Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Speak Freely To Be Withdrawn January 15

Posted by timothy on from the you-can-still-freely-speak dept.

wrenhunt writes "The Speak Freely site has this: 'On January 15th, 2004, Speak Freely will be discontinued and removed from this Web site. Existing users may continue to use the program as long as they wish, but no further releases will be forthcoming. For details and the reasons why Speak Freely is being discontinued, please see the full end of life announcement.'" The reasons are various and interesting; it's graceful of the author to provide an explanation of why a piece of software is going away. Update: 01/11 19:22 GMT by T : As reader pi_rules points out, this story is a duplicate -- my apologies.

29 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Dupe. by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/20/155625 3&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=185&tid= 95

    For God's sake, search for 'speakfreely' in your own engine. It returns ONE result! The same damned article!

  2. Cheap routers.. by Aliencow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why isn't it easier for people to open up ports on their cheap routers ? Tell someone to "Just forward your port 4893 to your computer" and they'll look at you like you're an alien, so why not include an application to do it that goes in their start menu (in addition to the web based interface) that would detect software trying to listen, and then asking if you want these to be open ? A bit like ZoneAlarm but controlling the router...

    1. Re:Cheap routers.. by JebusIsLord · · Score: 3, Informative

      that sounds a lot like Universal Plug and Play, which IS supported by Windows XP and many routers. For example, MSN messenger needs UPnP to open and close random ports within a NAT to send and recieve files... without UPnP this function does not work. There is also a free UPnP implementation for Linux NAT boxes out there as well.

      --
      Jeremy
    2. Re:Cheap routers.. by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, UPnP is pretty nifty. Just think about it. All you have to do is install a piece of software and it can give itself whatever firewall permissions it thinks it needs to do whatever deed it thinks it needs to do, and all without involving the user.

      And imagine never having to flash firmware again. The device simply keeps track of available upgrades and flashes itself.

      Why, Belkin could give us a new popup coded directly into firmware every week. That way you never have to get tired of looking at the same one over and over again.

      Sign me up.

      KFG

    3. Re:Cheap routers.. by uradu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > He's referring to ISPs NATing off their customers, not customers being restricted by their own routers

      His rant gives no indication either way, I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Your own experience (and mine, and most others') tells you that you've never heard of ISP-level NAT, so why would he mean that? He's just bitter about NAT for whatever reasons and venting by the most dramatic means he has: EOL-ing a fairly popular piece of software. Well, I know why he hates NAT, but that's hardly NAT's fault, that's similar to getting angry at the color Yellow for being so bright. Instead of pouting, he could think about or work on some generic method to overcome NAT's inherent weaknesses.

      In fact, since--as he himself puts it--NAT will be with us for a long time, even after switching to IPv6, it might be very worthwhile for him to think about methods of addressing private computers below the transport level, but above the application level. A universal method of sub-addressing machines would be very useful, since not all machines will ever be on the public internet, whether for security or address limitation reasons. Port mapping works well enough for some things but has inherent limitations (16 bit, many apps assume fixed ranges etc.), and ports were really meant to identify applications on a single machine, not machines on a network. It's really a hack, and you don't build future technologies on hacks.

    4. Re:Cheap routers.. by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then it's time for a paradigm shift, since I've obviously been misunderstanding.

      Admittedly, NAT can stop inbound connections from reaching a computer that otherwise would receive all connections had it not been behind a NAT router. But my computer is no longer a peer on the internet; my NETWORK is now a peer on the internet, with ports opened and forwarded to multiple machines as I see fit. In one way of thinking, it allows me to use the computers in my home more as I would had I been running a corporate perimeter network, with different machines running web servers, FTP servers, and the like.

