121–130 of 145 posts
From what I understand, the big unsolved problem open VOIP options have isn't the voice bit, it's negotiating a connection through NAT/firewalls/dodgy routers etc. I doubt this helps with those problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could reverse engineer and document the firewall/nat negotiation bit, which could then be incorporated into the GNU client.
annoying and tedious that sort of code is, i agree, but not impossible? besides, i was under the impression that audio/video chats went through skype servers? (i've never actually checked though)
So microsoft really bought skype and is already playing the bait-and-switch game?!
Microsoft bought Skype to kill Asterisk (since Cisco is not a competition really). Skype for Asterisk project killed, will stop working in 2 years
Um, how does this make any sense?
From what I understand, the big unsolved problem open VOIP options have isn't the voice bit, it's negotiating a connection through NAT/firewalls/dodgy routers etc. I doubt this helps with those problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what are jcr's credentials? Not everyone that posts on HN is an expert or should be assumed to understand their subject matter.
Hmm, so you aren't smart enough to attack JCR's ideas, so you go after his character? Are you stupid or what? Can we even believe anything that cookiecaper says? I mean, what's HIS credentials? (see what I did there? Ad hominem attacks are just that: logical fallacies. Please don't do them.)
No offense intended. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is incorrect. I purchased IDA Pro as an individual this year, and I am a simply a student interested in reverse engineering. (I believe what you are saying may be true for the "advanced" version, but from what I can tell anyone can purchase IDA Pro Standard.)
It's not true of "Advanced" either (all "Advanced" does is give you x86-64 and a bunch of exotic architectures; "Advanced" is a price segregation scheme, not a community safeguard).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, so you aren't smart enough to attack JCR's ideas, so you go after his character? Are you stupid or what? Can we even believe anything that cookiecaper says? I mean, what's HIS credentials? (see what I did there? Ad hominem attacks are just that: logical fallacies. Please don't do them.)
It wasn't an ad hominem attack and I have nothing against jcr. I don't even disagree. I just felt it was important to advise people to check their sources since the parent comment seemed to be putting a lot of trust in a comment that could easily contain misinformation. No offense intended. :)
None Taken. :)
But to answer your question:
- I have no credentials, and don't want any.
- I am not an expert, and don't want to be one.
- For every bit of the subject matter that I've learned, I can name at least a half dozen people who know that bit better than I do.
I would suggest not wasting your time trying to authenticate me, the source, but instead, put your effort into finding outside authentication of the statements. The source in this case really doesn't matter, but outside confirmation really does matter.
If the goal is to open up Skype, this isn't the way. Even if some insane insomniac de-twiddles the pages upon pages of optimized indirection in this code (which I seriously doubt), all Skype has to do is tweak the protocol or encryption and the researcher is back to square one. It's a losing battle. And that's not even getting into the legality of it it all. How about instead of trying to fruitlessly crack Skype, we…