Slashdot Mirror

skype A nice, free VOIP solution that plays nice with firewalls and is easy to set up.

The company which provides Skype is headquartered in Luxembourg with offices in London and Talinn (Estonia) and thus not subject to US regulations.

Or a chat plugin to your favorite Talk app.
Such as Skype.

You can already buy wireless skype-ready phones for use near your computer.

With Skype being free for computer to computer, and dirt cheap for computer to phone, I can't see how any of these companies like Vonage can make any money selling something for $24 per month.
http://www.skype.com/

Skype http://www.skype.com/products/skypein/ is running their Beta of this (SkypeIn).

1) Who is going to code their applications? Schools will have to hire hoards of developers to write custom code. Nearly all IT shops are against this, in favor of COTS.

Do they have that much money to waste? Fact is, Rapid Application Development in Linux is no big monster. You can always develop in RealBasic and compile the executable to run on Linux, that if learning curve is a problem.
Otherwise they can develop in Java: Look at Skype, Limewire, Azareus, Digichat.
Java is cross-platform you know?
Simpler languages like Tk/TCL are also cross-platform and easy to program in.
Fact is VB programmers are used to recycling ActiveX components which are very unstable, bulky and guess what support is now obsolete. Windows 2000 very soon will also lose support

2) Who are they going to call for tech support? How much does that cost?
Forums, Google, Articles, Books. People are badly accustomed with bad support that charges enormous rate; when it is known that people that work for them don't have a clue but follow from an answer manual. I know this girl that is clueless about computer and works for an IT Support Centre answering the phone.
Plus Linux hardly need as much support as Windows. It doesn't decay and corrupt so easily, it doesn't get so readily infected by nasties.

3) Who sets the standards for interoperabily?
I hope you don't think it should be Microsoft.
Interoperability is not a challenge for Linux, many internet cafes with solely Window clients run Linux on the background. Many corporates have their mail server sitting on Linux.
Can't comment on Mac though, never used it.
But can assure you - that with many more OSS education-related arising, Linux is by miles a cheaper better and saner idea.

The good thing about Microsoft is that you can always blame them if something goes wrong - so that can be handy for school admins.

Calls between Skype software users (PC-to-PC calls) are secure and encrypted. Calls to standard telephone or mobile numbers are encrypted until they reach public switched telephone network. Note that in a conference call where one participant is a PSTN (regular telephone or mobile phone) number/phone number, the padlock icon will not appear indicating that the call is not encrypted.

Skype says its calls are encrypted.

The calls... are highly secure with end-to-end encryption.

Whether their scheme is snake oil or for real, I don't know, as I can't find any documentation on it, much less source code.

FAQ: Is Skype secure?
Yes. When you call another Skype user your call is encrypted with strong encryption algorithms ensuring you privacy. In some cases your Skype communication may be routed via other users in the peer-to-peer network. Skype encryption protects you from potential eavesdropping from malicious users.

Policy: Please be informed that, notwithstanding the abovementioned, in the event of a designated competent authority requesting Skype or Skype's local partner responsible towards such authority, to retain and provide Personal and/or Traffic Data, or to install wiretapping equipment in order to intercept communications, Skype and/or its local partner will provide all necessary assistance and information to fulfil this request.

If you want real privacy, use SpeakFreely with your own choice of encryption library.

FAQ: Is Skype secure?
Yes. When you call another Skype user your call is encrypted with strong encryption algorithms ensuring you privacy. In some cases your Skype communication may be routed via other users in the peer-to-peer network. Skype encryption protects you from potential eavesdropping from malicious users.

Policy: Please be informed that, notwithstanding the abovementioned, in the event of a designated competent authority requesting Skype or Skype's local partner responsible towards such authority, to retain and provide Personal and/or Traffic Data, or to install wiretapping equipment in order to intercept communications, Skype and/or its local partner will provide all necessary assistance and information to fulfil this request.

If you want real privacy, use SpeakFreely with your own choice of encryption library.

FAQ: Is Skype secure?
Yes. When you call another Skype user your call is encrypted with strong encryption algorithms ensuring you privacy. In some cases your Skype communication may be routed via other users in the peer-to-peer network. Skype encryption protects you from potential eavesdropping from malicious users.

Policy: Please be informed that, notwithstanding the abovementioned, in the event of a designated competent authority requesting Skype or Skype's local partner responsible towards such authority, to retain and provide Personal and/or Traffic Data, or to install wiretapping equipment in order to intercept communications, Skype and/or its local partner will provide all necessary assistance and information to fulfil this request.

