Get to Know GnomeMeeting

Fear by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-02 02:44 · Score: 5, Funny

50% of the time they won't answer your call

If you're wondering why, just look at what can greet you if you dare answer.

Re:Fear by Pelorat · 2003-12-02 02:57 · Score: 1, Funny

So *that's* what John Romero's been doing recently...
Re:Fear by SpaceRook · 2003-12-02 02:57 · Score: 3, Funny

These strange creatures are called "women." Recent estimates say that they occupy about half the population these days.
Re:Fear by armando_wall3 · 2003-12-02 03:41 · Score: 1

Please introduce me to one of those XD
Re:Fear by HalliS · 2003-12-02 03:55 · Score: 1

Maybe she should apply for a job in the i'm-to-ugly-for-video-chat dept

--

My other UID is 1337
Re:Fear by Rude+Turnip · 2003-12-02 04:21 · Score: 1

FYI, that's OSNews editor Eugenia Loli-Queru.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:Fear by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-02 04:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

i think you better be look at the screenshot again.

Eugenia keep up the good work, dont let this jerks drove you from what really matters. Stuff for nerds of course :D
Re:Fear by SpaceRook · 2003-12-02 05:04 · 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.
Re:Fear by reaper20 · 2003-12-02 07:34 · Score: 1

Don't be so quick to judge, he's obviously referring to the hideous Sun desktop.
Re:Fear by hendridm · 2003-12-02 07:47 · Score: 1

> 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.

Maybe the nick isn't the problem. Maybe he has a link back to his own web site and doesn't want the world to know that they themselves are even more ugly that those he makes fun of.
Either way, he's probably ugly inside, which is worse.

and the most important feature... by garcia · 2003-12-02 02:46 · Score: 5, Informative

And the most important point of it all (from their FAQ):

2.2. Does it work with Netmeeting?
Yes, GnomeMeeting is compliant with all H.323 products, software and hardware.

At least the Windows users on the other end don't have to download any additional program, they can just continue to use what they did before...

Re:and the most important feature... by azzy · 2003-12-02 02:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Hmm.. funny... Microsoft plans to phase out
Re:and the most important feature... by azzy · 2003-12-02 02:54 · Score: 1

.. netmeeting that i. Phase out netmeeting. Not just phase out themselves, oh I wish!
Re:and the most important feature... by popeyethesailor · 2003-12-02 02:57 · Score: 2, Informative

This doesn't really work anymore AFAIK. Windows XP made Netmeeting obsolete, MSN msgr is the default nowadays. Nobody provides ILS services anymore, except probably the server in the FAQ..
Re:and the most important feature... by mccalli · 2003-12-02 02:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

At least the Windows users on the other end don't have to download any additional program, they can just continue to use what they did before...
Yes, and this I find to be iChat AV's big weakness. If I can't connect to the vast majority of computer users, I can't really make use of it.
Ideally, I'd like to see iChat AV start working with NetMeeting and also Messenger. It's an unavoidable fact of computing life that most of the people you'll be dealing with are going to be running Windows on the client.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:and the most important feature... by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2003-12-02 03:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Not entirely true....
<P>They do need to install GSM Codes compiled by the gnomemeeting.org team. These are slightly different than MSN's Codecs. Look at the last entry in their downloads section.<P>
And the compatibility works only in theory. I have been trying to get this work since pre 0.90 days of gnomemeeting, without any luck. And no I am not behind a firewall, neither is the windows user. and none of us are natted and both have broadband connections.

--
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Re:and the most important feature... by moquist · 2003-12-02 03:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Another important point from their FAQ is

2.8. Does it support the T.120 protocol?

No, T.120 support is not implemented in GnomeMeeting yet. We prefer to focus on videoconferencing features and protocols than to add support for T.120. Moreover, most T.120 features like desktop sharing, or file transferts can be easily achieved using other dedicated tools.

Though it is the "official network meeting software" where I work, nobody I know uses Netmeeting for anything other than sharing their applications and/or desktops while everyone is in a conference call. (I think this is silly - sometimes we even use separate videoconferencing as well.)

