Anytime I see “P2P”, I assume a STUN server is involved because of the ubiquitous nature of NAT with IPv4. I read such claims as meaning that the tool itself does not require dedicated servers or persistent storage for its core functionality. (And there are plenty of public STUN servers to choose from.)

You are completely right, the website has been updated to reflect the correct flow of data.

As other users already stated, we need that to agree on connection details, but once that is done, the flow of your media data like audio, video and text is just between the two parties.

It's a fundamental limitation of P2P that you need NAT hole punching. If you use IPv6 it's truly peer to peer since you can generate ICE host candidates directly.

Also, you don't actually need NAT hole punching if you use fixed ports and port forwarding at the router level.

Useful, correct-enough information > objectively pedantically correct information. When people say lack of server infra in the context of a screensharing app, it is plain and obvious they exclude STUN/TURN, especially on HN. Come on now.

Assuming you're on a paid plan then and afaik that's not that cheap. You might also challenge C level execs that you might save a lot of money using something like Bananas (once we reach v1 and have added needed features).

Also if zoom goes bankrupt, zoom stops functioning. Bananas is not (that) reliant on servers (except for negotiation of communication details, currently using Google's servers for that, but you could also use your own).

Zoom also has your account data and media is transferred through their servers, which for some people is not a big deal, but for others it might.

We use Google Workspace at work and their meeting functionality, which is quite limited. Previously I used Office365, which wasn't any better.

I'm a big fan of Tuple, but that's limited to Windows and MacOS, which is a deal breaker for me (using Linux).

Also, they want to have your data, including account setup.

I'm not saying that Bananas never evolves into something with accounts and friend-lists, but that should be always fully optional and opt in and open source.

it's mostly a matter of what you use, inertia and incumbency, no? for example we use slack and asking someone to download and install zoom to screen share would be a non starter for most people, as slack has the feature built in. in a teams shop asking someone to download slack or zoom would be a non starter, etc

I tested on X11 and Wayland it works flawless here.

I'm currently on Wayland and it's working flawless for me. Will test on X11 this evening.

This is exactly what I was asking myself, too.

> the receiving user could view my screen from their web browser

How would this be possible "without the need for an account or any server infrastructure" claimed by this project?

Seems to be either related to MacOS 14 or some settings voodoo of MacOS, because we already have users reporting that issue on GH, but other users have successfully tested that it works on MacOS 15.

There seems to be an issue on MS Windows Server 22 as well, but Win10/11 confirmed to be fully functional.

Simple for users is not the same as simpler for developers, WebRTC definitely is a beast.

It could be seen as an alternative. Currently it only supports multi cursor mode and pinging with the participant's cursor on the host's screen. But taking over keyboard and mouse is planned.

Hello, fellow German!

Thanks for the kind words.

I chose TS, because otherwise we had to put JSDoc everywhere.