From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 3 14:58:11 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D100E1065673; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:58:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from royce.williams@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gg0-f182.google.com (mail-gg0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4141B8FC1D; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:58:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggnk4 with SMTP id k4so1132476ggn.13 for ; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:58:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+wJ5zopgSGloFRc3UfM075X6muE243xJ04g9ktr5GvU=; b=LerpC4tPcX6mMFJn2QLo4CbVj0eH6Qd6cwEZmzRFOLSMxuKdVeHyjbsdlsmNGsHEVG gxGqyiqNXRLI6pQRE0D0Cu3aGCTC5uZB5QlwGX2U9LFD77PGJO9DiNT6DjaFszERSBoW GrzHfsgKi2/BriXcWYBFnVFUTMwDRmn/yIJdUEK5Fi+n2t8DijVfPKvE4q36ZOecYXPB lW4g/JjQnuCflLkrJ5Flwuwii5Ex/82SSmanVfbZu7WtZXX5+3MyXYoMFhvhdfNLkTCR y5YVB1s///ACTleguSH5hT0OvOJPmPVYubxBOGWG1iysAlzrwQJrn0HF4gMYGUIXiSOB vu1Q== Received: by 10.50.94.199 with SMTP id de7mr3980501igb.40.1344005888718; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:58:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.90.229 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:57:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <612DA8A3-121E-4E72-9E5B-F3CBA9DEB7F7@bsdimp.com> <501A0258.4010101@FreeBSD.org> <45815622-3CE2-42E3-B118-702AA70C7E4C@samsco.org> <501AB08E.8020008@FreeBSD.org> <501B1D3A.6080501@freebsd.org> From: Royce Williams Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:57:48 -0800 Message-ID: To: Kevin Oberman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:07:14 +0000 Cc: Doug Barton , Garrett Cooper , FreeBSD Hackers , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Arnaud Lacombe Subject: Re: On cooperative work [Was: Re: newbus' ivar's limitation..] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:58:11 -0000 On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: >> On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >>> >>> On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>> The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :). >>> >>> I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of >>> school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for >>> "the right people," even though I was told repeatedly that it wasn't >>> possible, actually highlights a big part of the problem. >> >> bandwidth was limited and a single 1:1 skype connection was all we really >> could do. >> >> I did broadcast sessions a few years ago using the apple quicktime server >> but it was a lot of work and I think one person looked at part of one >> session. >> >>> Doug > > First, too many of these posts assume way too much. I don't think > anyone should be thinking of any sort of what is commonly called > "teleconferencing". That would be nice, but is far more complex and > expensive, both in bandwidth and equipment, then should be considered > as a starting point. > > I suggest the starting point is a webpage with a link to the slides > being presented and a simple audio stream. This is trivially possible > with a FreeBSD system and open-source software. A bandwidth of only > about 70kbps would be needed. Less with reasonable codec choice. > Several streams could be broadcast via a single, unicast stream to a > well connected server which woild then stream to end users It might be > augmented with jabber other open IM technology with someone at the > meeting if procedures for this could be agreed to. (Some vetting is > desirable, but will result in calls of censorship.) > > For small rooms, microphones are fairly easy to handle and one-way > streams don't require echo cancellation. > As costs for video come down, that might be something to think about > some day, but is not required to allow remote "attendance". > > Of course, unless this is publicized, no one will come (which > eliminates any technical issues). :-) Nail -> head. Everything that Kevin just said. With so much collective technical experience and intelligence available, we can work out the minor kinks in a solved problem (one-to-many audio and slide sharing). Getting the word out is also a solved problem. Both are very high-leverage -- and very good for the project. If we think about live BSDCan streaming as a fun project with classic hack value, instead of "an amorphous cloud of undoability", things will just come together naturally. The next action I see is calling for boots-on-the-ground volunteers to coordinate the local setup, and maybe a wiki page to capture the state of the project. Royce