Unfortunately, this one thing that I need Gnomemeeting to do is the one thing that it doesn't do. Lately I've been using rdesktop (http://www.rdesktop.org/) to connect to our W2K Terminal Servers, and I run Netmeeting from there. Works like as much of a charm as possible, given that I'm forced to use MS software...
Re:and the most important feature... by iso · 2003-12-02 03:25 · 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*
Re:and the most important feature... by jhoffoss · 2003-12-02 05:47 · Score: 1

[I think] Netmeeting is still present in XP, though I'd have to go to ntfs.org or another power-user site to remember what the exe is called.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Re:and the most important feature... by iso · 2003-12-02 07:06 · Score: 1

Unfortunately it's not that easy. The XP/2000 version of NetMeeting does not play nice with firewalls and is quite difficult for novices to get up and running correctly. After trying this with some family members (me saying "Just use NetMeeting! It's already there!"), and having them stumble with it, the response was the same in every case: "Why don't you just install MSN 6? It's great and it's free!"
Re:and the most important feature... by westlake · 2003-12-02 13:45 · Score: 1

MSN 6 isnt free! you have to run it on a windows OS.
which is not a problem for 95% of the families who have a home pc

Webcams setup by IamGarageGuy+2 · 2003-12-02 02:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Does this mean that all webcams will have to be pointed at a lower level and toward the garden. Gnomemeeting... Get it ... Ok I'll get back to work .....

--
Stay tuned for new sig...

Re:Webcams setup by sharkey · 2003-12-02 04:15 · Score: 1

Does this mean that all webcams will have to be pointed at a lower level and toward the garden.
Not a bad idea for some of them.*shudder*

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

More screenshots by Steve+'Rim'+Jobs · 2003-12-02 02:51 · Score: 5, Informative

Have a look at the Gnome Meeting webpage; there are many more screenshots there with some preferences and other parts of the app shown that don't appear in the OSNews article. -- Steve

What I want to know is... by SlashDotAgent · 2003-12-02 02:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

when will it communicate with Skype?

Re:What I want to know is... by Karamchand · 2003-12-02 02:55 · Score: 1

Isn't Skype audio only while this is audio/video?
Re:What I want to know is... by SlashDotAgent · 2003-12-02 03:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, Skype is only Audio (in the mean time, anyway), but the quality is much better than any other application I tried.

Sure I could have used Yahoo Messanger (or NetMeeting, or GnomeMeeting) for Audio/Video, but the quality wasn't really worth it. With Skype, I'm already using it instead of the phone.
Re:What I want to know is... by willamowius · 2003-12-02 08:51 · Score: 1

Probaby never ? Isn't Skype using it's own propertirior communication protocol ?

and what if... by SlashDotAgent · 2003-12-02 02:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:and what if... by rifter · 2003-12-02 11:36 · Score: 1

Then you should compile it your self. You have the source, what are you waiting for?

Oh, I dunno, a free as in beer (speech would not hurt) compiler for Windows perhaps?

Decent code, a couple of duplicate chunks... by tcopeland · 2003-12-02 02:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

...as reported by CPD.

Here's the report.

--
The Army reading list

Re:Decent code, a couple of duplicate chunks... by Valar · 2003-12-02 03:45 · Score: 1

Just keep banging out those karma-lovin' CPD posts.

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games
Re:Decent code, a couple of duplicate chunks... by tcopeland · 2003-12-02 03:47 · Score: 1

> Just keep banging out those
> karma-lovin' CPD posts
[tom@revelation tom]$ tail -1000 /var/log/httpd/infoether.com-access_log | grep gnome | wc -l 96 [tom@revelation tom]$
Popular stuff!

--
The Army reading list

Gnomes rock :) by 88NoSoup4U88 · 2003-12-02 02:57 · Score: 3, Funny

I, for one, would like to welcome our new Gnome ..erm.. Underlords.

It would be nice if.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-02 03:03 · 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?

Re:It would be nice if.... by drinkypoo · 2003-12-02 04:01 · Score: 1

Okay, I won't say vmware or wine. How about crossover office? :)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:It would be nice if.... by Chilltowner · 2003-12-02 06:04 · Score: 1

Try The Coccinella for whiteboard stuff. Works great, peer to peer or Jabber modes, lots of cool features. The developer just added chess to it, too. Fun little app that works on all Windows, Macs, and Linux.

