Anyone here have experience with Zoom?
I've been invited to participate in a session. I've read the basic requirements and process. But I need to know if even the web/client option requires a download. The docs seem to have conflicting information. The Zoom page says:
"The Zoom web client allows joining a Zoom meeting or webinar *without* downloading any plugins or software."
But then further in it says:
"You do not have to have a Zoom account to attend a Zoom meeting or interview. You will be prompted to "download" the software, once you have clicked on the link that you have been provided."
So, which is it? Download or no download? I would like to know in advance because my data plan is capped and I don't want to download any client software. The data stream will probably consume plenty of data just the same.
Which brings me to the next question. How much data would a typical connection consume in one minute?
I have no experience with the application myself, but Zoom has had a lot
of bad publicity lately. Basically they steal, use and sell every bit of
information they can get there hands on from your applience, with or
without your consent. So if you value your privacy don't use Zoom...
I have no experience with the application myself, but Zoom has had a lot
of bad publicity lately. Basically they steal, use and sell every bit of
information they can get there hands on from your applience, with or
without your consent. So if you value your privacy don't use Zoom...
It does boast "private" sessions.. but that is not the same as
encrypted or truly private.
Zoom seems to cater to the "if it's free, it can't hurt (I have
nothing to hide), and it's fun!" mentality (aka, the mezmerized
uneducated minions).
OTOH, https://jitsi.org/ promises privacy. It might the better
choice if anyone cares about privacy.
So, which is it? Download or no download? I would like to know in advance because my data plan is capped and I don't want to download
any client software. The data stream will probably consume plenty of data just the same.
August Abolins wrote to All <=-
Hello!
Anyone here have experience with Zoom?
I've been invited to participate in a session. I've read the basic requirements and process. But I need to know if even the web/client option requires a download. The docs seem to have conflicting information. The Zoom page says:
"The Zoom web client allows joining a Zoom meeting or webinar *without* downloading any plugins or software."
But then further in it says:
"You do not have to have a Zoom account to attend a Zoom
meeting or interview. You will be prompted to "download" the software, once you have clicked on the link that you have been provided."
So, which is it? Download or no download? I would like to know in advance because my data plan is capped and I don't want to download any client software. The data stream will probably consume plenty of data just the same.
Which brings me to the next question. How much data would a typical connection consume in one minute?
August Abolins wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-
"An article in Vice pointed out that the Zoom iOS app shared a substantial amount of user data with Facebook, even if the user does
not have a Facebook account. However, two days after this story was published, Zoom removed the code that sent data to Facebook."
THAT is incredibly unethical in the first place. So, they only stopped
it when they were outted.
Pathetic.
The whole Protonmail article is a big revelation on Zoom and their practices. It even has tips for using it (if you must) better.
Happy Zooming - if you dare.
Daniel wrote to August Abolins <=-
August Abolins wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-
"An article in Vice pointed out that the Zoom iOS app shared a substantial amount of user data with Facebook, even if the user does
not have a Facebook account. However, two days after this story was published, Zoom removed the code that sent data to Facebook."
I highly doubt they stopped sending data. It must be a huge financial reward for doing so. Today's internet is all about selling analytics
data. Glad I never jumped into that category because I don't think I
could live with myself.
THAT is incredibly unethical in the first place. So, they only stopped
it when they were outted.
I'm sure they're still sending the data, but in a more obfuscated
manner. Instead of sending directly to Facebook, they fetch the data to their own servers and batch it from there.
Pathetic.
Quite, but this is today's internet. And that's why I still use BBS's
now more than ever.
The whole Protonmail article is a big revelation on Zoom and their practices. It even has tips for using it (if you must) better.
I recall reading somewhere that protonmail's encryption is so advanced that it's the only service the NSA hasn't been able to decrypt. I'm too lazy to fact check that bit though, so it could be overinflated.
Happy Zooming - if you dare.
I really don't think any of those services keep the data private. I'm
sure they're all guilty.
... Visit me at: gopher://gcpp.world
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (1:340/7)
Has anyone used Jitsi?