      Admittedly, Joe Sixpack has no idea why his computer won't allow inbound connections anymore after he's put a router on his network, but here's the thing: Joe Sixpack has no idea what an inbound connection is, nor, likely, does he even know SpeakFreely even exists. If Joe Sixpack doesn't want the feds snooping on his conversations, he'll find a way to forward his ports, like all decent home-level routers allow. If John Walker wanted to combat this NAT-related inability to use his software, why didn't he just post some documentation or links showing how users can forward the correct ports? The moment Joe Sixpack wants to use SpeakFreely, he could go to the site and see "hey, I have a Linksys router, and this link that says 'IF YOU HAVE A ROUTER CLICK HERE' shows me how to get around it!"

      IMHO this whole end of life thing seems a bit much if it's based entirely around home-level routers, as this issue is largely avoidable.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  3. You lost me by radoni · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...at "Start Menu"

    --
    SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
  4. And we will call it... by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

    And we will call it, i don't know, Universal Plug and Play?

    HINT. Do a Google search on Universal Plug and Play. It does what you are asking. I do not use it, but the latest beta firmware for my WAP supports it.

  5. Too bad -- design was obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any protocol that isn't designed to accomdate NAT is incompatible with the modern Internet and is obsolete by design.

    Yes, in the stone ages, the Internet was "end-to-end". It's not anymore. Sorry for your loss.

    1. Re:Too bad -- design was obsolete by Albanach · · Score: 4, Informative
      Then almost all voip and h323 software is "obsolete". Alternatively, perhaps you jsut don't know much about the protocols and why they're difficult to route over NAT. Don't you think is you could easily design coip to run through NAT everyone would be doing it? Even skype needs a non NAT box to work - if neither client can be used it'll use someone else in the middle.

      As has been pointed out, what we really need are easier solutions such as port forwarding - you could turn the port into an extention number. So your voip could be slashdot.org:5 and then a bit like VNC have traffic routed to slashdot.org port xxxx + 5. For that to work we'd need cooperation from router manufacturers.

      The other alternative is IPv6. VoIP might just be the driving force needed to see IPv6 deployed in the real world.

    2. Re:Too bad -- design was obsolete by uradu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > As has been pointed out, what we really need are easier solutions such as port forwarding

      What we really need is a generic method of sub-addressing machines. The public/private network paradigm is here to stay for various reasons, so we should shape our protocols to cope with that. We need another protocol between IP and TCP/UDP: IP addresses a point-of-presence on the internet, TCP/UDP a POP on a machine (i.e. an app), we need something that addresses a POP on an internal network. In fact, it could be a nestable protocol that replaces IP and allows for unlimited levels of private subdivision. That way a large company could have multiple internal NAT setups and you could still address a specific machine several levels down the hierarchy. I guess one could modify IP to be nestable, and IP stacks inside routers to be aware of it. Then you would address a private machine as a.b.c.d/e.f.g.h where a.b.c.d is the public IP address, and e.f.g.h the private one. The public NAT router would examine the next nested IP header (in this case e.f.g.h) and pass the packet to the correct internal machine (which could be another NAT box, ad infinitum).

      The downside of course is that we're then back to the old UUCP days where you had to explicitly specify the route to the destination machine, making the network more fragile. Still, given that for the vast majority of setups it would be just a two-tiered setup (public internet and internal LAN), it should be workable.

    3. Re:Too bad -- design was obsolete by mysticalreaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow. I *completely* disagree with what you've just stated here. Allow me to explain why.

      First off, the internet was BUILT as an end-to-end network. You cannot just sweep this fact aside by saying it's "outdated". This principle is what MADE the internet successful. Without end-to-end, the internet would have gone nowhere. Really.

      We want the application to run end-to-end, because that is what make the application useful -- but folks have confused this with requiring the mechanism to be identical from end to end

      But now, in the new system, it requires that the network be AWARE of the application, and configured EXPLICITLY to allow this certain type of data to be transferred. Now you have to ask permission from the people who control the network to run your application. Now you have to make configuration changes in the network itself before you can run any new application. Gone is the open development environment of the internet. Gone are new applications that pop up that anyone can use immediately. (This is how the web started. Your NAT support would have made the web so difficult that it wouldn't have gone anywhere. Imagine the millions who would have had to configure their NAT to work with a new system of doubious worth.)