Woohoo! Finally... by torpor · 2003-12-02 03:05 · Score: 5, Funny

... a decent non-geek screenshot of a multimedia application that makes me *want* to use it:

http://www.gnomemeeting.org/screenshots/latest/G no meMeeting_In_A_Call.png

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Moderators on crack by wine · 2003-12-02 03:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Firewall ports by whizzzo · 2003-12-02 03:13 · Score: 1

The article suggested there was some firewall issues with this and I see this as a main step holding back videoconferencing.

My parents recently had broadband installed and I advised them to get an ADSL router with firewall (and wireless) built in like I'm using. I then realised we both also have digital cameras which double as webcams so why phone each other when we can videoconference for free! However, a little research and everything I found used H.323 and required a range of thousands of ports to be open which just isn't feasible on a port forwarding firewall.

Are there any single port videoconferencing apps available?

Re:Firewall ports by silas_moeckel · 2003-12-02 03:26 · Score: 3, Informative

I know this might be scary but your could just get a firewall thats understands H323 realy this has little to do with the application it's just the standard way to get it accross the internet if your "firewall" (use that term loosly for those home nat products) dosent support the standard fix it. More advanced firewalls read into the h323 packets and dynamicaly open ports for the remote site only.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:Firewall ports by Doug+Dante · 2003-12-02 03:29 · Score: 5, Informative

GnomeMeeting requires that you open no more than 17 ports for the "worst case" configuration.

If your firewall supports H.323 forwarding and you only want to make outbound calls, you're done.

Forward TCP port 1720 to your computer if you want to accept incomming calls.

If your gateway doesn't support H.323 forwarding:

Forward TCP port range [30000-30010]
Forward UDP port range [5000-5003]

99% of configurations are done here.

If you're using a gatekeeper, you must also forward UDP port range [5010-5013].

That's 17 ports in the worst case.

Here's the link in the FAQ.

http://www.gnomemeeting.org/index.php?rub=3&pos= 0& faqpage=x269.html

--
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
Re:Firewall ports by TheSync · 2003-12-02 04:24 · 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.
Re:Firewall ports by molo · 2003-12-02 04:41 · Score: 1

You should try iptables/netfilter for your nat machine. There is a H.323 module available in the patch-o-matic.

http://www.netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO/net fi lter-extensions-HOWTO-5.html#ss5.3

-molo

--
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Re:Firewall ports by Minna+Kirai · 2003-12-02 06:42 · Score: 1

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

This is why NAT should be thrown on the trash heap.

If your solution can't handle NAT, it is almost useless.

If NAT breaks solutions, then it is almost useless.

There are certain rules for providing internet access, defined 23 years ago in RFC 760 (etc). NAT breaks those rules. If you use NAT, you don't have Internet access. If you don't have Internet access, you shouldn't expect Internet applications to work.
Re:Firewall ports by cloudmaster · 2003-12-02 09:47 · Score: 1

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

This is why NAT should be thrown on the trash heap.

No, this is why your ISP who *still* doesn't suport IPv6 should be thrown on the trash heap. There are just not enough IP addresses available for everyone to put all of their network-ready machines on the internet. More addresses would help, or a stopgap like NAT would help. Guess which one has become the standard solution, and must be worked around? That's the same reason that a workd processor app won't get widely used unless it can read MS word files - it's a crap format and a bad solution, but "everyone" uses it, so "everything" has to work with it to be accepted.
Re:Firewall ports by Wiwi+Jumbo · 2003-12-02 12:56 · Score: 1

Then again, my ISP charges an another $10-$15 for an extra IP address... I'll keep NAT for now. :)

--
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
Re:Firewall ports by TheSync · 2003-12-06 10:55 · Score: 1

I hate NAT myself, don't get me wrong. However, I believe that today NAT is viewed as much of a security feature as well as an IP-conserver.

I'm not sure that NAT orovides a lot of security, but it certainly means that a firewall somewhere HAS to be involved in communications between the target machine and the outside world.

Where's the Windows port? by hungryfrog · 2003-12-02 03:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

I traded a few e-mails last year with Damien (the lead developer). He said a Windows port was being actively worked on and was just a few weeks/months off. Anyone heard anything on this? I was hoping to use GnomeMeeting in our office, where there's no chance of switching to Linux desktops anytime soon.

If you liked that... by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · 2003-12-02 03:25 · Score: 1

You'll love this

--
Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.

