Open Source Videoconferencing As An Alternative?

[B]

I decided to look at the remote control issue from another angle, and revisited some open source videoconferencing.

Several packages <b>include</b> "desktop sharing" which I think is essentially similar to what VNC does. Most rely on Java for the desktop sharing, which a web based Flash portal. There's also some weirdness converting screen images into a video stream.

These are all server-based, which makes them comparable in installation and management difficulty to some of our repeater-based VNC projects and portals and to places like TeamViewer and GoToMeeting. Obviously, the audio and video conferencing and whiteboard would be "value added" features above our ordinary VNC needs for remote control, chat, and file transfer.

Can anyone comment on these, and/or specifically on their use as remote control apps? I've tried the OpenMeetings demo site, but it doesn't seem to have its desktop sharing feature enabled.


Free/open source videoconferencing projects with desktop sharing features:

http://code.google.com/p/openmeetings/

http://www.vmukti.com/ (aka 1videoconference; open source deprecated?)

http://sourceforge.net/projects/vmukti/

http://code.google.com/p/red5-screenshare/


Others (may also do desktop sharing):


http://code.google.com/p/bigbluebutton/

https://www.webhuddle.com/

http://www.dimdim.com/community/opensource.html (deprecated)


Predictably, both VMukti and DimDim, hybrid commercial open source businesses, have begun blowing off, hiding, or ignoring their "community editions". Possible also true of http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/openfire/ which borrowed some code or ideas from OpenMeetings.

For more traditional videoconferencing via a SIP PBX, there's http://www.freeswitch.org and probably some Asterisk-based solutions too, but these would all require a SIP or h.323 software clients.

Anyhow, I'd appreciate any light folks can shed on these applications.

[B]

Not a single response yet. Sad.

Meanwhile, I've gotten around to trying WebHuddle and I'm <b>very</b> impressed. It's <b>FAST</b> on my ancient test hardware and using their remote demo server... and it's running as a <b>Java</b> applet no less!

That's, that's... nearly impossible.

Definitely does full desktop view sharing (almost by default?) even though it's running in the browser. I don't think it does remote control; "Currently, WebHuddle does not support remote control via desktop sharing."

They're very multiplatform too -- even works with the old, old, old Microsoft Java!

https://www.webhuddle.com/xplatformpage.jsp

This is a nice package and seems to run a LOT faster than OpenMeetings (which relies on Flash).

For some reason the web site documentation is a bit sparse, but I found a manual at http://groups.drupal.org/files/webhuddle_0.pdf

This one does VoIP teleconferencing (1 speaker at a time only?) but I don't <i>think</i> it's intended for video.

It was somewhat of a "sleeper hit" for me -- based on what I'd read I wasn't even inclined to check it out at first. I like it!

BigBlueButton was nice too. I may have to set up test servers for all of these.... some day.

[shadowfax]

Hi,

I would like to see NX protocol ported to Windows, as it seems to be much faster than the RFB protocol. In order to integrate VoIP I think it would be easier to use some VoIP libraries such as PJSIP (or a command line SIP phone) and bind it to the application. This would, however, require an aditional server such as Asterisk.

Videoconferencing software is aimed at what the name describes: videoconferencing and not for remote control. Most of this software is usually focused in a one-to-may videoconferencing in order to offer eLearning and such things. I would say this is not an alternative to a VNC + proxy/reflector setup but the way to go. However I don't really think videoconferencing applications would be an alternative to VNC or VNC + repeater setups. That is my humble opinion any way.

I've always thought that each application -including Operating Systems- have their strengths and their weaknesses. The developper focuses on some points they feel that shall be strong and all the rest comes in as nicelly integrated as possible. Also, different developpers hace different point of views; for example, in an OS a developper can be more considerate with the administrator or the user. In a Windows enviroment the Administrator can change thing on a user account but he will need to take control over the files, threfore the user will know the administrator peeked at them, while in Linux "root" could peek at the files and the user would be unaware. These are two different approaches, policies, or whatever you wish to call them.