If you want real privacy, use SpeakFreely with your own choice of encryption library.

FAQ: Is Skype secure?
Yes. When you call another Skype user your call is encrypted with strong encryption algorithms ensuring you privacy. In some cases your Skype communication may be routed via other users in the peer-to-peer network. Skype encryption protects you from potential eavesdropping from malicious users.

Policy: Please be informed that, notwithstanding the abovementioned, in the event of a designated competent authority requesting Skype or Skype's local partner responsible towards such authority, to retain and provide Personal and/or Traffic Data, or to install wiretapping equipment in order to intercept communications, Skype and/or its local partner will provide all necessary assistance and information to fulfil this request.

If you want real privacy, use SpeakFreely with your own choice of encryption library.

Skype is very open: you can just send it text based commands. They even have a developer zone, so it looks like the parent was just trolling.

The voice protocol is provided by GIPS, they are quite open too about how their codec works with dynamic buffering.

You can build your own VoIP system, and you won't have to pay anyone or be regulated. You don't have to use headphones and a mic: you can get the hardware so that you can use a normal telephone, and call other users of the software anywhere in the world. No cost (other than you buying the hardware and paying for broadband). These issues have all been dealt with. The software is available.

The difference is that a VoIP provider needs money because they are routing your call down that "last mile" of conventional telephony... this means that you can make phone calls to people that have normal telephones. Without having a provider do this, you can only call other people that also are doing VoIP. That's where most of the cost and regulation comes from.

The day may come where everyone has VoIP and conventional phone systems will die. In such a case, the end consumer can run his all his phone systems on a server he put together himself. Until then, VoIP providers are great. Also many users don't want the hassle and responsibility of managing their own phone server (or even software/hardware), so VoIP providers offer a low-cost "package deal" that takes care of everything.

Have you never heard of Skype? It's exactly what you describe.

However, the vast majority of people are still attached to the old telephone, myself included. I can't see using a PC with a headset or a microphone as a normal communications tool.

Of course, B must also have some way to know it has an incoming call, even if it is firewalled, which must mean it establishes a persistent bidirectional connection to a server of some sort (again, probably just an unfirewalled Skype host).

Clever, but if too many Skype users decide not to donate resources to the network (by running behind NAT), Skype will either have to pony up those resources, or allow the service to collapse.

While they share some of the same founders, Skype uses a different network with the same technology. See JoltID about the network. See the Skype Developer Zone for more on the APIs.

[ Amendment IV ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want to read my stuff? Go ahead and crack it - no warrant necessary.

Get the rabbit installed on a machine behind your firewall
==> http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
Faster than freenet
==> http://www.i2p.net/
Encrypt Jabber
==> http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Jabber/jabberd.html
Onion Routing
==> http://tor.eff.org/
Emerging Network To Reduce Orwellian Potency Yield
==> http://entropy.stop1984.com/
Free Internet telephony
==> http://skype.com/
GNU-ified P2p
==> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnunet/


DO NOT DENY yourself about 2 hours @ InfoAnarchy.org
OMG! ==> http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Pag e
LearnLearnLearnLearn ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

=================EMAIL ENCRYPTION===============
GPG (Free PGP)
==> http://gnupg.org/
Integrated with Thunderbird
==> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Mutt can't be beat as a mailreader and integrates GPG wonderfully.
==> http://mutt.blackfish.org.uk/
==> http://www.mutt.org/links.html
==> http://wiki.mutt.org/index.cgi?UserPages

!!! Please do not immediately send newly created keys to the keyservers (as many HOWTOs instruct new users to). They are already overflowing with "test keys" and other people's experiments from over the years THAT HAVE NO EXPIRATION and will never be deleted. These keys are "orphans" and most will never be used. As keyservers sync together, and most keys are never deleted once submitted - GET YOUR KEY SETUP CORRECTLY AND HAVE PRACTICE WITH IT BEFORE SENDING IT OFF TO THE KEYSERVERS!!! Otherwise storage requirements will continue to grow and using these in the future will become more difficult FOR ALL. Please, if you are just starting out with PGP or GPG or GnuPG or anything similar (the last two are in fact the same thing) use manual key distribution to begin (ascii armor your public key with

$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org

and copy and paste it into an email body or attach it to an email

$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org > myPubKey.txt

to gain practice with GPG before uploading your key. This way if you need to create another you won't have uploaded your mistakes. Many choices need to be made and it's worth getting things right before "going public" with your new digital ID. Experiment with yourself and a few different email accounts or with some friends first.)

