qTox - secure instant messaging

Submit portable freeware that you find here. It helps if you include information like description, extraction instruction, Unicode support, whether it writes to the registry, and so on.
Message
Author
User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9520
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#16 Post by webfork » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:42 pm

Upgrading qTox:

There have been some rapid developments recently so I wanted to take the guesswork out of the update procedure:

Copy the following files from the old directory to the new: qTox.ini and anything that starts with your username (e.g. for mikewiz you would have mikewiz.tox, mikewiz.db, and mikewiz.ini).

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#17 Post by smaragdus » Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:22 pm

qTox at version 1.3.0, latest changes:
qTox 1.3.0 release
All:
- New and improved sound code
- New HTTPS ToxMe protocol support
- Translation updates
- Miscellaneous fixes and polishing
OSX:
- Video!
Windows:
- Updater now works better with Portable mode
Source
@webfork
I suppose that the video chat might be working fine on Mac OS now.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#18 Post by smaragdus » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:11 am

I am not able to add/update the download link for qTox x64 build because the URL box isn't long enough, see the screen-shot below:
TPF - qTox download link - 2016-03-17 - 002.png
Is there a solution to this problem?

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#19 Post by SYSTEM » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:16 am

smaragdus wrote:I am not able to add/update the download link for qTox x64 build because the URL box isn't long enough, see the screen-shot below:
TPF - qTox download link - 2016-03-17 - 002.png
Is there a solution to this problem?
Please send Andrew a PM about this. The solution would obviously be increasing the maximum length of URLs in the database.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9520
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#20 Post by webfork » Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:10 am

smaragdus wrote:I suppose that the video chat might be working fine on Mac OS now.
Ah cool.
SYSTEM wrote:Please send Andrew a PM about this. The solution would obviously be increasing the maximum length of URLs in the database.
Agreed. Or we might look into one of those URL shortening links as a stop-gap.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9520
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#21 Post by webfork » Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:50 pm

Another cross-platform, serverless chat client: Sid.

What's interesting is seeing a growing focus on “cloudless” software that's easy and secure. Note that it's not clear if it needs the Internet to connect or if it will just work over LANs, nor is it clear whether this will stay freeware (meaning it's portraying itself as a “tech demo,” which often means it might go commercial).

Initial testing by another user has indicated this is definitely a late alpha / early beta program. As such, I don't think this is superior to some tools already discussed here on the site, which is why it's not in a separate thread.

Anyway, just in case someone's curious:

http://www.spherebox.com/
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/C ... /Sid.shtml

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#22 Post by smaragdus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:43 pm

qTox at version 1.4.1, Change Log.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: uTox

#23 Post by smaragdus » Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:49 am

Today I did a brief testing of another Tox client, uTox (version 0.9.4 Alpha).

First- uTox is not portable, it creates two files- tox_save.tox & utox_save in AppData (C:\Users\UserName\AppData\Roaming\tox).
Second- uTox is really an alpha program- it is miles behind Isotoxin & qTox in terms of features and customization options.

Some uTox links:
http://utox.org/ - official web-site
https://wiki.tox.chat/clients/utox - uTox at Tox Wiki
https://github.com/notsecure/uTox - project page at GitHub - abandoned (the original developer of uTox is no longer involved)
https://github.com/grayhatter/uTox - project page at GitHub
https://build.tox.chat/view/uTox/ - project page
https://build.tox.chat/view/uTox/job/uT ... 6_release/ - download page - releases - x32
https://build.tox.chat/view/uTox/job/uT ... 4_release/ - download page - releases - x64
https://wiki.tox.chat/clients - a comparison table of Tox clients (outdated)
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/C ... uTox.shtml - uTox at Softpedia

I will follow the development of uTox but I think it won't be easy to catch up with qTox & Isotoxin. I hope it won't be abandoned like some other Tox clients (Toxy & XwinTox for example).

By the way qTox has a new web-site- https://qtox.github.io/.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: Tox over Tor

#24 Post by smaragdus » Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:51 am

How to use Tox over Tor, I haven't tested this because:
-Tox is an encrypted protocol and I don't need an additional layer of encryption.
-I don't consider Tor as secure as most people think.
-I suppose that Tor will slow down Tox.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9520
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Tox over Tor

#25 Post by webfork » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:33 pm

smaragdus wrote:Tox is an encrypted protocol and I don't need an additional layer of encryption.
Actually you should avoid using anything that isn't already encrypted on Tor. This is because Tor only encrypts things inside it's "onion" network. Anything outside of that (e.g. not connecting to an "HTTPS" web page) is as encrypted as it started. So plain text requests that come from a Tor endpoint are just as easy to sniff as they always were.
smaragdus wrote:I don't consider Tor as secure as most people think.
It's probably just a stumbling block for state actors, but they (usually) only care if you're doing something illegal. Most of the successful attacks on Tor seem to come from those groups. There are many other types of attackers with all sorts of motives where Tor is very useful.
smaragdus wrote:I suppose that Tor will slow down Tox.
Based on previous tests of the network, text exchanges wouldn't really be affected, but all other features including file transfer or audio/video conferencing probably won't work in any real way.

User avatar
LonerD
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:49 pm
Location: Donetsk, DPR
Contact:

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#26 Post by LonerD » Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:21 am

Lazy qTox developers cut off WinXP support.
It's annoying. I never use programs without XP support (even if my main computer with Win 10, but also have old machine).
uTox has build for XP. It's not portable, but yaP is in help))

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9520
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#27 Post by webfork » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:33 am

LonerD wrote:Lazy qTox developers cut off WinXP support
I agree that machines should try to maintain compatibility with older operating systems, both because XP still has a pretty high usage share and for use by cross-platform tools like WINE. However, I wouldn't chalk that up to laziness as it's becoming the norm here on the site.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5521
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#28 Post by Midas » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:38 am

I have been running Windows 7 in quite an intensive fashion this year. A few days ago, I had to boot up my former laptop, which still runs XP (and whose battery, incidentally, is now dead :(), and was stunned by the sheer speed of the thing -- I'm talking here of something as different as a Core Dual in the old one to an i7 processor in the newer... :shock:

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#29 Post by SYSTEM » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:41 am

Midas wrote:I have been running Windows 7 in quite an intensive fashion this year. A few days ago, I had to boot up my former laptop, which still runs XP (and whose battery, incidentally, is now dead :(), and was stunned by the sheer speed of the thing -- I'm talking here of something as different as a Core Dual in the old one to an i7 processor in the newer... :shock:
Well, the performance difference between Core 2 and Core i7 isn't that big. The main advantage of Core i7 is that it has more cores (four cores + hyperthreading), which isn't that helpful in day-to-day use.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5521
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: qTox - secure instant messaging

#30 Post by Midas » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:54 am

That might well be, but the Lenovo machines in question are generations apart (first year of release is 2006 and 2011, respectively)...

Post Reply