mumble-web VS libpeer

Cool project anyone reading this may be interested in:

https://github.com/Johni0702/mumble-web

I've never used it but it should make having a p2p conversation through Mumble as easy as pointing your browser to some URL. UX matters (Mumble clients, including mobile apps, are not very user friendly last time i checked: they require some level of skill to use them)

Unmaintained for the last 4 years, sadly.

Mumble 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

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.

Mumble-web

I would also recommend Matrix with the Element client, but if you'd prefer something else, there's mumble-web, a web client for Mumble. I tested it out a couple months ago, and it works pretty well, but it took forever to figure out how to set it up. Just another option in case you don't like the others.

Nice project. For server side mixing, how hard would be to integrate Jam with Mumble? There is a Github repository that does it: https://github.com/Johni0702/mumble-web

I am really excited about https://github.com/sepfy/libpeer. It has examples ready for ESP32 etc....

When working on KVS I wasn't familiar with the embedded space at all. I saw 'heavyweight' embedded where you were running on Linux. Then you had RTOS/No OS at all. I wasn't prepared for these devices at all. If we can make WebRTC work in the embedded space I think it will really accelerate what developers are able to build!

Remotely driven cars, security cameras, robots in hospitals that bring iPads to infectious patients etc... Creative people are building amazing things. The WebRTC/video space needs to work harder and support them :)

-----

I love how diverse the WebRTC space is now. Outside of this implementation you have plenty of other options!

* https://github.com/shinyoshiaki/werift-webrtc (Typescript)

* https://github.com/pion/webrtc (Golang)

* https://github.com/webrtc-rs/webrtc (Rust)

* https://github.com/algesten/str0m (Rust)

* hhttps://github.com/sepfy/libpeer (C/Embedded)

* https://webrtc.googlesource.com/src/ (C++)

* https://github.com/sipsorcery-org/sipsorcery (C#)

* https://github.com/paullouisageneau/libdatachannel (C++)

* https://github.com/elixir-webrtc (Elixir)

* https://github.com/aiortc/aiortc (Python)

* GStreamer’s webrtcbin (C)

See https://github.com/sipsorcery/webrtc-echoes for examples of some running against each other.

I am experimenting based on the pear project (https://github.com/sepfy/pear) and using the clumsy tool to simulate the case of dropping packets.

A simple C implementation to stream H.264 to browser using WebRTC\ (61 comments)

I think there's some truth in what as-j is saying. Rust binaries (and C++ ones) tend to be larger than C ones. I think the major reasons are (a) Rust dependencies being statically linked due to a lack of ABI stability, (b) inclusion of portions of the (statically linked, see a) Rust standard library used by the program where C code uses libc, (c) code bloat due to monomorphization, (d) the ease of just using a full-featured library where someone writing in C might cheat a little bit. As an example of what I mean by the last point, see sdp_attribute_get_answer in this codebase. [1] It's writing JSON, but it doesn't use a JSON library that actually escapes the included string. It just assumes the included string doesn't have a quote character in it. Is that assumption valid? Will it always be valid? I'm not sure on quick inspection.

There are ways around all of these:

* a. Static vs dynamic linkage: in an embedded system, it'd be reasonable to just produce a single userspace binary that does everything. It can change its behavior based on argv[0]. I think this is not too unusual for constrained systems even with C binaries. Eg busybox does it. If you only have one binary, you don't need dynamic linking. Also, I think it's not strictly true that Rust doesn't support dynamic linking. I think you can dynamically link everything if you ensure the whole system is built with the same compiler version.

* b. Standard library. You don't have to use it at all, or you can use it sparingly, paying only for what you use.

* c. Monomorphization. You could write (for example) a Go-like map [2] rather than relying so heavily on monomorphization. I'd love to see someone take this idea as far as possible; it might be a good idea for a lot of non-inner-loop code in general, not just on tight embedded systems.

* d. Using full-featured libraries. Obviously no one is making you do this; the same cheats available in C are available in Rust.

but in fairness, the further you go down this path, the further you are from just being able to just take advantage of the whole Rust ecosystem.

Personally, I'd still rather develop or use a #![no_std] Rust codebase than a C one. Memory safety is important to me. IOT devices are no exception to that. Their security is historically horrible but I'd like to change that.

[1] https://github.com/sepfy/pear/blob/b984c8dccaafdcdd1b181786a...

[2] https://dave.cheney.net/2018/05/29/how-the-go-runtime-implem...