VNC - Videoconferencing is similar. In videoconferencing I would focus on multicasting since I would like to have many viewers connected without wasting so much bandwidth, while this would be unreasonable on a VNC server since the main goal is to take control of a remote machine and many people taking care of the same machine would be cahotic (Unless you are willing to create something like Terminal Server). However you should stay away of multicasting. The only similarity would be if you set up VNC server for multiple viewers but without input but, in that case, Why use VNC and not a multiconferencing tool? I think each application has it's use. Certainly VNC can do that, but that's not it's goal. I feel the same way when talking about making a multiconferencing application take control of a computer.

[B]

Me too, but it's unlikely to happen from what I understand, since NX is based entirely on accelerating X displays, which of course don't exist natively in Windows. NX is much closer to RDP than RFB in concept, I think, since it uses "vector" information about windows and positioning rather than straight screen bitmaps...

So if anything I would guess it would be a lot easier to incorporate RDP into VNC before NX.

Not sure why you mention VoIP? Personally I don't think VNC needs it, and most all the conferencing apps already have it (some with Asterisk)...

I mostly agree with your "each application has its role" philosophy, but if something happens to work and works well, I would quickly abandon that philosophy. I'm not bowled over with the remote control capabilities or stability or security of the current VNCs, so I was wondering what the videoconferencing packages had to offer. You never know where you can uncover some valuable (and possibly borrowable/transferable) functionality.

[shadowfax]

I mentioned VoIP since it's included in most videoconferencing or multiconferencing software and I find it nice. I find it nice since I mostly use VNC for remote support and sometimes it would be neat to have VoIP coded into de VNC in order to talk with the other end. I usually keep a phone conversation while in control of the remote desktop and I know I could use third-party software such as a softphone, but it would be nice if everything got packed in a single executable like it's dome in Teamviewer and such applications. I would certainly find it usefull if a single click package wouldn't get too large.

I agree when you say if something works and works good why not use it even if the use you are doing of it doesn't fit it's role. Somehow that's what happened with VNC and the proxy/reflector. I would even agree if you had said that, sometimes, if something works -although not as fine as other alternatives- but it fits your budget, it's fine to use it. However, when I use an application that does the job but it isn't focused on that job I don't feel quite condifent. The reason is that the application can suffer modifications which will performed towards it's primary goal and you can find that, at a certain point, it will stop doing what you intended to use it for or it could start working not so nicelly and you end up where you started, loosing time searching for a new application that fullfills your needs. That's the main reason I tend to keep away from applications that hold a different philosophy than the one I'm interested in, although it could seem to work. If it works, I usually use it temporarilly but would search around for a better alternative.

I haven't looked into NX protocol specifications that much but I thought it was somekind of proxy between the XWindows and the client making it "lighter" for the network. Neither have I looked in depth into RDP, but I thought RDP would hook windows calls in order to send repaint events when a change has been present, keeping cache of windows (as it would be window aware by subclassing windows calls) and so on. Subclassing the platform calls could make it fast, but it would be platform specific.

[B]

I'm a big fan of LogMeInFree, so I'm surprised I missed their free conferencing solution, "join.me".

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20032134-233.html

Okay, I don't think it does videoconferencing yet -- they recently added VoIP -- but it DOES include the ability to allow a participant to remotely control your computer... so it makes sense to mention it here.

Their FAQ actually makes the following recommendation:

"Can I let others take control of my machine?
You can let one participant at a time control your screen. Want to help someone use their computer? Ask them to start a meeting and give you control."

A little inconvenient perhaps, but not a bad approach, and certainly easier than trying to support a new or one-time user via LogMeInFree (which requires that you login to your admin account -- or at least disclose your credentials to the end user -- in order to install the server component on the target machine).

And most all functions are available on an ad hoc basis, with no pre-registration or signups.

Sounds good...

[B]

And another one getting good reviews, http://mikogo.com . Apparently very full featured AND can be legitimately used in a commercial setting? I haven't tried it yet. One review (including a shout-out to ChunkVNC in the comments) is at http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-fr ... ftware.htm