3 ms·
You cannot self-host those. Instead, how is it better than Jitsi and Mumble, given that they are already well tested and widespread?
by goodpoint 5y ago
You cannot self-host those.
Instead, how is it better than Jitsi and Mumble, given that they are already well tested and widespread?
- tosh 5y agoIn the beginning we actually were looking at whether we can use Jitsi for the audio part of Jam and just focus on the ui but Jitsi is huge and difficult to get into so we (arguably) naively started from scratch and then had to solve many problems that Jitsi probably already solves (?). That said: if you are looking for something that has room concepts close to Clubhouse or Twitter Spaces (you see who is in the room, who is speaking, you can move people between audience and stage and so on) and an easy way to add those rooms to existing (web) or mobile apps then Jam is great out of the box. If you are looking for screen sharing or video then Jitsi is a better starting point right now I think. Mumble I am not very familiar with but it looks interesting. As far as I understand it is not web based but like Jam it also is p2p and uses opus for audio (low latency, high quality)? Perhaps someone who knows Mumble can do a comparison.
- im_dario 5y agoMumble isn't exactly P2P. It has a server (murmurd) that handles all the streams. I think it could work as SFU. And, actually, there is a web frontend: https://github.com/Johni0702/mumble-web https://github.com/Johni0702/mumble-web Your use of Opus and the option to run a SFU makes this a suitable replacement of Mumble for meetings, like in the Pirate Parties around the world. We are heavy users of Mumble.