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

Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing

meet.jit.si

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing

#91

Post by n_cusan »

saghul wrote: post #76
n_cusan wrote: post #31

We tried jitsi for a while and found it did not perform well for screen sharing in large groups (which we use extensively). We switched to whereby.com (former appear.in) which is not free for group meetings (used to be though) but is much more reliable. Creating new meeting rooms works the same way as in jitsi

Hey there, any chance you remember when you tested this? We have recently fixed a number of problems with screen-sharing indeed!

I guess it was about 6 or 7 months ago. I will bring it up with the team to give it another try.

Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing

#93

Post by jfalcon »

A while back, I built a site around OpenMCU-ru (https://github.com/muggot/openmcu) but due to changes in html5 (keygen deprecation) it's pretty much broken my site.

But I did want to toss this out there as an alternative to jit.si as it is functional to h.264 and sip clients and with some other software fronting it (like Kamailio) could be made to do SRTP and WebRTC with a html5/js sip client.

Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing

#94

Post by mekster »

commoner wrote: post #57
est31 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any E2EE alternatives to it?

Nextcloud Talk is end-to-end encrypted, but not as easy to set up as Jitsi Meet. https://nextcloud.com/talk https://github.com/nextcloud/spreed

Last time I tried it like half a year ago, NextCloud talk was unstable and didn't have any decent client software, it was literally useless to me. I hope they make it better.

Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing

#95

Post by maqp »

animalnewbie wrote: post #28
maqp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's unwise to offer 1) proprietary solutions in the age of surveillance capitalism. 2) offer in-browser cryptography to ensure security. I don't see any end-to-end encryption elements in that. Your data gets essentially delivered to the service. Do we really want that? Haven't the companies like FB already shown you should never trust them with your data? I mean, I'm baffled to see people would go in circles…

Umm what phone are you using? I hope you realize that contrary to what you think Android isn't completely open source and some of the most key parts are owned by probably the biggest enemy of privacy on Earth.

That's what we could call nirvana fallacy. Sure, the stack is never 100% free. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use free and open source stuff where possible. Plus why should we use something that isn't E2EE by default. It's just FB all over again.

Re: Jitsi Meet: open-source video conferencing

#96

Post by o-__-o »

mikekchar wrote: post #50
o-__-o wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Audio quality depends on jitter timing. Too low and you get dropouts, too high and you get uncanny valley with the delays and pauses. You should never have to twiddle these settings since internet routing is so dynamic. But things to look at include jitter sample size (20ms is a good start), codec selection (lower bandwidth), and server resource usage (more cpu or ram). I don’t use mumble but ran an asterix server fo…

In this case, it's mostly getting the levels set up and cutoff set up correctly since by default it cuts off when you aren't talking (and thankfully doesn't have AGC). There is a push to talk mode, but most people that I know don't use it.

Oh silence detection. Yea that’s another solved problem dunno why you need to manually set that
Post reply on HN