amuck-landowner

FOSS video conferencing software?

W

willie

Active Member
I'm looking for multi-person video conference software comparable to Google Hangout, that must be FOSS and self-hostable.  Any suggestions?  Someone on irc suggested talky.io which appears to be non-FOSS but uses a FOSS webRTC library.  WebRTC does seem like the way to go, as opposed to requring a client install.  I'm also aware of video chat programs like linphone that are FOSS but are point-to-point, and I need something that handles many participants.

Please don't suggest anything non-FOSS (except for comparison purposes), as that is an absolute requirement for this project.  It is ok if relatively high server resources are needed, since it's for a short term event so we can spin up a big Linode or something if we have to.  Thanks for any ideas!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
souen

souen

Active Member
Subrosa maybe? Uses Node.js and webRTC, server requires MySQL.

Tox is experimental, not sure if groupchat supports video yet, audio is supported.
 
HalfEatenPie

HalfEatenPie

The Irrational One
Retired Staff
It's gonna be hard to find something that's FOSS and will compare up to Google Hangout (my opinion anyways... since Google has invested so much resources into Hangout that a Free and open-Source project usually lacks).  

However, I don't know if this will fit the bill nor if this is what you're looking for...  But from what I can tell (by reading the descriptions) Jitsi should be it.  I don't know if the video/audio is through the XMPP Protocol since that protocol itself is mostly for text (iirc anyways), but it's a supported feature.

Good luck and definitely keep us updated please! :)
 
J

joepie91

New Member
HalfEatenPie said:
It's gonna be hard to find something that's FOSS and will compare up to Google Hangout (my opinion anyways... since Google has invested so much resources into Hangout that a Free and open-Source project usually lacks).  

However, I don't know if this will fit the bill nor if this is what you're looking for...  But from what I can tell (by reading the descriptions) Jitsi should be it.  I don't know if the video/audio is through the XMPP Protocol since that protocol itself is mostly for text (iirc anyways), but it's a supported feature.

Good luck and definitely keep us updated please! :)
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, Jitsi is extremely buggy...

EDIT: Audio/video *is* over XMPP - there are some XMPP extensions (XEPs) for that, like Jingle. Theoretically any client could support it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
k0nsl

k0nsl

Bad Goy
Subrosa is decent. It works okay. I've got a self-hosted solution put up for a group of people because we got tired of Skype and it's shenanigans. We mostly text chat, though. So IRC would've been enough for that...but people wanted something else. So in the end, Subrosa was the choice. It has been running without issues for me  :)
 
HalfEatenPie

HalfEatenPie

The Irrational One
Retired Staff
k0nsl said:
Subrosa is decent. It works okay. I've got a self-hosted solution put up for a group of people because we got tired of Skype and it's shenanigans. We mostly text chat, though. So IRC would've been enough for that...but people wanted something else. So in the end, Subrosa was the choice. It has been running without issues for me  :)
Click to expand...
So...  You use it in production but it's just decent and okay?  Got any details as to why it's just okay instead of "freaking awesome"? :)

joepie91 said:
Unfortunately, Jitsi is extremely buggy...

EDIT: Audio/video *is* over XMPP - there are some XMPP extensions (XEPs) for that, like Jingle. Theoretically any client could support it.
Click to expand...
Hm.  I haven't seen it be extremely buggy but then again I haven't really used it much.  A long time ago I used to use it with an old installation of OpenFire and it worked (didn't test the video since I don't really use XMPP anyways).  

So honestly I'd probably take your comment over my own :p, however Jitsi has worked fine for me so idk.  
 
J

joepie91

New Member
HalfEatenPie said:
So...  You use it in production but it's just decent and okay?  Got any details as to why it's just okay instead of "freaking awesome"? :)

Hm.  I haven't seen it be extremely buggy but then again I haven't really used it much.  A long time ago I used to use it with an old installation of OpenFire and it worked (didn't test the video since I don't really use XMPP anyways).  

So honestly I'd probably take your comment over my own :p, however Jitsi has worked fine for me so idk.  
Click to expand...
The problem with Jitsi is that it works for great for some people, and not at all for others, no matter what they do, for no obvious reason. On top of that it's Java (ie. a resource hog), and the UI is just plain bad, unless that has changed...
 
k0nsl

k0nsl

Bad Goy
I have seen some issues, did not note them all. The most annoying one was auth tag mismatch, so sending messages to that user would be impossible. We tried debugging it using: 


debugResetConv()
In our browsers whilst in conversation. It did not solve a thing. According to the developer/s this is very rare.

Okay, okay. It was a understatement to say it was "okay"! It is pretty darn great  :D

HalfEatenPie said:
So...  You use it in production but it's just decent and okay?  Got any details as to why it's just okay instead of "freaking awesome"? :)

Hm.  I haven't seen it be extremely buggy but then again I haven't really used it much.  A long time ago I used to use it with an old installation of OpenFire and it worked (didn't test the video since I don't really use XMPP anyways).  

So honestly I'd probably take your comment over my own :p, however Jitsi has worked fine for me so idk.  
Click to expand...
 
W

willie

Active Member
Thanks, I'll look into these and someone else also mentioned Jitsi, which I've been looking into a little.  Ideally the program should be able to broadcast to a lot of simultaneous clients, like 100's (probably not 1000's).  Is that likely to be an obstacle, given enough server resources?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
amuck-landowner