Trust me, I am with you when it comes to the open stuff. I worked with SIP for years, and have written lots of voip code. I've contributed to the SIP stack in Asterisk, etc. etc. But there are real problems with it.
Aside from all that, Skype has solved the business problem. This was the hard part. Technology is easy.
Skype's uptake proves they are not a joke. You would be amazed at its penetration into the world of small business. People say "Skype me tomorrow at 11:00 am" in the same way they say "I'll Google that". It's become synonymous with real-world softphone voip.
My mom doesn't know what a Sipura adapter is. She downloaded Skype, clicked a few times, and can now call me for free on my cell or my softphone.
I've never had problems with Skype cleaning out my balance. Surely they would go out of business if this was a real problem. I've had an account with them for years.
My main complaint about SIP is the lack of standardisation - there are many corporate extensions that are proprietary and do not interoperate. We had real issues getting anything to work properly together, and the general recommendation is to go with one vendor for everything (i.e. buy all Grandstream, or all Polycom, or all Cisco...) There is no such thing as a "standard SIP phone". There are all sorts of fixes in Asterisk to deal with the vagaries of SIP and its various implementors because it is a heinously vague spec.
As for the other stuff, here's the lesson Skype has learned well: technology is easy. Business is hard. They beat everyone by throwing out SIP and writing their own stuff (easy) and by making it super obvious and simple to set things up, as well as becoming ubiquitous (hard).
SIP also lacks encryption, which is a big deal for me.
Anyway, I do see your point. But I don't think SIP is there yet for people like my mom. She can download Skype, click click a few times, and be making calls to me through the firewall. No setup, no muss, no fuss. That is not possible with SIP ("What's STUN?" she would say. "How do I call your phone?" Etc.)
"What?? Sure it's workable. If your internet connection goes through a firewall or some other kind of filter, then you might have to face some initial setup issues, but the same is true with Skype, according to their web page."
SIP is not workable in a modern NAT environment. I hate to break it to you, but the average user doesn't want to deal with the well-documented firewall woes it brings. As for why it's like this, read up on SDP. SIP was designed to work in a utopian ipv6 world. I've written a lot of voip code, contributed to the Asterisk product, and worked with SIP a lot. It just sucks. I'm sorry.
Note that Asterisk implemented IAX2 specifically because of SIP's crappiness. There is a Skype competitor that uses it; they are based in New Zealand, I think - I actually had an account with them, but I forget their name. Unfortunately, Skype was there first.
And Skype just works. No SIP softphone that I've ever seen just sets up and works like it.
"Not true. You can get an account with a SIP provider (diamondcard, sipdiscount, callwithus, etc.) and connect with landlines that way."
Okay, thanks for the correction. I've used GnomeMeeting extensively in the past, from before it was SIP-based, until they became Ekiga. I guess this is new. It's still not at all obvious on their web page. Can you point out where they detail this procedure, so my mom (for example) could set it up as easily and as quickly as she did SkypeOut?
Also, does it have the equivalent of SkypeIn? That is, can landline users call my softphone?
"Two questions: (1) What kind of "professional" are you talking about; and (2) what does Skype give them that ekiga does not? (Aside from your points above, which I have debunked.)"
1. The business professional who wants to download and install a working product with minimal fuss which has good support. Skype fits the bill. You can call landlines very simply by signing up with SkypeOut, people can call you with SkypeIn, you save hugely on phone bills, etc. I am a contract programmer, and I use Skype every single day to talk to clients in other countries. I have saved a small fortune in phone bills.
2. Corporate support, easy setup, default encryption (there is no SIP standard for this - SIP calls are not private), no SIP stupidity with NAT...etc. Skype fills its niche very well.
Anyway, I think that's enough - you get the idea, and other than a possible SkypeOut correction, you have not debunked my post at all. This is why Skype is a massive success with home users and small business, and Ekiga is used by a few hobbyists.