      You say that the network should be SEPERATE from the application, and then go on to promote the application being DEPENDANT on the specific configuration of the network.

      "like in the days of the telegraph, the mechanism and the application were synonymous. That is an obsolete model, though. Our needs and demands have gotten more varied and complex from the point of view of the applications -- the mechanism (IPv4) needs to be separated out from the applications."

      AND IT IS! That's the POINT, Bookwyrm. Currently, in the 'obsolete' model, the network is TRANSPARENT to the application. No specific configuration of the network is requried. The network is seperate from the application. However, NAT makes the application depend on the network, and thus makes the network and the application once again joined, like the telegraph, phone and cable TV networks of the past. That's a step BACKWARDS.

      Even now, because of NAT, we can observe the harmful effects of new development. VoIP doesn't work properly. File sharing applications are suffering massively because people can't share, even when they want to. Running a server of any kind, (a game server for you and your budies to play on) requires additional configuration, making it harder. People in certain situations, like in university, for example, have no ability to influence the functionality of the NAT, and are stuck being internet consumers. And don't forget that it's even MORE arduous to have multiple computers doing the same thing, like being a webserver, behind the NAT. Now you have to specify to the CLIENTS to use different ports for different servers behind the NAT. It begins to get so ugly that people give up.

      Your goals are noble, Bookwyrm, but your thoughts on the matter are misguided. This site might help shed some additional light on the situtation.

      And finally, the people who invented the internet for real though that end-to-end addressing was the best idea, and from their efforts, we have the most advanced communcation system humans have ever seen. To say that they are utterly wrong requires some guts, and also a LOT of backing up. In other words, the proof is in the pudding. Where is YOUR all NAT internet?

  6. Last chance to see by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

    For God's sake, search for 'speakfreely' in your own engine. It returns ONE result! The same damned article!

    You're not thinking like a /. editor, to them this is their last chance to slashdot that server to oblivion!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Last chance to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do you call them "Editors"

      They do not edit... Fuck, most of 'em can't even spell.

      They accept postings and link them to the front page. Remember, they provide no original content here, just relinking...

      it's a "Dynamic Bookmark" website for most of us.

  7. Re:Open-source it? by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is open source :^)

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  8. Re:Open-source it? by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Informative

    And yeah, I use Windows for the most part, the Unix version is here.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  9. Speak Freely does hard encryption by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I can understand why development is stopping, but it's important to understand that Speak Freely is still a valuable resource to the community.

    Why? Because speak freely does voice over IP with hard encryption. I don't know of any other VoIP product that does that.

    So if you care about your privacy, and have the time and skill, get the source code while you still can, and make a new generation VoIP product that addresses the problems in Speak Freely while continuing to provide hard encryption.

    If you wonder why you should bother, read Why You Should Use Encryption.

    Thank you for your attention.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Speak Freely does hard encryption by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Because speak freely does voice over IP with hard encryption. I don't know of any other VoIP product that does that".

      You do now!

  10. One method... by topham · · Score: 4, Insightful


    One method which works on some NAT routers is pretty simple:

    Output a packet via UDP to a particular IP address and port number. The NAT setups I've used will log that, and subsequently allow incoming UDP packets from that IP address and port number. If both machines negotiate via a third party and then trade such packets blind they can then start communicating. Note: some of the UDP packets will be lost at the start of the process... doesn't matter, not a problem.

  11. This could happen to any OSS software. by perotbot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Linus said "I've got my family to raise, and a life to lead without being called Messiah by everyone jumping on the bandwagon,and this isn't fun anymore. you know what? I'm done. " We (/. and others) would be doing two things, one mourning the lost of our "leader" and secondly, trying to find a way to keep development going without said leader. SpeekFreely is the work of one person, if someone else thinks they can fix the problems identified (NAT issues. major code rewrite), then by all means grab the CVS code and fork another project away from the original, that's the point of OSS, you can STOP and if someone thinks it's worthwhile, they'll continue it.

