Historias
Slashboxes
Comentarios
 
Este hilo ha sido archivado. No pueden publicarse nuevos comentarios.
Mostrar opciones Umbral:
Y recuerda: Los comentarios que siguen pertenecen a las personas que los han enviado. No somos responsables de los mismos.
  • por pobrecito hablador el Lunes, 13 Diciembre de 2004, 09:31h (#404176)
    Indudablemente que el protocolo es mucho más eficaz. La calidad de la voz es mucho mejor. En definitiva, sin querer meterse en todo ( voz, video, chat ) lo que hace lo hace bien.
  • por Chewie (284) <chewie ARROBA barrapunto PUNTO com> el Lunes, 13 Diciembre de 2004, 09:37h (#404181)
    ( Última bitácora: Sábado, 09 Septiembre de 2006, 18:42h )
    Como dice Damien Sandras en la página de GnomeMeeting:
    The main problem is not that the program is not Open Source, the problem is that Skype is locking users into a proprietary protocol. Would you imagine the Internet with a proprietary equivalent to the HTTP protocol that only a given client could browse? That's what happens with Skype. Skype also has a great marketing force, some people even think that Skype has a superior audio quality. How could Skype have a superior quality when it is using the same codec (iLBC) than software like GnomeMeeting while introducing more latency by making calls go through a 3rd party? The only real advantage of Skype is that it is easily going through any type of NAT, using a 3rd user to proxy the call. But the day when the Linux kernel NAT will natively support H.323 or SIP, Skype will have lost its only advantage... Skype is hype...
    --

    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

    [ Padre ]