Jitsi Meet
-
Seriously! I just installed Kopano to see how it works. Thanks to you all for getting that ready...but the version installed by Cloudron requires everyone to sign in with a Kopano account (there is a message "This group is protected - a user account is required to join."). With the people with whom I am thinking of using a group video solution, getting them all to make a Kopano account, not lose the details, and still then login... won't work. OR, could a tweak be made on the Cloudon Kopano app so that guests just need the link to join?
-
@scooke said in Jitsi Meet:
OR, could a tweak be made on the Cloudon Kopano app so that guests just need the link to join?
Yes, that could definitely be configured. Meet itself supports it, it simply that the Cloudron app so far has not generated much interest, therefore I did not spend any further time on it.
-
@fbartels Thank you for responding. I think what with the lockdown and all, having a solution like Kopano and just a link for others to join, would be wonderful. I just tried to join a group using Zoom, and after clicking the link to join on my Mac (Chrome) and my two iOS devices, I was prompted to download and install the Zoom app to join, "for free". No thanks.
-
It would be really be great to get Jitsi on Cloudron
Two questions:
- What are the differences between Kopano and Jitsi...it seems to me the tech is similar, but one you need to install an account to use which is not as good (Kopano)
- What are the limitation of using the meet.jit.si, i.e. is running our own instance improve performance
Sorry for my ignorance...
-
How about keeping Kopano talk to it’s own topic?
-
@scooke said in Jitsi Meet:
I think what with the lockdown and all, having a solution like Kopano and just a link for others to join, would be wonderful.
Yes, I know. We have been flooded with requests over the past week, even doing some priorities development on a sfu (like the videobridge of jitsi) for some schools.
@avatar1024 said in Jitsi Meet:
What are the differences between Kopano and Jitsi...it seems to me the tech is similar, but one you need to install an account to use which is not as good (Kopano)
Yes, the general purpose is similar and in the end both require the additional setup of a turn service (Kopano customers can request access to a hosted turn service, which is included in the subscription). Kopano Meet has a newer more modern architecture (its also substantially younger than Jitsi, which as a company has been acquired and sold on a few times already). One of the main differences for the end user is that with Jitsi you need to install additional apps on your phone and on your desktop you need additional extensions for screensharing. Kopano Meet on the other hand is designed as a PWA, which means even though its a webpage it will offer itself to be installed as an app on devices supporting this (which is iOS, Chrome and Firefox on Android and Chrome, Firefox and Edge on the desktop). The installed app automatically refreshes if the code on the server is updated. For calling and screensharing native browser apis are used which means no need to install further software either.
Like I said guest access is just a matter of configuration, the app just has not been setup to do this automatically. The instructions for this are located at https://documentation.kopano.io/kopano_meet_manual/special_configuration.html#enabling-guest-users-for-meeting-rooms
Edit: if someone is interested in sponsoring the work needed to implement and test guest mode in the app you can reach me at felix@9wd.eu. I'll do my best to make the individual contributions as transparent as possible (or anonymous of the contributor prefers that).
-
@yusf Agreed!
@fbartels Thanks for the info and for your work on thisIs there any news on the state of the Jitsi app?
And again, does anyone know what is the actual limitation of using the meet.jit.si domain? And would running Jitsi on our own Cloudron improve performance?
Many thanks
-
@avatar1024 said in Jitsi Meet:
would running Jitsi on our own Cloudron improve performance?
Assuming enough resources are dedicated to it, then yes it should perform better than that shared free service.
-
@avatar1024 Hi @avatar1024 , I just went through the install process for Jitsi Meet, thinking it would be different/better than Zoom or Kopano. However, I am not convinced it is. A few things: 1) The other users STILL need to download the Jitsi app to connect. I tried on an iPhone 6, an iPad, a Pixel phone, and Chrome on my Mac and every one needed to download the Jitsi app to connect. 1A) the Jitsi app is not intuitive. The user has to enter the full url of the chat not just the room name. 2) The install (self-installed using https://jitsi.org/news/new-tutorial-installing-jitsi-meet-on-your-own-linux-server/) leaves you with a Jitsi server that is wide open to the internet. ANYONE who finds the url can start their own chat. Switching this to a authentication approach is long and convulated and requires installing Proxody and some other apps and making another virtual host using yet another subdomain... reading https://community.jitsi.org/t/easiest-way-to-secure-jitsi-meet/21330/43 led me to think it was "easy" but I did not find it so. 3) the pixel, iPad (2018) and Mac connected fine... the iPhone 6 couldn't maintain a connection and the app crashed every time, so somehow only newer mobiles seem to work.
