3 ms·

> Do you really want the basic ability for two devices to talk to each other depend on something that goes over the internet? Set up your hosts file or edit th

> Do you really want the basic ability for two devices to talk to each other depend on something that goes over the internet? Set up your hosts file or edit the js to point at a local server. Of course, if you're in China you'd get in trouble making connections to an outside STUN server but if you're in China you're in trouble making connections to the outside anyways, and the STUN connection is probably the least of your worries. > just to use those poor imitations of sockets ... that work across NATs without issues, as opposed to real sockets... --- In any case, WebRTC doesn't strictly speaking need discovery servers at all. See http://blog.printf.net/articles/2013/05/17/webrtc-without-a-signaling-server/ http://blog.printf.net/articles/2013/05/17/webrtc-without-a-... It still uses STUN for public-ip discovery, but comments indicate that can be bypassed by just configuring the connection to use a local IP for STUN. Unsurprisingly, not many people seem to actually care about that.

the8472 10y ago
> that work across NATs without issues You say that as if stun didn't exist in the udp/tcp realm. bittorrent clients in fact engage in serverless stun by using mutually reachable peers. real sockets are strictly more powerful than webrtc, period. Also, that argument is becoming more and more obsolete as ipv6 adoption increases. And again, this is not about utility, it's about control and freedom. > In any case, WebRTC doesn't strictly speaking need discovery servers at all. Even if you don't use a server you need to exchange one-time connection tokens out of band. You can't re-establish connections at a later point either. And it does not support multicast either. So no, you can't just have devices talk to each other. Anyway, you're not even responding to my central argument. Web content is not a substitute for unfettered native access because you need native access to things (e.g. running a server) to even be able to run web content.
- throwanem 10y ago
  I love that you consider trivial the extrapolation from "Microsoft bans emulators in Xbone and Windows Store" to "no one can run nginx without authorization".
  - the8472 10y ago
    On windows store, not just on xbox. The next steps need no imagination, they already happened on other platforms, see the iphone or windows RT. For all intents and purposes they are general purpose computing devices but everything needs to be approved by a single vendor. > "no one can run nginx without authorization". Your freedom does not end when the last person on earth who could run nginx cannot do so any longer. It ceases when you can't do it on the device you own on a whim of a 3rd party.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Yes, and if you're so monomaniacal about freedom as to utterly neglect everything else, that's a serious concern.

the8472 10y ago

> that work across NATs without issues You say that as if stun didn't exist in the udp/tcp realm. bittorrent clients in fact engage in serverless stun by using mutually reachable peers. real sockets are strictly more powerful than webrtc, period. Also, that argument is becoming more and more obsolete as ipv6 adoption increases. And again, this is not about utility, it's about control and freedom. > In any case, WebRTC doesn't strictly speaking need discovery servers at all. Even if you don't use a server you need to exchange one-time connection tokens out of band. You can't re-establish connections at a later point either. And it does not support multicast either. So no, you can't just have devices talk to each other. Anyway, you're not even responding to my central argument. Web content is not a substitute for unfettered native access because you need native access to things (e.g. running a server) to even be able to run web content.

throwanem 10y ago
I love that you consider trivial the extrapolation from "Microsoft bans emulators in Xbone and Windows Store" to "no one can run nginx without authorization".
- the8472 10y ago
  On windows store, not just on xbox. The next steps need no imagination, they already happened on other platforms, see the iphone or windows RT. For all intents and purposes they are general purpose computing devices but everything needs to be approved by a single vendor. > "no one can run nginx without authorization". Your freedom does not end when the last person on earth who could run nginx cannot do so any longer. It ceases when you can't do it on the device you own on a whim of a 3rd party.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Yes, and if you're so monomaniacal about freedom as to utterly neglect everything else, that's a serious concern.