SET AN EXPIRATION OF 2-5 YEARS OR SO AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM BEFORE SENDING TO A KEYSERVER! Better yet is to HOST YOUR KEY ON YOUR WEBSITE (or try using http://biglumber.com/ instead to host your key and help c

The keys aren't central to skype. They are "exchanged". I have to wonder if this decision will extend to SkypeOut in the US. I can't imagine how they could possibly comply with the orders, even if they wanted to, given their current infrastructure.

Isn't skype supposed to be encrypted? Thought that was one of the big deals about it (Besides the sound quality) http://www.skype.com/

What about if I have one those Skype handsets connected to my computer, which looks like a phone but is actually only used for calling in Skype network. Must that provide 911? If it does, what about the skype software on a PC?

No Emergency Calls: by entering into this Agreement You acknowledge and agree that the Skype Software does not and does not intend to support or carry emergency calls. Please also see article 7 below.

7.4 No Emergency Services. You expressly agree and understand that the Skype Software is not intended to support or carry emergency calls to any type of hospital, law enforcement agency, medical care unit or any other kind of emergency service. Skype, its Affiliates or Skype Staff are in no way liable for such emergency calls.

Skype is beta testing a new service,SkypeIn, that allows Skype users to receive calls from regular phones by purchasing a phone number (a 12 month subscription is 30). Right now SkypeIn numbers are available for France, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States.
How do you think Skype and similar applications may help to overcome regulatory limitations?

> change: improved forced upgrade procedure

Does this mean that Skype is able to remotely force you to "upgrade" your Skype software? Does this scare anyone?

well, what do you have to say about this then? this company doesn't seem to be in decline these days...

Skype is bundled with the latest version of Kazaa, and Skype's CEO was a co-creator of Kazaa who jumped ship after the lawsuits first started. Since Skype is the most popular internet call provider, and there have been some attempts to hamper the progress of VOIP, will Kazaa's bad reputation affect VOIP in general?

"No Content of Communications Collected Skype does not collect any Contents of Communications such as calls or Instant Messages."

Skype

Take a look at this citation, extracted from the Skype FAQ (http://www.skype.com/help/faq/technical.html)

"How much bandwidth does Skype use while I'm in a call?
Skype automatically selects the best codec depending on the connection between yourself and the person you are calling. On average, Skype uses between 3-16 kilobytes/sec depending on bandwidth available for other party, network conditions in between, callers CPU performance, etc."

PS: In my computer with ADSL 300k, using DU meter Skype used 5kb/sec

This is still wrong. From their rates page:

0.302 Euro excluding VAT (0.393 USD)

http://www.skype.com/products/skypeout/rates/all_r ates.html#listing-J

Much more expensive than http://teliax.com/ that I mentioned earlier.

He means 1.7 Euro cents a minute. Although it's closer to 35 Euro cents to Iraq.

However, do give Skype a try. I conference call with friends in Europe and Africa from North America and some of these people are on dialup. It works very well, and it's free if you're not calling an actual phone.

Skype No pesky service fees as long as all involved have accounts, or you can call for a low low rate, 1.7 Euro a minute.

Also, my understanding is that BroadVoice is far better than Vonage, which annoys Slashdotters with Flash ads, as though we are like little cats and something moving will make us follow it.

BroadVoice, like Skype, works around the difficulty. If necessary, they could do everything over port 80, I understand.

The link at the top of http://www.skype.com/ seems to indicate otherwise...

Spot the difference, people!

Hmm, I don't own a mac, but if you checkout:
http://www.skype.com/products/skype/linux

You'll see Dynamic lib requires QT 3.2

I just took an assumption that they would compile it with QT under Mac - would be silly to create the UI using Cocoa if they have bought a license for QT - but who knows...

File transfers are limited to 0.5k/sec when they're routed through another party. Source

Yes, I have the same problem, so no Skypeout for me. If you check the Skypeout forum you'll see that many other people have this problem, and that the Skype people don't seem to have any solution.

You do realize that if you are not behind NAT, then you are relaying traffic for other people, do you ? This may as well be going through your box and on your money ...

Not that I don't like Skype, I'm just curious when this 'bandwidth borrowing' will bit them in a butt with people installing Skype-Relay-Blockers and their NAT traversal is not traversing NAT anymore.

That'd be fun to watch.

