Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Get to Know GnomeMeeting

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i'm-too-ugly-for-video-chat dept.

JigSaw writes "OSNews has a nice review/introduction to GnomeMeeting discussing its setup, usage and features. Some screenshots are included."

8 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. What I want to know is... by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when will it communicate with Skype?

  2. and what if... by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a Windows user who wants to use it instead of NetMeeting??

  3. It would be nice if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it could application share and or whiteboard with NetMeeting. I am sorry, but video conferencing is not novel, certainly not in 2003. Folks have been doing this since 1994 with CU-SeeMe, and vt et al. Cross paltform too, even before H.323.

    The largest collection of use cases for NetMeeting involves *no* video, and a lot of application sharing/viewing. I think we all know this. What are the obstacles to getting some kind of linux based solution (please dont say vmware or wine!) that truly can interact with NM on a peer level?

  4. Moderators on crack by wine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is an exact quote of the last paragraph of the article mentioned! The post doesn't contain any news

  5. Re:and the most important feature... by iso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there any way of videoconferencing, on Linux or Mac OS X, with people using MSN 6? I looked for this about six month ago but didn't have any luck. GnomeMeeting works fine for NetMeeting, but if it can't support MSN Messenger videoconferencing it's not of too much use for individuals, unfortunately. *sigh*

  6. Re:Firewall ports by TheSync · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is why Netmeeting and other H.323 solutions should be thrown on the trash heap.

    In this day and age, the vast majority of people with high-speed connections are behind NATed DSL & cable routers. If your solution can't handle NAT, it is almost useless.

    Right now, I consider Yahoo Messenger the only realistic solution. Sightspeed is nice as well, especially for higher-speed connectivity, but costly.

  7. Re:Fear by SpaceRook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love it when people who don't even have the balls to post under a MEANINGLESS USERNAME make fun of other people's looks.

  8. It all comes down to the protocols by johnfreez · · Score: 1, Insightful
    WHY are there so many though!? There is no need for this!

    We only need ONE protocol, not 20
    (AIM ICQ IRC YAHOO MSN SKYPE JABBER GABBER and lots lots more)
    for each of the following functions!:
    1. Text
    2. Audio (open H.323)
    3. Video

    Haven't we been playing this game too long? The Internet is supposed to be an information commute, not a traffic jam. Why can't we STANDARDIZE it!? bah! (XML would be nice)
    --
    Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about.