It's a free software alternative to Zoom. Seems a more secure one
which is better for those with privacy concerns.
My daughters school was using Zoom, but changed to another platform
due to privacy and security concerns.
Richard Menedetter wrote to Borax Man <=-
Hi Borax!
01 May 2020 22:10, from Borax Man -> Daniel:
Has anyone used Jitsi?
yes
It's a free software alternative to Zoom. Seems a more secure one
which is better for those with privacy concerns.
It works great, and I love it.
CU, Ricsi
... If you don't go to other men's funerals, they won't go to yours.
--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: Squirrel: Just a tree rat with a good PR agent. (2:310/31)
I'm trying to get others onto it, but it is hard when they struggle
with software as it is, and consider zoom the "default".
Richard Menedetter wrote to Borax Man <=-
Hi Borax!
01 May 2020 22:29, from Borax Man -> Richard Menedetter:
I'm trying to get others onto it, but it is hard when they struggle
with software as it is, and consider zoom the "default".
You can also use the WebRTC Browser version without any additional software. Security wise Jitsi makes much more sense.
CU, Ricsi
... The reason why I work so hard is because I'm too nervous to steal.
--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: Out of my mind. Back in five minutes. (2:310/31)
You can also use the WebRTC Browser version without anyWebRTC is an API? Seems there is browser support.
additional software. Security wise Jitsi makes much more sense.
Having browsers as all-purpose software platforms is really an abuse
of the browser.
Curses to the man who man who thought you could use
the web to create apps!
Richard Menedetter wrote to Borax Man <=-
Hi Borax!
Richard Menedetter wrote to Borax Man <=-
Hi Borax!
02 May 2020 19:31, from Borax Man -> Richard Menedetter:
You can also use the WebRTC Browser version without anyWebRTC is an API? Seems there is browser support.
additional software. Security wise Jitsi makes much more sense.
yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC
Having browsers as all-purpose software platforms is really an abuse
of the browser.
I completely disagree.
It is not ABuse but intelligent USE!
Curses to the man who man who thought you could use
the web to create apps!
Why curse that genius?
CU, Ricsi
... He was so narrow-minded he could see through a keyhole with both
eyes! --- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: An ass thinks one thing, his rider another. (2:310/31)
Richard Menedetter wrote to Borax Man <=-
Hi Borax!
please sign your messages with your real name if your software cannot put it in the From line... thank you...
fidonet INTERNET echo moderator
I completely disagree.They were never designed to be application platforms.
It is not ABuse but intelligent USE!
That is why browsers take gigabytes of ram and need modern computers.
All that functionality has to be put into every browser, even if
someone just wants to render plain HTML.
Curses to the man who man who thought you could use
the web to create apps!
Why curse that genius?Because it solved the wrong problem.
The problem was cross platform graphical apps.
Browsers were abused to provide this
That is, you have a well documented API, and anyone can write
any program using it.
Why reinvent a graphical interface, when the OS already has one?
That is not correct.
They were not designed for it in the beginning.
They ARE designed for it for a long time.
For example ChromeOS runs all its apps in the browser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS
Yes ... it cannot compete with an implementation on hand optimized assembly. But it is a great solution for me.
I go to my website and can do videoconferences.
On Linux, Windows, whatever.
No need to install anything. GREAT!
Yes.
But as the same tech is used by HTML5 Websites, you NEED to include it anyways, otherwise you will not be able to view websites made in the last few years.
please sign your messages with your real name if your software
cannot put it in the From line... thank you...
fidonet INTERNET echo moderator
I didn't realise that was a requirement, that one not use a
pseudonym.
It is done automatically by the BBS. I'll see if I can change that.
Dennis Katsonis
They ARE designed for it for a long time.Yes, for a long time this mistake has festered.
The issue is that we are reimplementing gui elements over HTTP, and
this has meant having to bolt on functionality. I used to use quite a
few web based apps at work, now none. What used to be a web based apps
is now dedicated client programs using a crossplatform toolkit like
QT.
We will continue to see complex websites, such as YouTube, Jitsi,
there will always be rich web portals, but we will see fewer
applications unrelated to a website using browsers.
