←back to thread

279 points arkadiyt | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.484s | source
Show context
jwr ◴[] No.22662783[source]
I highly recommend using solutions based on WebRTC, which is present in all modern browsers and is really good (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFil-ZPE0-g for a comparison with Zoom).

Whereby (formerly appear.in) https://whereby.com/ has a really nice and simple system. No more jumping through a dozen hoops, no more installing software with glaring security holes and borderline malware behavior (looking at you, Zoom).

replies(2): >>22662842 #>>22667048 #
Quanttek ◴[] No.22662842[source]
How does WebRTC compare when you have a lot of callers (e.g. 20 people in a call)? From my understanding, it is p2p, so the network throughput required would be a lot higher, correct?
replies(4): >>22662904 #>>22663835 #>>22674875 #>>22683334 #
1. jwr ◴[] No.22662904[source]
TBH, I have no idea, I have done calls with up to 8 people only. I would be interested to know myself. Whereby seems to support up to 12 video streams, with the rest being audio-only.
replies(1): >>22663010 #
2. DyslexicAtheist ◴[] No.22663010[source]
we've been using jit.si in 2016 which worked well but it might be overloaded today idk. we hit some bottlenecks when trying to scale up and improved the situation by running our own jitsi instance on a DO droplet but that too would not scale to a large audience. I think that if you have more than 10 participants in the meeting then you have anyway other problems (the same issues when you have too many people in a f2f meeting).

from a technical pov I still wonder if running jitsi (or another similar solution) on dedicated hardware which is better tailored to a GPU intensive operation. This could then be easily deployed in-house (with all the benefits: full control and eliminating a lot of attack vectors). Seems like a cool problem to solve while in corona quarantine.