Re:If you liked that... by torpor · 2003-12-02 04:56 · Score: 1

Oh man, please tell me she writes code.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Re:Minutes of GnomeMeeting in full.. by Channard · 2003-12-02 03:30 · Score: 1, Funny

And yes.. I know it's not a 'meeting' meeting. I'm quite surprised that MS hasn't managed to copyright the word 'Meeting' yet.

Doesn't work with ichat AV? by acomj · 2003-12-02 03:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Noticed that it doesn't work with macos X ichat. I noticed that during his introduction S jobs indicated ichat was built using opensource, so my question is how hard would it be to get it to work with ichat?

Re:Doesn't work with ichat AV? by CoolMoDee · 2003-12-02 08:01 · Score: 1

iChat was not built with open source, but with open standards.

--
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.

Re:OSSpews by armando_wall3 · 2003-12-02 03:46 · Score: 1

He wasn't attacking gnomemeeting. He was attacking the author of the review. Usually she is criticized for doing that kind of reviews ("ugly interface/tried to install, didn't works, so it sucks"). But anyways, I haven't read that much about her, so I can't really tell if that's true.

Windows and Linux Video teleconferencing? by Laur · 2003-12-02 03:50 · Score: 1

What are the options for video teleconferencing between Windows and Linux? I use Linux at home, but my parents two states away are Windows users. We've been trying to use Gnomemeeting/Netmeeting for several months now with mixed sucess. It seems that most of the problems seem to be on the Netmeeting end, but with Microsoft retiring Netmeeting there's little hope to get this resolved and Netmeeting doesn't appear to be a viable choice for the future. Are there any other options out there?

--
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx

Re:Windows and Linux Video teleconferencing? by gregarican · 2003-12-02 04:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Try googling for H.323 freeware. Should be a point in the right direction. If the software is truly standards-based in nature then it should play well...

Gnomemeeting is inside GNOME Desktop since 2.4 by sebol · 2003-12-02 04:00 · Score: 1

At least the Windows users on the other end don't have to download any additional program, they can just continue to use what they did before...

Gnomeeting is bundled with the GNOME 2.4 Desktop
GNOME user dont need to download anything if they already have GNOME Desktop

Dont substitute Windows with Linux while comparing 2 type of desktop

if we substitute "Windows" with "Gnome Desktop"
your comment will be like this:-

"At least the GNOME Desktop users on the other end don't have to download any additional program, they can just continue to use what they did before..."

--
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)

Re:Three remaining questions/issues by drinkypoo · 2003-12-02 04:05 · Score: 1

No worse than anything else, probably. It uses established standards.
In this modern age there is no need to encrypt at the protocol level. We have VPNs, we have ssh tunneling. Sure sslizing the connection makes things a little easier for the user but it's not that hard to set up some tunneling.
I don't see any reason you couldn't just port this to a PDA, provided it has enough horsepower to run it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

I wouldn't cheer for this... by saunabad · 2003-12-02 04:05 · Score: 1

H.323 has serious problems with NAT and firewalls which are kind of hard to solve if you're not your own ISP. And the interoperability between two H.323 compliant products even from two different commercial vendors doesn't seem to be very good either.

Re:I wouldn't cheer for this... by saunabad · 2003-12-02 09:46 · Score: 1

H.323 stores IP-addresses outside IP-headers and uses dynamic port numbers. So if you're behind NAT and firewall, you're going to need gatekeepers and application level firewalls for H.323 calls to work both ways. If you're a regular home user what are you going to do?
Re:I wouldn't cheer for this... by Hatta · 2003-12-02 10:19 · Score: 1

Refuse to buy internet access that doesn't give you a real IP address. These companies are trying to break the fundamental peer to peer nature of the internet that has made it a bastion of free information and community, and turn it into a corporate controlled, they serve, you consume, environment. This is unacceptable.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Can we get a dictionary or grammar checker here by Espectr0 · 2003-12-02 04:34 · Score: 1

What is the educational system in this country coming to when people can't even tell the difference between too and to?

Where's LoseNotLooseGuy when you need him? He would mod you up!

--
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication

best feature of gnomemeeting by molo · 2003-12-02 04:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

The best feature of gnomemeeting is that it supports 1394 AV/C cameras (aka DV camcorders). That means you can plug in you standard firewire camcorder and use that as your webcam! This requires a recent (and maybe customized) build, but it works quite well.