    --
    ~corporate tool, but employed~
  12. sorry I missed it by timothy · · Score: 4, Informative

    unfortunately for me, the program's author spells it as "Speak Freely" rather than "speakfreely," and as a result the search engine doesn't actually find that article when searching on the name.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  13. Posting this now is VERY appropriate by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dupe. ... For God's sake, search for 'speakfreely' in your own engine. It returns ONE result! The same damned article!

    That posting was last September.

    John is taking the archive down next Thursday. (Possibly Wed night - he's in Switzerland.)

    A reminder post now, when we still have a few days to grab the archive, is VERY appropriate.

    (Thanks, Timothy!)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  14. Do not despair, gentle readers by aardvarko · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your right to speak FREELY has been revoked. Your right to speak in DUPLICATE, however, is still flourishing wildly!

    1. Re:Do not despair, gentle readers by Limburgher · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your right to speak FREELY has been revoked. Your right to speak in DUPLICATE, however, is still flourishing wildly!

      --

      You are not the customer.

  15. 1996 will be a very exciting year for the WWW. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about a Slashdot search engine that accepts boolean operators and phrases? Or searching on a phrase plus other fields in the comment/story's DB record, like author, date, topic/section? A better search engine would use less server resources when searching, and members could search their own post history to link a new comment to an old, but still relevant, point. Slashdot's server seems to use something like the ancient "swish" freeware. This post is practically a quote of a similar email I sent to a customer back in 1995! These features are coded by Slashdot users every day. Who will help me add it to the Slashcode? Who at Slashdot is interested in rolling it out at Slashdot? I'd rather code than complain.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  16. That's too bad by Do+not+eat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SF is a great program. It's not graphical bloatware, it supports many compressions, it's somewhat modular ... I've spent countless hours getting a stable 2-way voice comm over a 33.6 dialup link, back in the days, and it actually worked at some point (the rest of the time it didn't, which prompted me to change from AOL to an Internet provider. Thanks SpeakFreely!)

    When I discovered I could have a voice converstaions with anybody in the world, I was so excited I picked up my phone to tell my friend!

  17. Wake Up, folks!! by luck-is-for-rabbits · · Score: 5, Insightful
    John Walker, the creator and for years the principle maintainer of Speak Freely, posted the EOL message months ago, and since then the Speak Freely community has been organizing ways to continue the project and extend the lifetime of the software.

    As a long-time user (since 1997) of Speak Freely, I can attest to the care, overall quality and highly useful nature of this package. It has not merely saved large amounts of money, but changed the very nature of the way I conduct communications with friends and collaborators around the world. I am sure it has done so for a great many others as well. New mailing lists have been established to replace the old, and at least one online forum has been offered as another place to carry on discussion about Speak Freely.

    Overall, news of the demise of this package is greatly exxagerated. While the founder is leaving, it has already found new homes, with three projects on sourceforge, and developers working on other efforts as well.

    This is a natural development in many OSS projects, the orginator sees less utility in the project than others do, and they are free to pick it up. Rather than mourn the loss of this excellent software or wring my hands over the end of OSS, I believe this is in general a healthy develpment, and I'm looking forward to more years of using this package.

  18. Speak Freely SHOULD be discontinued by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Speak Freely was great when it first came out, but now we have a standard protocol for VoIP (SIP), and SF doesn't support it. Rather than keep SF alive, why not work on adding crypto to SIP clients?

  19. Speex + NAT support recently added by ooloogi · · Score: 3, Informative

    John Walker is playing it on the safe side, and just warning users that he can no longer guarantee support as he will not be providing it himself. It is fairly mature software though, and doesn't need much updating with time, so that's why there hasn't been much development over the past few years.

    Since John has withdrawn from development though, developers have been working on the NAT issue, and have a solution for many circumstances. Also the Speex codec has been added, so the quality/bitrate is now back in the league of the alternatives. So basically, it doesn't need much to keep it up to date.

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/wb/speak-freely.pl?read=50 1

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/wb/speak-freely.pl?read=50 9