Am 27.10.21 um 11:04 schrieb Laura Smith:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 26th, 2021 at 01:38, <harrywea...@tutanota.com> wrote:
I wouldn't trust Zoom any further than I'd trust Skype.
Whilst there are certainly arguments for not trusting Zoom, I think perhaps we
need to take a step back here.
The reality is that whilst die-hard graybeard open-sourcers take an attitude that
"if its not open source it doesn't exist" we have to understand what a service
like Zoom (other similarly large commercial video conferencing platforms are available)
bring to the table.
In particular they bring two aspects:
1) User familiarity.
Let's face it, one thing COVID has done is exposed the entire world to the joys
(and frustrations) of web conferencing. The honest truth is that most people
will have been exposed multiple times to Zoom (and Teams, WebEx and other
commercial platorms), they'll already have the software on their devices and
become comfortable with its use.
2) Dealing with geographic dispersion.
The problem with small-scale (or DIY) conferencing is that you do not have the
worldwide presence. This means you cannot deliver a CDN style experience to
your delegates where they connect to low-latency to an in-country/in-region
datacentre and instead they have to connect accross the world to your server.
3) Zoom specific
If you have a paid Zoom account, there are various knobs and dials you can tweak in order
to help with some of the concerns generally thrown in the direction of Zoom (e.g "no
China datacentres", E2E encryption etc.). Not saying its perfect, but better than
nothing.
You frame the question as a puppet theater with "characters" tied to
specific organizations, and as commercial publicity (official or otherwise).
But you completely miss the point. So, let's face this (reusing and
amending your reductionist expression of blindfolding with incomplete
information).
Quality takes knowledge, effort and time.
If you accept low quality and get yourself and others used to it, people
will get used to low quality and we end up with a low quality ecosystem,
and then people learn to accept that as normal and even unchangeable,
even make rules and laws out of it (this includes monopols, e.g. patents
or NDAs etc.) and in the last consequence disturb the quality creators
with arms or other hassles. One last step might be to make a religion
out of it.
In such a scenario of degradation of quality anyone who produces a
degraded product will win the whole market due to economic
advantages/constraints and armed menacers as a backup against
unflinching creatives.
It's better to strive for quality instead of haste and
least-effort-fast-buck commodity.
Maybe one might accept a degraded product in an emergency situation as a
pre-alpha preview test with the associated risks to be amended as soon
as possible with real experts.
So, you missed to mention the MANY possible unintended consequences,
drawbacks and risks if you allow a potential trojan haste (sic!) in your
environment.
