Slashdot Mirror


Skype 1.0 For Windows Released, Updated Linux Beta

egjertse writes "Today Skype launches its free Skype for Windows Version 1.0 software, which includes SkypeOut, enabling Skype users to pre-pay and call any phone number in the world at highly competitive local rates. Also included in Skype 1.0 is a new file transfer feature and other software enhancements. New beta versions of Skype for Linux (Previous Slashdot Story) and Skype for Pocket PC with the SkypeOut feature are also available. Here are the release notes."

213 comments

  1. Grrr by va3atc · · Score: 3, Informative

    But doesn't work on Windows 98/ME

    --
    Candle burns its brightest in the dark
    1. Re:Grrr by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      But doesn't work on Windows 98/ME

      Well, duh. It says 'Windows Version 1' in the story.

      I would have thought they'd at least support Windows 3.1.

      I'm just looking forward to the Prodos version!

    2. Re:Grrr by icekillis · · Score: 0

      Interesting, it does not work on msdos NOR freeDos. Gimme a break, windows 9x, although still in use, is Clearly OBSOLETE

    3. Re:Grrr by mhifoe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Version 0.98.0.28 works on Windows 98, but compatibility was broken in version 0.98.0.68.

    4. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      windows 3.1 babeeyyyyz old school up in here w3rd

    5. Re:Grrr by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

      and you would have known, had you read the:

      System Requirements

      In order to use Skype for Windows Beta software, your computer must meet the following minimum system requirements:

      * PC running Windows 2000 or XP
      --

      before downloading. If you have, i don't understand your post. It would be the same like saying "Grrr. It doesn't support Amiga OS!"

    6. Re:Grrr by adachan · · Score: 1

      That is not true, it is not supported in 98/ME. It does work fine in most instances though. I chat with many friends in China and Japan who use older "unsupported" OSes. Try it.

    7. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nah, when it comes with the ugly error message when you want to speak to somebody, press ignore a couple of times and it eventually works. Every time. Don't know what causes the error message though. (Win98se + service pack 1.5, skype version 0.97.0.40)

      Ah! you said version 0.98 works even worse? okay, I'll have to check that one out, then...

    8. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us still need to use MS-Windows for one reason or another, but don't want to pay Microsoft any more money.
      (And before anyone suggests the obvious solution, I'm too honest for that.)

    9. Re:Grrr by Dulimano · · Score: 1

      But doesn't work on Windows 98/ME

      I use it on Windows 98. It works. But it crashes without warning at about the 20th minute of calls.

    10. Re:Grrr by mhifoe · · Score: 1

      I've been using Skype on Windows 98SE for a while.

      Version 0.98.0.68 completely locks up the machine and requires a hard reset. I recommend version 0.98.0.28 though, there are certainly less of the problems with call competion in that version.

      Note though that the option to ring the PC speaker can cause problems with Windows 98.

    11. Re:Grrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ReactOS??? wine???? login remotely to a friends Terminal Services or XP Pro box using rdesktop?

    12. Re:Grrr by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      It works just fine on wine. 20040615 installed via apt-get on debian.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
  2. Quality by Klar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has anyone tried this? If so, is the sound quality high enough to bother with? Does it ever miss words or anything?

    I've had problems with other services like this in the past, but maybe they have gotten better.

    1. Re:Quality by BinaryWolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes I've been using it for quite some time now. The quality is excellent. Clearer than on the phone I think.

    2. Re:Quality by Klar · · Score: 1

      Hummm.. do you know if it is available in Canada? I'm getting tired of using calling card numbers to call people long distance.

    3. Re:Quality by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes. Sound quality is surprisingly good, but there is an unavoidable delay that comes from the latency of the Internet (which has gotten better over the years -- a ping to ftp.funet.fi gives me a faster round trip time today than a ping to www.yahoo.com gave me two years ago).

      In a nutshell, you may irritate the people you're calling, but less so than if you used a cell phone.

      --

      Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
      -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    4. Re:Quality by GrubInCan · · Score: 1
      I would agree - the quality is excellent.

      However on one (and only one) occasion there was a time delay of a few seconds which really had us confused.

    5. Re:Quality by Klar · · Score: 1

      If you are calling someone on this service, and don't tell them you are using an internet connection, do you think they would notice and ask?

    6. Re:Quality by BinaryWolf · · Score: 1

      I'm not too familiar with their newer features but I do know that you can call to anyone else in the world who is a Skype user. I've communicated many a times to Germany and other countries.

