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

Wire – Modern Communications Network

wire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 411 posts

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#181

Post by amandine »

joeyspn wrote: post #177
amandine wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about matrix.org who's trying to fix the fragmentation by providing an open standardized signalling layer for WebRTC? Might interest you too! We've been working on integrating with Jitsi, although not finished yet

Nice project. Have you hear about OpenPeer? They're doing a similar thing... providing an open standardized signalling (P2P) layer for WebRTC... http://openpeer.org/

Yes we're in touch with them. Matrix and Open Peer are complementary technologies - Matrix is focused entirely on the client/server use-case for messaging between always-on persistent federated messaging stores. Open Peer is obviously focused on adhoc p2p messaging without much persistent serverside history.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#182

Post by Smrchy »

Nice first impression. Some issues though: No video chat. That's the main thing i use skype for. Sound goes through my Macs default settings. I can change the microphone to my headset but not the output. If i change the output to headset it will also change this for my music which is annoying.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#183

Post by amandine »

jkaljundi wrote: post #142
joeyspn wrote: post #141

No, the Skype killer has another name: WebRTC. And Wire seems like yet another closed-source GUI making use of the WebRTC stack. I honestly prefer FOSS solutions: Tox, oTalk, Jitsi, etc... oTalk looks really promising

Have not heard mainstream users or kids or grannys using any of those? Are they popular?

IMO the ideal world is one where everyone can use their preferred app and still be able to chat and VoIP with everyone else... Like email basically...

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#184

Post by [deleted] »

lmedinas wrote: post #144
secfirstmd wrote: post #114

So in the age of Edward Snowden this is all they say about encryption... "Are Messages And Calls Encrypted? Yes. Wire uses industry-standard encryption on all of your Wire messages and calls." "WHAT SECURITY MEASURES DO WE TAKE TO SAFEGUARD YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? We are concerned about safeguarding the confidentiality of your information. We provide physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect infor…

Did they also mention their business model anywhere ? Also how the European laws protects us about anything ?

[deleted]

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#185

Post by secfirstmd »

wodenokoto wrote: post #171
blueskin_ wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree - I wonder if Adobe's block mode 3DES was 'industry standard'. Saying "we use encryption" isn't any good; this isn't 1996. People need to have the details available if they want them (a little "More Information" link going to a page showing their actual security model, list of ciphers and modes of operation, etc. would do).

Does it really matter whether they have encryption a or b? If it is poorly implemented it is unsafe. So either you trust them to do a good job or you don't. Whether someone in marketing knows the name of your favorite encryption doesn't really change that.

Agreed, open source, audited etc is obviously better but the least they could do is tell us a little more.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#186

Post by emn13 »

wodenokoto wrote: post #171
blueskin_ wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree - I wonder if Adobe's block mode 3DES was 'industry standard'. Saying "we use encryption" isn't any good; this isn't 1996. People need to have the details available if they want them (a little "More Information" link going to a page showing their actual security model, list of ciphers and modes of operation, etc. would do).

Does it really matter whether they have encryption a or b? If it is poorly implemented it is unsafe. So either you trust them to do a good job or you don't. Whether someone in marketing knows the name of your favorite encryption doesn't really change that.

One hint of whether that they've poorly implemented it is that they didn't care to choose a preexisting algorithm, or they chose a preexisting algorithm with known weaknesses, or that they chose an algorithm with fiddly parameters without addressing that.

I'm much more likely to trust if various indicators suggest they're being sane, reasonable and knowledgeable.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#187

Post by graeme »

morganvachon wrote: post #159
coldtea wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What we need is another messaging app" said nobody, ever. The usual negative HN top post. I have to disagree. We've moved from irc, to ICQ, to Microsoft Messenger, to ..., to Skype, to (what's hot now), so somehow all those people really DID want another messaging app and even adopted one. > It looks pretty, but this is yet another app in the long list of "Skype killers" or "Voice/video/text" messaging. Most of th…

> We've moved from irc, to ICQ, to Microsoft Messenger, to ..., to Skype, to (what's hot now) You forgot Hangouts, which works on Android, iOS, and the desktop. It supports text, voice, and video, just like Wire. Its only negative from my personal viewpoint is no Windows Phone support, but that OS is the punchline of many jokes these days. There's also Slack for businesses, non-profits, and private groups (my local I…

>You forgot Hangouts, which works on Android, iOS, and the desktop. It supports text, voice, and video, just like Wire. Its only negative from my personal viewpoint is no Windows Phone support, but that OS is the punchline of many jokes these days.

Have you ever tried to start a Hangout with a non-technical user? It's a nightmare.

I do remote tutoring. Skype is easy. Everyone has it, you add the username, and call.

Here's what happens when I try to do a hangout:

1. Log in to gmail. Student often takes a while to find gmail on computer and login, as they've been doing everything by phone. 2. Find the chat. Student often takes 2-3 minutes to look for chat. 3. Invite to chat. Your @domain address? No, my personal gmail. 4. Show in chat list. 5. "Send me a message". This takes them another 2-3 minutes to figure out. 6. Start a call. Another delay. 7. Often some kind of technical trouble where the call doesn't start, mic doesn't work, they must by mistake.

This is exacerbated because I'm giving instructions by text. Starting a hangout with a new user on a computer often takes 5-15 minutes. Every step has potential for failure.

If there's a better way than what I'm doing, the fact that I don't know about it is itself is a UI failure on Google's part.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#188

Post by hueving »

wodenokoto wrote: post #171
blueskin_ wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree - I wonder if Adobe's block mode 3DES was 'industry standard'. Saying "we use encryption" isn't any good; this isn't 1996. People need to have the details available if they want them (a little "More Information" link going to a page showing their actual security model, list of ciphers and modes of operation, etc. would do).

Does it really matter whether they have encryption a or b? If it is poorly implemented it is unsafe. So either you trust them to do a good job or you don't. Whether someone in marketing knows the name of your favorite encryption doesn't really change that.

Choosing a standard protocol indicates that you aren't completely inept when it comes to encryption.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#189

Post by NKCSS »

Macha wrote: post #161

To contact everyone I know I need: * Skype * XMPP * Hangouts * AIM * YIM * SMS * Facebook * IRC * Viber (which I don't use, because yet another client was too much when all these people had other clients anyway). Another client is just a no go at this stage. I'm still annoyed at Skype blocking both multiple network IM clients I used (imo first, then when they dropped the whole "multiple network" part, IM+).

No WhatsApp? :)
Post reply on HN