Live data from Hacker News

Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

news.ycombinator.com

101–110 of 147 posts

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#101
post #33

I guess you've settled on a name, pretty completely, but tox evokes all sorts of bad feelings like "Toxin", "Detox" - generally feelings associated with the idea of poison or of poisoning yourself. From a marketing perspective this might not be the least sinister name you could have chosen. I realize this comes out of 4chan and we make a point of not giving a shit about marketing but...

Detox would actually be a pretty good choice: cleanse yourself of the poison of mass surveillance.

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good question. What makes it secure ? "encryption" is not enough. Do you have central servers or is it protocol using P2P ? how do you connect one client to another ? What kind of encryption ? How are the key generated, can we change them etc...

"Secure" is a lot of things. "Secure against bulk surveillance" is a big push in a lot of areas, it's a button Bruce Schneier and Eben Moglen have been pushing hard for the past year or so. See especially their joint lecture at Columbia Law School in December, 2013, and Schneier's presentation to Stanford Law School in April, 2014 (both are on http://FixYT.com ). Anonymized persistent IDs associated with physical / p…

Our threat model is an attacker that wants to read and record the contents of conversations between everyone, they have the ability to modify/add/remove and log any packets. We assume they do not have any access to the actual machines Tox is running on.

The main goal of Tox is to make it hard for a global threat to conduct mass surveillance on everyone at the same time without sacrificing performance.

If the majority of the people using Tox have "nothing to hide" and use it because it works better than skype, the minority that does need the crypto will be able to use it without being discriminated against.

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#104
post #98

I don't post often on HN, but today couldn't resist. Just tested Utox on Windows as well as Toxy, also on Windows. Both programs are totally inaccessible for people using a screenreader and I'm quite sure as well for people using things like speech recognition. Utox seems to be C++ and a GUI framework I didn't look into. Toxy is .NET+WPF... two different stacks, but two inaccessible programs. I'm quite sure the devel…

As far as I can tell, uTox is written in C and uses XLib (on GNU/Linux, at least).

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#105
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is XMPP. Does Tox actually offer any advantages?

From what I understand, XMPP is decentralized, whereas Tox is distributed. http://cffn.ca/img/articles/Centralized-Decentralized-And-Di...

Depends. Just like SMTP, XMPP can be centralized (if everyone's on the same server, say gmail.com), as much as it can be distributed (if everyone's on his own server) and anywhere in between. Tox can only be distributed.

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#106

So, This is pretty cool, however, one thing that I noticed: Addresses are per device. Skype lets you have one name and messages and calls come to all your devices, but as far as I see, Tox is one address per device.

I remember reading discussion how to address this problem. I can't for the life of me find it, though.

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#107

So, This is pretty cool, however, one thing that I noticed: Addresses are per device. Skype lets you have one name and messages and calls come to all your devices, but as far as I see, Tox is one address per device.

I remember reading discussion how to address this problem. I can't for the life of me find it, though.

This is where the original (fairly old) idea is on the wiki: https://wiki.tox.im/Multiple_Devices

Here is a breakdown of the different ways they are considering on how to implement it: https://github.com/Quoturnix/ProjectTox-Core/wiki/Multiple-d...

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#108
post #98

I don't post often on HN, but today couldn't resist. Just tested Utox on Windows as well as Toxy, also on Windows. Both programs are totally inaccessible for people using a screenreader and I'm quite sure as well for people using things like speech recognition. Utox seems to be C++ and a GUI framework I didn't look into. Toxy is .NET+WPF... two different stacks, but two inaccessible programs. I'm quite sure the devel…

Seems like these would be useful suggestions to add to the respective github pages of those projects. Also, they are open-source, so there's an opportunity there if you have expertise in making UI's accessible.

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#109
post #98

I don't post often on HN, but today couldn't resist. Just tested Utox on Windows as well as Toxy, also on Windows. Both programs are totally inaccessible for people using a screenreader and I'm quite sure as well for people using things like speech recognition. Utox seems to be C++ and a GUI framework I didn't look into. Toxy is .NET+WPF... two different stacks, but two inaccessible programs. I'm quite sure the devel…

>Utox seems to be C++ and a GUI framework I didn't look into.

utox is written in C and uses its own toolkit so that it looks the same everywhere. For that reason it will probably never give you the level of accessibility provided by more mature toolkits.

Re: Tox: A simple, distributed, free, secure Skype replacement. Now alpha with A/V

#110
post #5

Can you compare this to Jabber+Jingle?

Tox is distributed meaning it doesn't rely on any central servers.

If it's fully distributed and doesn't use any central servers then user has to bootstrap to network by giving known node information. It's classic annoyance, so having a bunch of bootstrap servers is a good idea. Is that defined as centralized or not, is another question.
Post reply on HN