

- Apache Hadoop, I mean come on.

- Or any of the other idiotically named products on the Apache Hadoop page: http://hadoop.apache.org/ [apache.org]

- Any component of KDE that overemphasizes the K to show how KOOL ir is, and how Kompletely Kudo worthy it is. Fail fail fail fail fail fail!

- GNU/Linux says it all. I mean, holy $#@!. Just Linux is fine, thanks; dork-morons who call it GNU/Linux are just that, dork-morons.

- Gnome. Get out of here.

- Chandler calendar software. Not only is this software an utter pile of steaming shit, but the name makes it sound like something you'd never want to use.

In conclusion, Open Source groups need to work hard on giving the fruits of their labour better names.

Re:What is it with these Open Source projects... (1)

mabinogi (74033) | about a year ago | (#43098061)

That's right, they should all use sensible names like "Skype", "Yahoo" and "Google", otherwise they'll never catch on.

Nice review here... (2)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year ago | (#43096509)

http://www.onsip.com/voip-phone-reviews/jitsi [onsip.com]

Downloading it now...let's hope they get it out Android and iOS soon.

(For those saying, "we'll never see this on iOS, well, Apple has "let in" Skype & Viber, so why not?)

Re:Nice review here... (1)

metamatic (202216) | about a year ago | (#43097139)

(For those saying, "we'll never see this on iOS, well, Apple has "let in" Skype & Viber, so why not?)

Jitsi is GPL, and Apple's mandatory license terms are incompatible with GPL software.

Re:Nice review here... (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about a year ago | (#43098021)

Jitsi is GPL, and Apple's mandatory license terms are incompatible with GPL software.

Actually jitsi is LGPL.

Jitsi is Open Source / Free Software, and is available under the terms of the LGPL.

Not So "Free" (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43098873)

Skype does for free what Jitsi does for free. So what's the big deal?

If you want SIP service to call PSTN (landline) numbers, OnSIP (for example) is a hell of a lot MORE expensive than Skype.

Re:Nice review here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099969)

Jitsi is Java. Jobs hated Java because of OMGFREEDOM. (As in: Once Java in installed, you would have a way to get out of the golden cage, and couldn't be ass-raped by Apple anymore.)

So: Never going to happen. Unless they somehow manage to native-compile *everything* in it, *and* the Nazi who decides on it doesn’t throw a hissy fit when he hears that its brother's mother's friend's car's previous owner's dog did once bite a bean of Java coffee because it's a particularly sunny day.

Fuck the iTards. They want to suffer in their cages? Well they can have that! No Jitsi for them! (And *none* of my games. EVER.)

Jitsi is the most advanced VOIP program (2)

SD-Arcadia (1146999) | about a year ago | (#43096587)

jitsi does automatic encryption if you wish and if both parties support it. jitsi can use the highest quality voip audio codec, opus. you can choose either the highest quality video codec, h.264 or the freedom-minded one, VP8. you can have jitsi on all non-mobile platforms. it supports all protocols, including the crappy proprietary ones like msn and aol. it does voice, video, text, remote desktop and screen sharing. use a SIP and jabber account for the best experience. the only quasi-downside seems to be it comes with its own jre. i wish more people would get on board with jitsi right away.

Re:Jitsi is the most advanced VOIP program (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#43097007)

it's too bad jitsi wasnt written in decent c/c++. desktop java applications are clunky, slow and take way too much memory than they should.

Re:Jitsi is the most advanced VOIP program (2)

markdavis (642305) | about a year ago | (#43099189)

[desktop java program]
Thank you. I was wondering why the thing was so huge, took so long to start, and had broken looking fonts.

Jitsi also had all the Yahoo contacts statuses wrong, has a truly horrible default sound setup, and ugly conversation window.

Back to Pidgin :(

Re:Jitsi is the most advanced VOIP program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43102235)

Exactly, i really really wanted to liked each one of times i have used but just cant stand the gui lagg of java apps

Jitsi? that Slow Heavy Ugly and Fat Non Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43102175)

and requires the 0 day vulterability fest called Java !

The new microsoft developed skype more than a dog its a pig... but jitsi its a %$&# hippo

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...