Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:49:49 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Any working SIP-phone on FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20110619154949.GA84264@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20110619112248.7c879c1f@scorpio> References: <4DFCDE25.2050203@rawbw.com> <20110618180326.GA21890@orange.esperance-linux.co.uk> <4DFD01B9.5010807@rawbw.com> <20110618212315.GB21890@orange.esperance-linux.co.uk> <20110619072518.2115dffb@scorpio> <BANLkTikaYJMSrGXynurtRmnqB%2BJLDLBjYA@mail.gmail.com> <20110619112248.7c879c1f@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:22:48AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:50:44 +0200 Jurgen Debo articulated: > > > > The fact Microsoft did buy Skype, does worry me too. The Skype > > protocol is a closed protocol. SIP is an open standard. >=20 > Open or closed makes no relative difference to me or the majority of > users as has been demonstrated numerous time with various software > titles. The bottom line is does it work and what is the learning curve > of the product. It has been demonstrated numerous times that the > majority of end users do not want to invest large amounts of time > trying to get an application configured and up and running. With the > exception of the hobbyist, that is virtually always true. You've missed the point here, I think. If it's a closed protocol, there will be hurdles to getting everything working smoothly on many open source operating systems. In particular, Microsoft buying Skype may actually mean the end of the Skype client that works on FreeBSD at some point in the future. Thus, activity in the commercial world endangers availability of a given means of communication on systems like FreeBSD when using something like Skype -- which uses a closed protocol. Open protocols, on the other hand, can be reimplemented as much as we like in multiple clients, some of which may be open source and pretty much guaranteed to work on FreeBSD as long as enough people care. It doesn't matter how many people care about whether Skype works, if the "right" people (at Microsoft, now that the company has purchased Skype) don't want to make it available. In short, while "the majority of users" as you put it might not care about open or closed when choosing Skype or SIP, that's because you only care about *right now*. Some of us care about the longer term, like "Will this still work *tomorrow*?" > > > > And about Microsoft ? Almost EVERYTHING in hands of Microsoft turns > > to a disaster or something which does compromise security, privacy or > > whatever. They can't make a secured OS, their servers are nothing > > compared to BSD servers, their hypervisors are sh.t as their > > messenger took ICQ from the market. And the last one did piss me > > off, because in the old days, I got nice dates with academic people > > with ICQ. But Messenger killed this all. >=20 > I am not sure about this ICQ rant. I never was much for IMs anyway. My > favorite was Trillian though. I have not used it in several years > though. I am still not sure about your rant regarding "messenger vs > ICQ". ICQ is certainly still in use; I just checked. Trillian is a client. ICQ was at one time a client, but it was also a protocol and a network, and multiple clients (including Trillian) supported it. Pidgin, CenterIM, and Bitlbee are all clients that support ICQ, still. Trillian is *not* a protocol, and never was. The ICQ protocol and the AIM protocol have been merged into one protocol since AOL acquired ICQ, but the ICQ network of contacts still exists. Unfortunately, its popularity has waned due in part to the preinstalled availability of MSN Messenger, which I think is what irks Jurgen about MSN Messenger here. >=20 > I have been in various environment and I been exposed to both Linux and > Microsoft servers. I cannot say with any certainty that BSD servers > were employed however. In any case, I have never personally experienced > any appreciable difference. That, of course, is my own personal > observation. The quality of the server is usually, at least in my own > experience, directly related to the personnel who are responsible for > its configuration and maintenance. I have had to support servers running MS Windows, Linux-based systems, and BSD Unix systems (primarily FreeBSD) over the years, sometimes in mixed environments. While your mileage may vary, my experience is: * On a network that was about 15% MS Windows systems (one server, bunches of desktops and laptops) and about 85% Linux-based systems (a handful of servers, and bunches of desktops and laptops -- several times more laptops than MS Windows laptops), 65% of my time as the sys/net admin for the company involved maintaining the MS Windows systems, which required a heck of a lot more overhead. The one MS Windows server in particular required more maintenance time than all the Linux-based servers put together, and that server required almost as much time dealing with its issues as all the Linux-based systems on the network as a whole. Even worse, of all the time I spent on MS Windows systems, almost all of it was spent "fighting fires", while almost all the time I spent on the Linux-based systems was adding functionality to Linux-based systems that the engineers decided they wanted to help with their work. In short, for the Linux-based systems, I mostly spent my time adding value; for the MS Windows systems, I mostly spent my time trying to make sure they didn't fall apart. * Over the years, in dealing with networks running Linux-based systems, FreeBSD (and other BSD Unix) systems, or both, my experience is that the BSD Unix systems required less administrative overhead. The difference, however, has generally been negligible compared to the difference between Linux-based or BSD Unix systems and MS Windows systems. I say "generally" because, this year, I have had to deal with a Debian laptop that is driving me up the wall, and I eagerly await the arrival of support for Intel i5 graphics so I can install FreeBSD on this thing and be done with the hell of what Debian has become for "desktop" use in the last few years. >=20 > While hobbyists love anything not Microsoft, in the medical profession, > legal profession, etcetera, Microsoft rules. There are highly > specialized software written for their operating system that simply > does not exist anywhere else. When it comes to Office Suites, there is > nothing even remotely close to what Office 10 offers, no matter what > flavor you prefer. OO tried for over ten years and never even produced > an Office-97 clone that was anywhere as fully functional as the > prototype. I have seen grown men and women reduced to tears trying to > get OO to accomplish what MS Office could easily do. Again, this is not > a criticism but a simple statement of fact. Before anyone can seriously > make an attempt to dethrone Microsoft, they have to produce an Office > Suite that is as fully functional as and compatible with existing MS > Office products. That is just not going to happen in the foreseeable > future. I eagerly await the day when office suites go the way of the dodo. I think people use them more due to a form of Stockholm Syndrome than out of any specific need, in most cases. >=20 > I think this tidbit is rather interesting: >=20 > The German Foreign Office first started using Linux as a server > platform in 2001 before making Linux and open source software their > default desktop choice in 2005. Most observers thought the move a > success. However, the government will now transition back to Windows > XP, to be followed by Windows 7, also dropping OpenOffice and > Thunderbird in favor of MS Office and Outlook. "Most observers thought the move a success," probably because it worked quite well -- but in politics, there are always back-room deals undermining efficiency and effectiveness. This is why the lowest bidder on a government contract is generally the most expensive choice, and why successful programs are often scuttled in favor of programs offered by less effective providers who contribute more to key politicians' election campaigns. I don't think what you are saying proves what you think it proves. I'm not saying such a backroom deal necessarily occurred. I'm just describing a common scenario, which seems more likely than the notion that a bunch of people were just lying when they said the open source program was a success. Frankly, I think the *real* reasons for the switch to, and the switch *from*, open source software were probably quite simple: SuSE was a German company, and Germans wanted to use its software. Novell, an American company, bought SuSE. Once SuSE operations were moved out of Germany, Microsoft returned to being the Big Dog in the contract bidding environment there, and thus won back its contracts. I don't think any technical aspects of the OSes in question had anything to do with either migration, at all. In government, technical quality rarely matters when it comes time for the politicians and bureaucrats to make a decision. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk3+Gp0ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVUxgCg2VBUuTrNIrovSph6nUEkmmHZ s8EAoOtqWTktuaz6VsADfRFc9MGu317I =V8A8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110619154949.GA84264>