For example ChromeOS runs all its apps in the browser.Is it a proper OS, or an appliance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS
What I was referring to are things like web based Material Resource Management programs, Quality Management programs and other enterprise applications.
But naturally I agree that huge specialized applications can be
better optimized if they are local apps.
But something like this is still extremely powerful:
https://www.freephototool.com/
But something like this is still extremely powerful:How does that place benefit from offering it free?
https://www.freephototool.com/
Maybe something is afoot!
Richard Menedetter wrote to Borax Man <=-
Hi Borax!
03 May 2020 07:20, from Borax Man -> Richard Menedetter:
They ARE designed for it for a long time.Yes, for a long time this mistake has festered.
We agree to disagree :)
The issue is that we are reimplementing gui elements over HTTP, and
this has meant having to bolt on functionality. I used to use quite a
few web based apps at work, now none. What used to be a web based apps
is now dedicated client programs using a crossplatform toolkit like
QT.
I did not mean that it is the best solution for everything.
But there are a lot of really, really good usecases.
We will continue to see complex websites, such as YouTube, Jitsi,
there will always be rich web portals, but we will see fewer
applications unrelated to a website using browsers.
I do not know.
99% of the programs I use privately are browser and terminal.
I used to use a specialized mailclient, now I use webmail.
For example ChromeOS runs all its apps in the browser.Is it a proper OS, or an appliance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS
I do not use it, so I am not that familiar.
But it seems that it is a small linux system, where linux is hidden,
and the only shell is the browser.
It is used to view webpages and to run applications.
What I was referring to are things like web based Material Resource Management programs, Quality Management programs and other enterprise applications.
At work we have a lot of webapps.
Most of them are not very well made.
But usually because they did not put in a lot of effort, or they used really bad SAP Webthingy (whatever that is called.)
But naturally I agree that huge specialized applications can be better optimized if they are local apps.
But something like this is still extremely powerful: https://www.freephototool.com/
CU, Ricsi
... It is better to have a permanent income that to be fascinating.
--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: A friend is someone who knows me and likes me anyway. (2:310/31)
mark lewis wrote to Borax Man <=-
Re: Re: Zoom anyone?
By: Borax Man to mark lewis on Sat May 02 2020 21:44:53
please sign your messages with your real name if your software
cannot put it in the From line... thank you...
fidonet INTERNET echo moderator
I didn't realise that was a requirement, that one not use a
pseudonym.
yeah, most fidonet echos require/desire/request real names...
It is done automatically by the BBS. I'll see if I can change that.
generally speaking, BBSes have a sysop maintained configuration setting for each message area whether to use the alias or the real name of the poster... this doesn't really work if the user signed up and used just
an alias or used an alias and a "fake name"... it is what it is, in
this day and time, though... easiest to just sign the post with your
real name ;)
Dennis Katsonis
thanks, dennis... it is nice to meet you :)
)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
I go to my website and can do videoconferences.[snip]
On Linux, Windows, whatever.
No need to install anything. GREAT!
And simply pointing your browser at a URL to start your videoconference
is a GREAT way, when compared to having to install a dedicated app for something that you might only use occasionally.
To be honest, I'm just annoyed that things got to a state where I struggled with a Pentium-M 1.66 GHz with 1G of ram to view basic
webpages.
There is good reason to put applications over the internet, but it shouldn't have been over "HTTP", which is to transfer HyperText.
Perhaps something like "ATP", Application Transfer Protocol should
have been developed (which could use HTTP as a subset), allowing the functionality available in freephototool, but also allowing HTTP to be implemented in a more pure, simpler fashion.
It is prudent to not allow web apps control hardware on your pc:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/07/apple_safari_camera_hack/
I recently bought a Pinebook Pro..
A very low end laptop based on th pine SoC.
(Arm 2 big cores + 4 little cores with 4 GB RAM)
I like it very much, as it has enough horsepower for 99% of the
things I do, and it has a really long battery life.
I usually have 2-3 terminal windows open, and 2-3 Firefox Windows.