Could be. But a lot more people know Java than Python or Ruby. It's a simple matter of looking at the job market. Java developers are in huge demand, particularly contractors. And since the most popular language for enterprise-class web apps and sites is Java, you maintain language homogeneity by using GWT - that's good, because you can use existing resources rather than having to train them or hire new ones to use Python or Ruby.
Yeah, I use the Linux one a lot, and I know it's way behind. I still thought the basic gui was Qt on all platforms, and the problems were all on the back end. Thanks for the info.
2. No NAT issues (SIP is retarded with NAT - check out how SDP works).
3. Encryption is built-in and automatic.
4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt.
5. Voice quality is related to codec, not call setup protocol, which is what SIP is, so your voice quality comment is senseless.
6. Seamless integration with landlines.
7. Lots of features (video, chat, etc., all encrypted).
8. SIP is not consistent across vendors, with many proprietary extensions....the list goes on. They just did it right, and it works for everyone. SIP is mostly a joke.
There are orders of magnitude more programmers writing Java than Python or Ruby. Google knows the demographics of web development. Ruby in particular remains a small niche language.
You are absolutely correct, and indeed this is at the core of Nietzsche's argument against Christianity (or any religion that promises an afterlife, for that matter).
And I think you are not a scientist or in any way familiar with genetic research, so you should probably go sit down somewhere with your ridiculous Bible and leave the logical people alone now. Sound good, champ?
I'm not surprised, to be honest. I was a hardcore Debian user for years, but gave up on it quite some time ago because of problems exactly like the one you had. Debian, and I'd imagine its various derivatives, is vastly, hugely overrated. Gentoo has issues, but I've not come across the same level of broken dependencies stuff that just plain didn't work as I did with Debian.
I'm an atheist, which I've always taken to mean I disbelieve God in the same way I disbelieve talking pink unicorns, people who can fly under their own power, astrology, UFOs, homeopathy, and the quality of Gnome.
Yep, agreed 100%. I still use W2K SP4 on my laptop when I get the odd Windows contract. It's solid and very fast. I imagine I'll be using it for years to come.
You are wasting your life with this crap, you know that? It's just a bunch of fairy tales invented by Semitic nomads. You only have one life to live - get out there and live and accomplish things rather than worrying about some irrelevant bunch of stories.
It's not just about how it looks. It's also what they call these functions. For whatever reason, Microsoft chose names visible to the user that are exactly the same as the ACPI names. So kernel devs probably had to bring people up to speed on what these names meant, and why they are being used.
Also, coordination between developers at all levels is a good thing. Continuous integration is a big part of agile programming. It's good for people working at the deep levels to have at least a passing idea of how their stuff is being used.
No, Junis dug it up out of the sand along with his Commodore 64, and sent the dog to Katz after using his trusty Commodore to purchase food from Pets.com.
None of the sources you mentioned (Josephus and Tacitus) were alive when Jesus supposedly lived. They, and several others, are addressed in the above link (assuming I got it right this time). They do not constitute contemporaneous, eyewitness evidence. As for the other deductive stuff, it's fun to talk about, but that's about it. Saying stuff like, "Myths would have done this or that" isn't evidence. It's an historian expressing his personal opinions. Finally, the Talmud is just another book of fairy tales - not a good source when trying to determine something that actually happened.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter. The Christian myth, like that of every other religion, isn't super concerned about fact. That which sustains Christians in their fantasy has little to do with the question of whether its prophet actually existed or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Trust me, I am with you when it comes to the open stuff. I worked with SIP for years, and have written lots of voip code. I've contributed to the SIP stack in Asterisk, etc. etc. But there are real problems with it.
Aside from all that, Skype has solved the business problem. This was the hard part. Technology is easy.
Skype's uptake proves they are not a joke. You would be amazed at its penetration into the world of small business. People say "Skype me tomorrow at 11:00 am" in the same way they say "I'll Google that". It's become synonymous with real-world softphone voip.