The only good thing I can say was the base install went fine, using a OpenVZ VPS with 2.5 GB ram. I wish I could say it is easier or better than Zoom or Kopano, but I haven't not found it so. Assuming that Kopano can allow guests to join with just a browser (and not an app like Zoom or Jitsi), and isn't wide open like Jitsi Meet is (without extra extra extra steps), then Kopano might be the dark horse of self-hosted group video chats.
-
@nebulon I'm finding that for many of these chat apps the idea that promote the idea that "people can join so long as they have the room URL" are misleading because it isn't as simple as needing the URL... they end up needing the app too. I went and installed Jitsi Meet to see if it was true, and it wasn't. The four devices used all had to download the Jitsi Meet app. Maybe I'm the only one looking for a video chat solution that truly requires guests to have only the URL, but thus far Jitsi Meet and Zoom both need it. I am hoping that Kopano Meet doesn't, but as I've been reading about it it seems like a user needs to activate some other Turn service to allow guests from outside the network... still checking.
-
@scooke said in Jitsi Meet:
but as I've been reading about it it seems like a user needs to activate some other Turn service to allow guests from outside the network... still checking.
The admin always needs to configure a turn service, that is true for all webrtc based solutions (Jitsi, Nextcloud talk, ..). But once guest access is configured in Meet users do not need to install additional apps or extensions.
-
@fbartels Well, that's good news, if you could get this solution up to speed I think you'll get ahead of the pack... For various reasons I really don't like the "just the link is needed" promises which then require the participants to download an app to actually make it work.
-
@scooke Thank you for the reply. It is useful that you shared your experience. However as @yusf pointed out, if Jitsi was a Cloudron app then the set-up would be easy.
Now I'm not sure I agree with you on the usability, and this might be a matter of personal preference which I don't we should discussed back and forth on here. As long as you use a laptop, you indeed only need the URL with Jitsi and you do not need an app. So @nebulon is right on this. Only on a phone you need an app, and while the jitsi app is not perfect, it works fine. You do not need to enter the whole url, only room name works (by default it uses the meet.jit.si domain but you can change the server url in the settings to put your own). Personally, out of the other Free Software option out there, Jitsi stills seem the most mature, reliable and easy to use so it'd be a great addition to Cloudron (and indeed very needed currently).Do we know if anyone is working on this? (I wish I could contribute but I'm not a programmer sadly)
@jdaviescoates Thanks for the reply
-
For jitsi to work properly, we would need a coturn instance on Cloudron, which unfortunately has to run on port 80/443 to work reliably on public wifis (other ports are often blocked there). So far we haven't found a solution to make turn work with our nginx reverse proxy, which also has to run on the same ports. If anyone finds a solution here, which we can try, I am happy to give it a shot.
-
-
@nebulon said in Jitsi Meet:
For jitsi to work properly, we would need a coturn instance on Cloudron, which unfortunately has to run on port 80/443 to work reliably on public wifis (other ports are often blocked there)
Perhaps an interim solution would be to use other ports? I'm mean, it'd be great if people could join using open public WiFi, but I think in many use cases Jitsi not working on such networks wouldn't be too much of an issue. Eg. Like right now the need is for people in covid_19 coronavirus lockdown using their own private WiFi to be able to use it.
I note @iqweb has managed to install a coturn server on the same VPS as their Cloudron, for use with Nextcloud Talk, could that be part of the solution to getting Jitsi working too? https://forum.cloudron.io/post/4207
In Sweden, online conferencing has increased 500% over the last week. Properly configured selfhosted Jitsi servers could play an important role for these usecases and for months and months to come.
wish I could help, but have no idea!