Making WebRTC available for FreeBSD

Matthew Rezny mrezny at
Thu Feb 6 16:47:20 UTC 2014

> The process has been started :
> Dependencies needed- referenced in "howto" and webrtc dependencies:
> libbrlapi from brltty.
> Benefits: Native client and sever side of WebRTC applications for
> FreeBSD and possibly other BSDs.
> Eliminated dependency for Linuixlator based applications thus cutting
> down on hardware resource use.
> Eliminated need for other simulated and emulated programs to run
> Skype or other voice-and-video binaries. I.e. Wine, VirtualBox, qemu,
> et cetera, et al.
> Since it is known that Sony's PS4 uses FreeBSD as the basis for its
> OS, WebRTC could be implemented as a native application on the
> platform/console thus allowing users to communicater in real time
> while gaming.
Sony surely has a voice and video chat system in mind, one that is not
inter-operable with anything that doesn't bear the PlayStation brand.
> Why am I proposing this?
> 1. Adrian Chadd asked on Google+ and nowhere else. I decided to bring
> his proposal to the public and attempt an initial starting phase.
> 2. Users would not be limited to having only a few selected operating
> systems at their disposal. Developers could easily communicate with
> each other.

Limit only exists for closed networks. Don't use Skype, don't need

> 3. Real time sharing/viewing of conventions. This would give the
> community another window into the development of FreeBSD.
> 4. Companies such as IxSystems and Sony would be able to contact
> develoers while simultaneously working on a FreeBSD/FreeBSD_based
> system.

Both are easily accomplished with SIP, which is an existing widely-
deployed standard. Nearly all relevant platforms have at least a few
SIP clients, with voice and video support, to choose from. Some clients
also support encryption to secure your communications. There are quite
a few available in FreeBSD ports.

> 5. FreeBSD developers would be able to give feedback on the
> development of WebRTC sources.
I can't speak for all, but my feedback for WebRTC is expressed by
trying as hard as possible to ignore it while blissfully using SIP for
my non-textual communication needs. It is a simple matter of the web
guys intentionally ignoring the existence of all else so they could
have another great "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist within
the domain of "document viewer". The web browser is not a good place to
do so, but if they want to take on chat in the browser, they could have
simply adopted the SIP protocol, and maybe also SIMPLE protocol for
text chat at the same time.

Instead they invent their own, not because they had to but because they
chose to. All the large companies developing one of the web browsers
with significant market share are receiving significant income from
advertising. The more time they get you to spend in the browser, the
more ads you might see. The more tasks a browser takes on, appropriate
or not, the more time you are likely to spend in the browser, seeing
the ads. At best, a native client would only be a distraction that
would draw developer attention which could be better spent continuing to
improve SIP clients. Worse, a native client could help to legitimize
WebRTC as some sort of successor to SIP, another step toward their goal
of replacing the what the average users knows as the OS with web
browsers in the effort to revert PCs back to serving as dumb terminals
for their cloud of mainframes (albeit very fancy and "smart" dumb
> Being that I am limited on resources, is it possible that others
> could take over what was started?

Of course others CAN, but WILL they want to is another matter. YOU CAN
right now if it is important to you to pursue this distraction.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list