But one of them contains more than 100 tabs. (I now I am insane)
It performs nicely.
There is good reason to put applications over the internet, butit De> shouldn't have been over "HTTP", which is to transfer
HyperText. De> Perhaps something like "ATP", Application Transfer
Protocol should De> have been developed (which could use HTTP as a
subset), allowing the De> functionality available in freephototool,
but also allowing HTTP to be De> implemented in a more pure, simpler fashion.
I am using Golded ony my worklaptop over shellinabox over a HTTPS connection. Works really nicely, and I can also use it when I am
logged into the company VPN.
CU, Ricsi
... Recession: your neighbour looses his job; depression: you do. --- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: High message: 943432 - Message you last read: 59 (2:310/31)
I have again learned a new word (prudent roughly equal to intelligent I guess).
Here the camera is secured by a slider, that you need to slide manually over,
otherwise you get a black video. Additionally you have a hardware LED that is
lit when the camera is active.
If you want to have a video conference you need to allow video access. And I
do not see the difference weather I allow access to the browser or a specialzed app like teams or zoom.
When I go with the browser to my https secured webpoage with Jitsi that I set
up, and it asks me to allow video access, I feel quit safe.
Hi August!
09 May 2020 23:13, from August Abolins -> Richard Menedetter:
It is prudent to not allow web apps control hardware on your pc:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/07/apple_safari_camera_hack/
I have again learned a new word (prudent roughly equal to intelligent I guess).
Here the camera is secured by a slider, that you need to slideA few years ago, I read that there was a way to disable the LED light
manually over, otherwise you get a black video. Additionally you
have a hardware LED that is lit when the camera is active.
yet enable the camera.
A few years ago, I read that there was a way to disable the LED light
yet enable the camera.
This depends on how the hardware is realized.
Current HW should be fine. (and you also have the mechanical slider)
BTW. it is the same with the microphone, only that you do not even have a LED or slider :)
To be honest, I'm just annoyed that things got to a state where I
struggled with a Pentium-M 1.66 GHz with 1G of ram to view basic webpages.
That and I remember having to provide support for web apps which required not just IE, but a specific version of IE, because people in their wisdom thought to use browser and version specific extensions. I simply can't accept a status quo where so much computing power is needed for simple tasks, it's just not justifiable. There MUST be a design error in there somewhere. I get why things are the way they are and the arguments to a degree make sense. But still, what we have now is from people deciding to push technology past its design.
There is good reason to put applications over the internet, but it shouldn't have been over "HTTP", which is to transfer HyperText. Perhaps something like "ATP", Application Transfer Protocol should have been developed (which could use HTTP as a subset), allowing the functionality available in freephototool, but also allowing HTTP to be implemented in a more pure, simpler fashion.
This depends on how the hardware is realized.Have you seen the documentary of Snowden, "Citizenfour"? (At least I *think* that's the one) There is a scene where he specifically
Current HW should be fine. (and you also have the mechanical
slider)
explains why the mics and cameras on pcs can't be trusted. This is
coming from a guy who would not purposely allow his computer to get hacked and therefore is probably safe from hacking. Despite that, he disassembles that hardware - and only uses external devices when required.
August Abolins wrote to Dennisk <=-
Hello Dennisk!
** On Monday 04.05.20 - 11:08, Dennisk wrote to Richard Menedetter:
At first, I was proud of myself when I managed to build up my Win ME pc
to a point where I could burn MP3 CDs, configure the pc as a "server" providing a gateway to the internet (poking holes in the firewall) for
a couple of other pcs on my network, tweek the settings to get very
close to the 2GB max ram that the pc harware supported, use it to
support via remote control, and a few other things - all the while
still only having dialup!
But a new reality gradually creeped in when some websites wouldn't cooperate with the current browser I was using. And newer versions of browsers simply weren't available for WinME. :(
I managed to overcome that limitation by installing Ubuntu. The pc
worked reasonably well for a couple years after that. But the max 2GB
ram proved to be a limitation after a few more Ubuntu updates. And
again, the browser program was the first sign of "not good enough".