-molo

--
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.

Did anyone read the screenshots? by TheTranceFan · 2003-12-02 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Enlarge the screenshots. Look at the chat panes. Basically all they're chatting about is how to get the software to work. Talk about threadjacking! It's worse -- meetingjacking.

If your meeting software transforms your meeting into a multipoint tech support video conference, the software is not ready for primetime.

The software needs to be invisible - it can't impede the act of having the meeeting in any way. Currently no solution, including NetMeeting, truly achieves this goal.

answer machine by flok · 2003-12-02 05:38 · Score: 2, Informative

There's also an answermachine available compatible with gnomemeeting/netmeeting available. You can find it here: http://www.openh323.org/code.html.

--

www.vanheusden.com - home of Multitail, HTTPing, CoffeeSaint, EntropyBroker, rsstail, bsod, listener, nagcon, nagi

Why _GNOME_ Meeting? by RAMMS+EIN · 2003-12-02 06:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

I tried to get GNOMEMeeting a couple of years ago. Back then, my harddisk space was limited and I used Slackware. This means that I got to think twice before installing any software, because of the space constraints, and because of the effort in configuring, compiling and installing a package and every single dependency.

I had been able to get by without GNOME and KDE; most apps I used being GTK+ apps that could be compiled with or without GNOME. Not GNOMEMeeting. However, I figured that I could install the GNOME libraries and get not only GNOMEMeeting, but also some mighty cool features in my other apps...after all, there had to be a reason why people use the GNOME libraries, right?

Well, for some reason I don't remember I couldn't or wouldn't install GNOME from packages. So of I went to download, configure, compile and install every single component. Eventually I had a working GNOME install.

And then I got stuck...it turned out I also needed some libraries to support H.323, but couldn't get them compiled due to lack of virtual memory - I had 384 MB, which is exactly what the manual said I would need, but apparently was just not enough. Eventually I managed to compile the framework in debug mode - why this takes _less_ memory I still fail to see.

Compiling GNOMEMeeting was complicated by lots of errors apparently caused by the version of OpenH323 I had installed not being quite what GNOMEMeeting expected. Finally I managed to get everything installed and working...and then it turned out that GNOMEMeeting didn't work nearly as well as I had expected it to. In many cases, it just wouldn't connect. Judging from the article, not much has changed in that respect, although I am pleased to see that GM works with NAT now.

Now you may see the above as me blaming GM for Slackware lacking a good packaging system (mostly suffering from the lack of packages made for it), and that is indeed one source of the hardships I encountered. But I am asking you, and I seriously wonder, why does GM need GNOME? The way I see it, all it has to do is grab video and audio, encode it, and send it over the network, and play the video and audio it receives over the network. To my knowledge, none of these things require GNOME, nor are they easier to implement using GNOME. Am I wrong?

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

I haven't been able to get it working by xutopia · 2003-12-02 06:08 · Score: 1

gnomemeeting: error while loading shared libraries: libldap.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

What the blanked out stuff says: by ShieldWolf · 2003-12-02 06:38 · Score: 1

Eugenia Loli-Queru:the microphone
Stela Korakaki:ok
Eugenia Loli-Queru: giving
Eugenia Loli-Queru:yeah pretty good
Eugenia Loli-Queru:i hear that good stuff
Stela Korakaki:

--
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();

Re:OSSpews by Gothmolly · 2003-12-02 08:00 · Score: 1

Thanks for actually reading my post.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

It all comes down to the protocols by johnfreez · 2003-12-02 08:29 · 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!:

Text
Audio (open H.323)
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.

Re:It all comes down to the protocols by Wiwi+Jumbo · 2003-12-02 12:48 · Score: 1

True, but what I want to know is why another seperate address book?!?!? :-)

--
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"

they make one mistake by ShadowRage · 2003-12-02 09:33 · Score: 1

they refer to it as an instant messenger...
it's a VOIP client.. the creator of gnome meeting has even stated this.

Re:Woohoo! Finally... by pherthyl · 2003-12-02 10:54 · Score: 1

No she's ugly sir!
It's not the nose, its the eyes, they're crooked!

Re:Hmmm. by BrokenHalo · 2003-12-03 02:30 · Score: 1

Yup.

:-D

75 of 144 comments (clear)