Remove Tox recommendation

[ghost]

This article / blog explains everything;
https://chefkochblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/r-i-p-tox-messenger/

[ghost]

@beardog108

[ghost]

Yeah, probably worth removing. Tox was good while it lasted and it still holds value as a project but for actual use there are much better options at this point.

[ghost]

Can someone create a PR please?

[ghost]

That blog is is clickbait. While there were some problems with management in the past those issues have been overcome. I get the feeling the author doesn't really know what he is talking about. Point 3 in particular points to a re implementation effort of ToxCore and not the current implementation used by most Tox clients.

To claim something is 'dead' when there is regular commits and development within the community is just plain incorrect.

https://github.com/qTox/qTox/graphs/code-frequency
https://github.com/zoff99/ToxAndroidRefImpl/graphs/code-frequency
https://github.com/irungentoo/toxcore/commits/master

TokTok is basically the next-generation version where they've cleaned everything up and made good documentation for it. Inevitably this will be required when an audit occurs.

https://toktok.ltd/
https://github.com/TokTok/c-toxcore/graphs/code-frequency

Also most recently in the community:

https://blog.tox.chat/2018/11/toxcon-2018-report/
https://tox.fahrplan.zoff.cc/booklet.html

Many of the alternative instant messengers require server infrastructure and are not P2P. Ricochet is mentioned, but that requires Tor and doesn't do video. Ring.cx is mentioned and I found that a lot less stable than qTox - crashes and an installer that failed to remove everything correctly on Windows.

[ghost]

After reading through TokTok/c-toxcore#426 in depth I'd say we should keep an eye on this project but not re-add it at this time.

Tox by no means is dead like the blog author suggests however. There is an effort to produce a full specification. Until clients like qTox and uTox begin to use that core I don't think this should be re-added.

[quantumpacket]

It's odd that Chefkoch who got banned from Github recently and who is the author of that blog post suddenly has someone open this issue and link to his blog and then delete their Github account. Makes it suspiciously appear like another chefkoch sock puppet account. Take anything he says and does with a grain of salt, just saying...

[ghost]

I didn't notice it's from CK. He got banned from GH? Why?

[ghost]

Re https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/566#issuecomment-438249651

Another option could be to mark it as "experimental". Looking over privacytools.io it seems there are plenty of things mentioned there that have not undergone formal audits.

In terms of quality I also feel that there are far worse things mentioned there which are unmaintained (bitmessage for example). Perhaps we could mark some of these things as Experimental as they do on on https://prism-break.org/en/all/#video-voice

Tox does fit a certain niche, which many of the other clients don't ie Serverless Voice/Video, with chat functionality that is also encrypted. It may not be great for mobile computing battery lifetime but that's not necessarily something a user will require. Really it only stands up against Ring, and that I found quite unstable. Ricochet has no AV functionality or group chat capability.

As it's server less it has zero metadata. You don't need an audit to tell you this. XMPP, Matrix, Signal, all to some degree have metadata about whom you've been communicating with - even if your messages cannot be read.

Having a look at some of the other Tox clients, they have regular code being committed:

https://github.com/uTox/uTox/commits/
https://github.com/JFreegman/toxic/commits

Edit: Bitmessage is still maintained, though there hasn't been a release in ages there are regular commits https://github.com/Bitmessage/PyBitmessage/commits/v0.6 and multiple contributors.

[ghost]

If you wish to add experimental labels to anything, please create a PR, using this https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/146#issuecomment-433624897. (I suggest danger:Experimental)

[quantumpacket]

@Shifterovich arkenfox/user.js#323 details the problems with him stealing other people's work and claiming it as his own. This led to him blindly stealing code which just so happened to contain links to kiddie porn which is what finally got him banned. He's not the best person for anyone to be taking advice from.

[ghost]

Maybe at this point it would be appropriate to reopen this ticket.

Then perhaps should:

1. Revert the commit privacytoolsIO/privacy-tools@c73d543
2. Wait for the label feature https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/146
3. Close this ticket with appropriate label

[ghost]

@quantumpacket

I wonder if that Chefkoch had anything to do with these issues seems like the similar writing style, though I couldn't be certain. Very much the "claiming position of authority" "this is how it is" kind of thing. Strangely all posted by ghost user (a deleted account) at around the same time.

https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/474
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/476
ricochet-im/ricochet#579
qTox/qTox#5157
prism-break/prism-break#1975
ricochet-im/ricochet#580

Not sure about that one: ricochet-im/ricochet#568

There definitely appears to be some similarity, before the account was deleted it was "ohmynameisrico" which was also present in https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/442 and mirkoschubert/gdpr-cli#3 I saw some reference to those in your post mentioned https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/566#issuecomment-438308901 in the decentraleyes and firefox scripting community.

Claiming OTR Encryption is "cracked" https://gitlab.com/prism-break/prism-break/issues/1976

[ghost]

Sorry about the noobed up commits there. All fixed now.

[ghost]

@Shifterovich I think we are in agreement https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/592 should be accepted, would you like to merge?

[ghost]

The label feature is implemented for software that's in the top 3. Could you add Experimental before the description of Tox in #592?

[ghost]

I was under the impression that it only worked in the panels. Does this look right?

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 72ff030..19afbc7 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -1316,7 +1316,9 @@ layout: default
 <h3>Worth Mentioning</h3>
 <ul>
     <li><a href="https://jitsi.org/">Jitsi</a> - Jitsi is a free and open source multiplatform voice (VoIP), videoconferencing and instant messaging application.</li>
-    <li><a href="https://tox.chat/">Tox</a> - A free and open-source, peer-to-peer, encrypted instant messaging and video calling software.</li>
+    {% include card.html color="warning" labels="danger:Experimental"
+        <li><a href="https://tox.chat/">Tox</a> - A free and open-source, peer-to-peer, encrypted instant messaging and video calling software. </li>
+    %}
     <li><a href="http://www.ring.cx/">Ring (formerly SFLphone)</a> - Gives you a full control over your communications and an unmatched level of privacy.</li>
 </ul>

[ghost]

Ah, I forgot to escape HTML in my comment.

Use <span class="badge badge-warning>Experimental</span>.

[ghost]

ah got it, fixed privacytoolsIO/privacy-tools@7030521