PS. And - no - you cannot opt out from relaying.

The Reason that they have no spyware , is because they offer a service called Skypeouthttp://www.skype.com/products/skypeout/, A telephone service allowing you to call an outside line, which of course you have to pay for

should newsposters now link every word to dictionary?
http://www.skype.com/

http://www.google.com/search?q=skype

for the 1% who doesn't heard of skype at all...

I just took a look on the announcement and although it is dated on February 1st there seems to be no real news here.

Same old features are announced that I have in Beta 0.92.0.12.

So will we have announcements like this every time a software reaches 1.0 version?

Check it out: image
NO spyware!
Adware, malware.

At least they use politically correct PNG files.

Look at it yourself, dammit.

Granted, they are closed-source and won't show you their implementation, so you can't check it yourself. But I guess some security is better than none, isn't it? ;-)

Why is sending audio over a P2P network any better than sending it directly from my computer to yours with plain old TCP/UDP
Skype's website explains it pretty well.

try Skype

Well, this page says one of the founders was "the CEO of KaZaa", so it really sounds like a company, no?

Skype is a great, simple and effective audio chat program.

I'm not sure how Vonage will work but you can use Skype on your PocketPC if you have WiFi and at a processor running at minimum 400 Mhz.

From work:
- on my PC: Skype client and Skypeout account and an adapter-phone, USB-based . This way I talk to friends or clients over Skype (free), if they have it installed, or over POTS, if they do not have Skype
From home:
- setup similar to the above, for my little office, in addition to which - for the reast of the house - I use Net2phone

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:04:31 -0200
From: Futurepower [futurepower_usa (-AT-) yahoo.com.br]
To: "U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center" [sedas (-AT-) neis.cr.usgs.gov]
Subject: NEIC: Why didn't you warn about the Tsunamis?

Question:

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere.

Why didn't the NEIC call the U.S. State Department, so that they could warn people about the Tsunamis?

The earthquake position and magnitude was known 6 hours before the waves arrived in Thailand, I understand. Wouldn't almost every person's life have been saved if Thailand, for example, had had warning?

Michael

_____________


Reply:

Michael,

Phone calls were placed to the State Department operations center, the White House situation room, the U.N. Department of Humanitarian Affairs, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, as well as several other organizations within 90 minutes of the occurrance of this earthquake.

The problem is the absence of local warning systems in the countries surrounding the Indian Ocean. There were no systems or response plans in place to warn the local populace.

Stuart Sipkin
USGS/NEIC

_____________


Stuart,

I have a suggestion for a local tsunami warning system. There continues to be an enormous amount of earthquake activity in the area around Indonesia. It seems likely that there will be another big earthquake. Next time there is an earthquake that is likely to cause a tsunami, call me, any time of night or day. I will promise to call at least 30 hotels within 2 hours. I will promise to get 10 friends involved. They will promise to call 30 hotels each, also. We would each take a different country.

My suggestion is that we would use Google to find hotels, for example in Sri Lanka. This is one of the hotels I found there, a 5-star hotel with more than 400 rooms:

Galadari Hotel
The Businessman's Home in Sri Lanka
64, Lotus Road,
Colombo 1.
Sri Lanka.
Tel: 94-1-544544
Fax: 94-1-449875
E-Mail: galadari (-AT-) sri.lanka.net

"The Galadari Hotel is in the heart of the city in Colombo, over looking the beautiful Indian ocean."

Big hotels answer their phones 24 hours a day. Presumably there is a staff of at least 200 at that hotel, for three shifts. I think if one person were told, everyone else would know soon. They don't want their family and friends and neighbors near the water to die, and they know how to reach them, even if they have to ride a motorbike to those who don't have phones.

There are two easy ways to prove that a call about an earthquake is not a hoax. I would tell the person who answered the phone that it is an emergency and I need to talk to a manager. I would tell the manager to check the USGS web site at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/. Any 5-Star hotel, and most others of any size, have internet access. I would also tell the manager that, if the water at the beach receded, people had only a few minutes to get to safety. I would ask the manager to get staff members to call radio and TV stations in their area.

You said in your message, "The problem is the absence of local warning systems in the countries surrounding the Indian Ocean. There were no systems or response plans in place to warn the local populace."

It seems to me that this is a workable plan for a local tsunami warning system. It wouldn't cost much. Using Skype, a two minute call to any land line phone in Sri Lanka is about 40 U.S. cents, for example. Using iConnectHere's most expensive service, a two minute call is 80 cents.