I saw on boingboing a few days ago that there's now a country code reserved for Internet phones. I had a little difficulty understanding what that meant, but think I've got it now. Essentially, this is a way to bring VoIP phones into the standard phone number namespace. It is in this sense a dual of ENUM, which is a gateway to access the phone number namespace through DNS.
From what I can see, this new country code is being run by FWD (Free World Dialup). You register for a free account using a simple, straightforward Web form, and you get a number. Mine is 18408. Then, you point your SIP phone's config to the FWD server, register, and then when people query the FWD server for your number, they find your phone. For example, to reach my phone, dial sip:email@example.com (try it; I'll try to keep a phone app running).
This number also now exists in the POTS number namespace, but your phone company won't route to it yet because they're evil. As soon as public pressure overcomes their evilness, you'll be able to reach my VoIP phone simply by dialing 011 +87810 18408 from your US phone.
I think this is a huge step. To the extent that people can call your phone, it makes it practical to go VoIP only. Of course, you can do that today with a service such as Vonage, but that costs $40/month, and this is free.
From what I can gather, FWD is going to make a little money off "long distance charges" from phone companies that peer with them. I like this idea - it would seem to provide a revenue stream that would actively promote the use of VoIP phones. You can bet that the telcos are going to drag their heels as much as possible.
I think there's one more piece to this, which is phone cards. Even if your scumbag incumbent telco won't peer with FWD, you'll probably be able to shell out $20 for a phone card with a company that will. There's no reason why these companies can't provide service for a penny or two a minute. The standard phonecard service, after all, is basically two telco to Internet gateways joined back-to-back. Here, the caller just buys one of them. So this basically solves the problem of being callable by my Mom. All she has to dial is 1-800-call-crd, then a (typically 10 digit) pin, then 011 87810 18404. Only 34 digits, but at least she'll be able to reach me.
PC's running phone software don't make good phones. A dedicated piece of hardware is better. Even aside from the general flakiness of sound cards and drivers, phones are a lot better at ringing and being always on.
You can buy a phone like a Cisco ATA 186 for about $150 from eBay, but I think the price is going to come down to $50 or so once D-Link or Linksys gets into the game. Basically, it's the same gear as a phone with a built-in digital answering machine (AT&T brand $30 at Best Buy), plus a 10/100 Ethernet interface.
In any case, I tried out kphone and gnome-meeting again, and was successfully able to complete calls with both. I had trouble compiling GM 0.96, so no doubt I'll give it another go when I upgrade to RH 8.1.
I'm less impressed with kphone. I could receive audio ok but not transmit, so I took a look at the code to see what was wrong. The actual audio interface code is buggy and unsophisticated. One of the most basic problems is their use of usleep(0) to wait for the next timer tick for basic scheduling. This, of course, is hideously dependent on the details of the underlying kernel scheduler, and in any case, gives you very poor temporal resolution on PC hardware. Even worse, if 5 ticks go by without an audio packet being ready, the code reads a packet and drops it on the floor, for what reason I don't know.
There's also a problem with the kernel audio drivers I'm using (alsa 0.90beta12 with Linux 2.4.19). Even though kphone does a SNDCTL_DSP_SETFRAGMENT ioctl to set the fragment size to 128 bytes, the actual value, as returned from SNDCTL_DSP_GETISPACE, is 2048 bytes, which is way too big (it's 125ms). Combined with the packet-dropping logic above, the net result was no audio.
People should not have to worry about this. I think it makes sense to wait until you can get a Chinese-made phone with Speex in it at commodity prices. Hopefully, this will happen soon.
A good homepage
I came across Miles Nordin's web site last night after following a link from the Java discussion on our front page. I found myself immediately observed. Miles writes well, is well read, and has a fabulously critical attitude. Many of the other pages, especially those having to do with wireless networking, are worth reading.
cinamod: I basically agree with everything you say. If Abiword or OO are good enough, and the code is clean enough to be split out as a batch renderer, then there's no need for a separate codebase.
I've had a look at the Word document format, and it's not quite so bad as I was expecting. The documentation is atrocious, but the format itself seems fairly reasonable. Of course, I'm sure that if I got into the details I'd find lots of corner cases and bad hacks.
The main thing not to like is the obvious lack of design for forwards and backwards compatibility. No doubt, this is economically motivated - gotta keep that upgrade treadmill going.
On the plus side, the format was clearly designed with an implementation in mind (as opposed to the W3C process, for which implementation is a distasteful afterthought). It's fairly easy to see how to process a Word file very efficiently, in both CPU time and memory usage. For example, resolving stylesheets is a straightforward linear chain, as opposed to all the nutjob nondeterministic stack automaton stuff in CSS, or the mini-Lisp in DSSSL/XSLT.
I'm tempted to write here about Word's plex/fkp/character run architecture as opposed to the more generic tree approach we tend to see these days, but probably most people would be bored with that level of detail. The top-level point is that algorithms for manipulating Word's structures on-disk are straightforward, while manipulating trees efficiently on-disk seems to require a lot of cleverness. Of course, with RAM so cheap these days, it's reasonable to ask whether memory-constrained processing of files is important at all.
The Word format is too tightly bound to a specific implementation, and it certainly shows in what documentation Microsoft has produced. They often seem to confuse the interface, which in this case is the on-disk representation of the document, with the implementation details.
In any case, I'm glad I've learned more about the file format. Its popularity means we have to deal with it somehow. Further, as PDF continues to become document-like and less of a pure graphical representation, it's important to understand the influence that the Word design has on its evolution.
I've commented before on the need for a good, open, editable document format. The lack of adequate documentation and Microsoft's proprietary lock on change control make the Word format unappealing. I've certainly thought about designing my own document format, but it's not easy to make a word-processing format much better than Word, or a graphics-oriented format much better than PDF. So that's probably a windmill I'd be happiest not tilting at.