I don't know what they're doing on Facebook, but it takes at least 15 seconds to load the main page while it takes another 15 secs for all
the tracking shit to settle down before I can succeed to do my first PG DN. And this is using a modest 3Mbps 4G/3G mobile data service via my
cell phone as a hotspot. Consequently, I rarely bother with FB
anymore.
Win Me? Oh, I still feel the scars from that OS, and I didn't
even use it, just provides a little support for it. I moved to
Linux in 2000, gradually.
I managed to overcome that limitation by installing Ubuntu. The
pc worked reasonably well for a couple years after that. But
the max 2GB ram proved to be a limitation after a few more
Ubuntu updates. And again, the browser program was the first
sign of "not good enough".
An alternative was simply to never update your OS, which is what
I did. It did mean not updating browsers, and software as well,
but I was able to use Red Hat Linux 7.3 up until 2009 on a
700MHz machine with 384M RAM. I don't do that now, as its
probably not a good practice.
I don't know what they're doing on Facebook, but it takes at
least 15 seconds to load the main page while it takes another
15 secs for all the tracking shit to settle down..
I think part of it is that the HTTP protocol wasn't designed to
handle small packets of traffic going back and forth...
FB is horrible design. I joined because someone was too lazy to
simply send e-mails.
A good example of design is the D Language
Forum at forum.dlang.org. It's web based, simple and FAST.
But
better still, it's actually a front end to an NNTP backend, so
you can use a newgroup reader to access it as well. Good use of
existing technology to solve a problem. This is the way it
should be done.
BTW I also have a Pinebook Pro and a Pinephone.
Both have physical switches for the camera and Microphone ;)
BTW2 do not really use the Pinephone, just bought it out of curiosity.
But I use the Pinebook Pro regularly! ;)
Speaking of lowcost laptops, I discovered this article, and it
mentions on a sidenote that the Pinebook is passivley cooled (ie. no
fan)
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/we-bought-walmarts-140-laptop-
so- you-wouldnt-have-to/
How long have you had your Pinebook Pro now?
Any shortcomings so far?
August Abolins wrote to Richard Menedetter <=-
Hello Richard!
** On Thursday 14.05.20 - 08:01, Richard Menedetter wrote to August Abolins:
BTW I also have a Pinebook Pro and a Pinephone.
Both have physical switches for the camera and Microphone ;)
BTW2 do not really use the Pinephone, just bought it out of curiosity.
But I use the Pinebook Pro regularly! ;)
Speaking of lowcost laptops, I discovered this article, and it mentions
on a sidenote that the Pinebook is passivley cooled (ie. no fan)
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/06/we-bought-walmarts-140-laptop-so
-
you-wouldnt-have-to/
How long have you had your Pinebook Pro now?
Any shortcomings so far?
Hello!
Which brings me to the next question. How much data would a typical connection consume in one minute?
On Fri 10-Apr-2020 10:45a, August Abolins@2:221/1.58 wrote:
Which brings me to the next question. How much data would a
typical connection consume in one minute?
Your asking this question because you using dialup?
Hi Phillip! 01 Nov 20 00:56, you wrote to me:
On Fri 10-Apr-2020 10:45a, August Abolins@2:221/1.58 wrote:
Which brings me to the next question. How much data would a
typical connection consume in one minute?
Your asking this question because you using dialup?I am using mobile data. It is not "unlimited". Every Kb counts.
Hi Phillip! 01 Nov 20 00:56, you wrote to me:
On Fri 10-Apr-2020 10:45a, August Abolins@2:221/1.58 wrote:
Which brings me to the next question. How much data
would a typical connection consume in one minute?
Your asking this question because you using dialup?
I am using mobile data. It is not "unlimited". Every Kb counts.
It's directly tied to the packet sizes if you're strictly
speaking of the transfer.
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,033 |
Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
Uptime: | 216:57:09 |
Calls: | 529 |
Calls today: | 23 |
Files: | 95,154 |
D/L today: |
4,462 files (645M bytes) |
Messages: | 298,901 |
Posted today: | 12 |