Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

wiki.mumble.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 222 posts

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#191

Post by black-tea »

sandov wrote: post #144
TomMarius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently patents in this form need to be abolished ASAP. Human society can't afford anything like this standing in the way of widespread usage of such well known and well available technologies. Please, let's all go and short that patent troll.

IMO, all patents need to be abolished ASAP. They're a bad idea to begin with, and this case is just particularly ridiculous. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Software patents, yes. They never should have happened. Stallman was right etc. Other patents have very different behaviour and consequences. One of the worst things about "IP" law is that it causes people to bundle together vastly different concepts.

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#192

Post by bjoli »

lvh wrote: post #138

It looks like voice packets are intended to be OCB2 (CryptState.cpp, cryptstate go package in Grumble). I haven't read the code through to figure out how to mount it (and it looks slightly funky), but if it does what it says on the tin there's a trivial, one-encryption-oracle-message forgery attack for that. Also: I don't think that means you shouldn't use Mumble. I just think someone should see if they can exploit t…

Wow. When was it written? OCB3 is almost 8 years old. Wonder why it wasn't used.

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#193

Post by Svoka »

raihansaputra wrote: post #175
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #43

I still regularly record podcasts via Mumble. It's got solid built-in recording with decent options, such as whether to record users individually or as to record the entire chat as one audio feed. Because we have users drop from time to time, having this built-in capability makes it easy for us to have at least two people on recording duty at any given time. I do take mumble.com up on server hosting, because it's so…

Do you have guests on your podcast? Does Mumble have a one-click web client for the session? Interested in this as I had an idea about remote-recording interview app, but I don't really know the space as of now.

No, it doesn't. We have self-hosted mumble server, and guest set-up is quite easy. Enter couple parameters and you're good. But again, it's a techie podcast, so may be it is harder than click here and start talking Discord's approach.

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#194

Post by yrro »

emteycz wrote: post #23
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #7

I really appreciate Mumble's dedication to lowering latency. Latency is a silent killer of conversation quality. When it's relatively small, you don't notice it's there, but it makes conversations more stilted because everyone's responses are just a bit less immediate. You chalk it up to the person or situation, rather than the software. I'm not seeing anyone make significant attempts to solve or reduce this problem.…

> To my ears, 2010-era Skype had lower latency than any of the modern VOIP systems in use today (including Skype). Yeah! What happened?

The distributed architecture was not conducive to spying on users.

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#195

Post by sadris »

sadris wrote: post #161
alfg wrote: post #69

I use Discord now since most of my friends are on it, but I've always been a fan of Mumble (and murmur server) since it's high quality software and open source. I also made https://guildbit.com years ago for gamers that want to just quickly spin up a temporary server with their friends. I still operate it today since there's still a few users out there. I think it would be cool if someone were to create an open sourc…

I think mattermost is working on a couple plugin.

VoIP

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#196

Post by snvzz »

nightski wrote: post #12
snvzz wrote: post #9

I'd add "difficult to use" to that list. Difficult even for an engineer to use. Terrible. It works great once you figure it out, but it could use a better user and admin experience.

Interesting, used to be in a clan of over 100 people that used it no problem, very few of which were engineers. Not sure what particular functionality held you up?

This was 2-3 years ago. I set up a server and a client. Install some packages, edit some config files. That was the easy part.

Once connected to the server, with a friend (another engineer) also connected to the same server, neither of us could quickly figure out how it worked and how to talk to each other. We managed to after a few minutes, but it wasn't immediate, and I presume a normal person would have just given up.

My guess is that it imitates some other programs which happen to be similar (I heard about teamspeak?) but that neither my friend nor I have used, and that unlike these programs (presumed) it doesn't have a tutorial or enough cues as to how it works.

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#197

Post by MarcysVonEylau »

rrdharan wrote: post #52
solarkraft wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any idea why? Sounds stupid, considering latency losses and increased server costs.

Surprised no one mentioned the documented reason: the VirnetX parent lawsuits, which were also why Apple had to stop using P2P in FaceTime. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/04/after-200m-patent-se...

> VirnetX filed suit in the East Texas judicial district that it favors

That sounds like good patent troll. Did they create any product using the patented technology or just Sue everyone?

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#198

Post by fisle »

kkarakk wrote: post #179
admax88q wrote: post #19

I'm always amazed how many video games have shitty built in voice chat when they could have just embedded mumble.

no one uses in game voice chat, literally no one. even the friendliest most inclusive games with really amazing voice chat systems(all 3 needed to belong to this list) like overwatch had players use voice chat for maybe 3 weeks after launch and then go back to their private discords.

I play Overwatch and CS:GO and in competitive matches it is the norm to use in-game voice, if you don't - you'll get flamed about it.

Casual game modes - that's different.

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#199

Post by Hawxy »

lolikoisuru wrote: post #182
greymeister wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I refuse to use Discord because I don't know how or to whom they are going to sell my data yet. It's possible they go to a subscription model but I doubt it, it seems more likely they'll be acquired by one of the big data brokers at some point.

>I don't know how or to whom they are going to sell my data yet You do know though, absolutely everyone. Read their ToS and they make it pretty obvious.

What?

- The ToS has nothing to do with data usage

- The privacy policy explicitly states they don't sell user data

- Multiple employees are on the record as saying they don't

- There's no evidence they do

- They've said that nitro subscriptions and game selling are done to avoid ever needing to do ads/data selling.

- They're VC funded to the tune of over $100 million and thus have taken their time with monetization options.

Discord "selling data" is nothing more than a (very) weak conspiracy theory.

Re: Mumble – Open source, low latency, high quality voice chat software

#200

Post by StavrosK »

nitrogen wrote: post #169
StavrosK wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a guide or at least a pointer to what the server binary is? I haven't been able to find a headless one on a cursory search.

It's called murmur (mentioned elsewhere in the thread)

Thank you, once I knew the name, it was pretty much just an apt-get to set up.
Post reply on HN