My mom doesn't know what a Sipura adapter is. She downloaded Skype, clicked a few times, and can now call me for free on my cell or my softphone.
I've never had problems with Skype cleaning out my balance. Surely they would go out of business if this was a real problem. I've had an account with them for years.
Bingo! Too bad uptake hasn't been more widespread. But you are correct. Freshtel's softphone uses it, and it works well (they are a Skype competitor).
My main complaint about SIP is the lack of standardisation - there are many corporate extensions that are proprietary and do not interoperate. We had real issues getting anything to work properly together, and the general recommendation is to go with one vendor for everything (i.e. buy all Grandstream, or all Polycom, or all Cisco...) There is no such thing as a "standard SIP phone". There are all sorts of fixes in Asterisk to deal with the vagaries of SIP and its various implementors because it is a heinously vague spec.
As for the other stuff, here's the lesson Skype has learned well: technology is easy. Business is hard. They beat everyone by throwing out SIP and writing their own stuff (easy) and by making it super obvious and simple to set things up, as well as becoming ubiquitous (hard).
SIP also lacks encryption, which is a big deal for me.
Anyway, I do see your point. But I don't think SIP is there yet for people like my mom. She can download Skype, click click a few times, and be making calls to me through the firewall. No setup, no muss, no fuss. That is not possible with SIP ("What's STUN?" she would say. "How do I call your phone?" Etc.)
"What?? Sure it's workable. If your internet connection goes through a firewall or some other kind of filter, then you might have to face some initial setup issues, but the same is true with Skype, according to their web page."
SIP is not workable in a modern NAT environment. I hate to break it to you, but the average user doesn't want to deal with the well-documented firewall woes it brings. As for why it's like this, read up on SDP. SIP was designed to work in a utopian ipv6 world. I've written a lot of voip code, contributed to the Asterisk product, and worked with SIP a lot. It just sucks. I'm sorry.
Note that Asterisk implemented IAX2 specifically because of SIP's crappiness. There is a Skype competitor that uses it; they are based in New Zealand, I think - I actually had an account with them, but I forget their name. Unfortunately, Skype was there first.
And Skype just works. No SIP softphone that I've ever seen just sets up and works like it.
"Not true. You can get an account with a SIP provider (diamondcard, sipdiscount, callwithus, etc.) and connect with landlines that way."
Okay, thanks for the correction. I've used GnomeMeeting extensively in the past, from before it was SIP-based, until they became Ekiga. I guess this is new. It's still not at all obvious on their web page. Can you point out where they detail this procedure, so my mom (for example) could set it up as easily and as quickly as she did SkypeOut?
Also, does it have the equivalent of SkypeIn? That is, can landline users call my softphone?
"Two questions: (1) What kind of "professional" are you talking about; and (2) what does Skype give them that ekiga does not? (Aside from your points above, which I have debunked.)"
1. The business professional who wants to download and install a working product with minimal fuss which has good support. Skype fits the bill. You can call landlines very simply by signing up with SkypeOut, people can call you with SkypeIn, you save hugely on phone bills, etc. I am a contract programmer, and I use Skype every single day to talk to clients in other countries. I have saved a small fortune in phone bills.
2. Corporate support, easy setup, default encryption (there is no SIP standard for this - SIP calls are not private), no SIP stupidity with NAT...etc. Skype fills its niche very well.
Anyway, I think that's enough - you get the idea, and other than a possible SkypeOut correction, you have not debunked my post at all. This is why Skype is a massive success with home users and small business, and Ekiga is used by a few hobbyists.
Could be. But a lot more people know Java than Python or Ruby. It's a simple matter of looking at the job market. Java developers are in huge demand, particularly contractors. And since the most popular language for enterprise-class web apps and sites is Java, you maintain language homogeneity by using GWT - that's good, because you can use existing resources rather than having to train them or hire new ones to use Python or Ruby.
Uses SIP, so it's not workable for many people.
Can't call landlines, or have landlines call you. Personally, I use Skype to call landlines more than I call other Skype clients.
For the professional user, Ekiga is a non-starter.
Yeah, I use the Linux one a lot, and I know it's way behind. I still thought the basic gui was Qt on all platforms, and the problems were all on the back end. Thanks for the info.
1. Dead easy setup.
...the list goes on. They just did it right, and it works for everyone. SIP is mostly a joke.
2. No NAT issues (SIP is retarded with NAT - check out how SDP works).
3. Encryption is built-in and automatic.
4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt.
5. Voice quality is related to codec, not call setup protocol, which is what SIP is, so your voice quality comment is senseless.
6. Seamless integration with landlines.
7. Lots of features (video, chat, etc., all encrypted).
8. SIP is not consistent across vendors, with many proprietary extensions.
There are orders of magnitude more programmers writing Java than Python or Ruby. Google knows the demographics of web development. Ruby in particular remains a small niche language.
Don't forget microbiologist and electrical engineer. Reading this guy's old posts is a surreal experience.
You are absolutely correct, and indeed this is at the core of Nietzsche's argument against Christianity (or any religion that promises an afterlife, for that matter).
And I think you are not a scientist or in any way familiar with genetic research, so you should probably go sit down somewhere with your ridiculous Bible and leave the logical people alone now. Sound good, champ?
I'm not surprised, to be honest. I was a hardcore Debian user for years, but gave up on it quite some time ago because of problems exactly like the one you had. Debian, and I'd imagine its various derivatives, is vastly, hugely overrated. Gentoo has issues, but I've not come across the same level of broken dependencies stuff that just plain didn't work as I did with Debian.
I'm an atheist, which I've always taken to mean I disbelieve God in the same way I disbelieve talking pink unicorns, people who can fly under their own power, astrology, UFOs, homeopathy, and the quality of Gnome.
Somebody call the waaaaaah-mbulance.
"Dogmatic atheism" - I love it. I bet you not believing in talking pink chickens is "dogmatic anti-pink chickenism", right?
Yep, agreed 100%. I still use W2K SP4 on my laptop when I get the odd Windows contract. It's solid and very fast. I imagine I'll be using it for years to come.
Or, it becomes a whole new line of revenue for municipal councils: IT consulting to larger branches of government.
You are wasting your life with this crap, you know that? It's just a bunch of fairy tales invented by Semitic nomads. You only have one life to live - get out there and live and accomplish things rather than worrying about some irrelevant bunch of stories.
It's not just about how it looks. It's also what they call these functions. For whatever reason, Microsoft chose names visible to the user that are exactly the same as the ACPI names. So kernel devs probably had to bring people up to speed on what these names meant, and why they are being used.
Also, coordination between developers at all levels is a good thing. Continuous integration is a big part of agile programming. It's good for people working at the deep levels to have at least a passing idea of how their stuff is being used.
No, Junis dug it up out of the sand along with his Commodore 64, and sent the dog to Katz after using his trusty Commodore to purchase food from Pets.com.
Maybe because sleep and hibernate are ACPI functions?
Hibernate to disk does not consume power.
Oops, try this instead:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
None of the sources you mentioned (Josephus and Tacitus) were alive when Jesus supposedly lived. They, and several others, are addressed in the above link (assuming I got it right this time). They do not constitute contemporaneous, eyewitness evidence. As for the other deductive stuff, it's fun to talk about, but that's about it. Saying stuff like, "Myths would have done this or that" isn't evidence. It's an historian expressing his personal opinions. Finally, the Talmud is just another book of fairy tales - not a good source when trying to determine something that actually happened.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter. The Christian myth, like that of every other religion, isn't super concerned about fact. That which sustains Christians in their fantasy has little to do with the question of whether its prophet actually existed or not.