    7. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Although if you want to play it safe tell them you're calling with a cell phone.

    8. Re:Quality by GrubInCan · · Score: 1

      Canada is one of their global calling countries (can't remember the exact term, and their site is a little slow right now) - you can call out to a regular phone number in these countries for the cost of a local call.

    9. Re:Quality by JawFunk · · Score: 1

      My fam in EU has had Skype since july 1, but then it was beta, now 1.0. Theyare very satisfied. Just have to moderate DC++ to keep quality up. Of course, over there each household gets 8 Mbits Tx rate...

      --
      [Please sign here]
    10. Re:Quality by MSBob · · Score: 3, Informative

      I call Eastern Europe with Skype all the time and most times voice quality is actually BETTER than with a phone conversation. The delay is almost unnoticable. Granted my parents who live there have a DSL line (it's a 512K DSL) and so do I. I heard that people with ISDN and even 56K dial up were getting very reasonable voice quality. Over DSL however, it's like talking to somebody in the same room.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    11. Re:Quality by Fl1bble · · Score: 1

      Latency of the internet really isnt that much of an issue, its often more to do with the latency introduced by the PC and OS. I use a hardware VoIP adapter and there is almost no delay, however if I use a software VoIP solution there is a distinct gap.

    12. Re:Quality by anethema · · Score: 1

      Yes, quality is clearer than the telephone forsure for me. (skype-skype calls). Skype-POTS should be just as clear as any telephone.

      There is a bit of latency, but nothing compared to other programs i've tryed like teamspeak.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    13. Re:Quality by galaxy300 · · Score: 1

      I'm curious - has anyone who uses Skype frequently tried the service today? Is the service itself Slashdotted, by any chance? I was calling 123echo, and whole chunks of the sentence I was repeating were dropping off.

      I'm just curious about the quality of service today vs. a normal day when it doens't make the front page of Slashdot.

    14. Re:Quality by Oarryan · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine and I played with an earlier version, and I found it to have surprisingly good quality (as others have said)... even for the inherent latency of a satellite connection via Starband.

    15. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comparison - ftp.funet.fi vs. www.yahoo.com - is meaningless unless you specify the actual latencies involved.

      For me, a ping to ftp.funet.fi is about 14 ms (most of it due to my slow DSL), and www.yahoo.com 150 ms round trip. From another machine, those values are 1 ms and 180 ms, respectively.

      200 ms seems to be the worst ping round trip time I get to any major sites (that don't block ICMP ECHO).

      Of course, based on the notion that using a cell phone to call someone would be annoying, you're probably on the other side of the Atlantic...most people don't use anything other than cell phones (either for business and personal calls) in Europe, and the networks are good enough that there's nothing annoying about using a cell phone (unless you're doing it from a place with lots of background noise, but that's a different issue).

      Note that unless you only connect between direct connections to huge backbones, there is a huge difference in quality of service between cell networks vs. IP networks... Highly redundant, circuit switched networks vs. packet switched networks with variable delays and intermediate nodes sometimes operating near their maximum capacity...

    16. Re:Quality by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. The sound quality is excellent. Price of SkypeOut calls is really low too :-)

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    17. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Granted my parents who live there have a DSL line (it's a 512K DSL) and so do I. I heard that people with ISDN and even 56K dial up were getting very reasonable voice quality. Over DSL however, it's like talking to somebody in the same room.
      ---
      It's not the download speed that's important, you can only download as fast as granny is uploading and vice-versa. Since most 256-512 DSL connections have only 64kb upload capacity it's normal that it's similar to 64kb ISDN.

    18. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's available wherever the internet is available - i.e. you get your 10 or 25 euros' worth of credit which you can use to call any landline or cell from anywhere in the world - always for the same price. It doesn't make a difference where you're calling FROM, only where you're calling TO. Long distance to anywhere in canada or the US or the UK or Australia or most of the EU will be $0.02 CAD per minute.

  3. How long until... by Patik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...someone develops a phone that looks and feels like a regular household portable phone, but uses Skype via your home wifi network?

    1. Re:How long until... by Alranor · · Score: 1

      Skype do sell a phone which plugs into the USB port on your PC to use the skype network.

      I don't imagine a wi-fi one can be too far behind.

    2. Re:How long until... by cmacmanus · · Score: 1
    3. Re:How long until... by mnemoth_54 · · Score: 2, Informative

      not long, its allready been done.
      VoIP Wi-Fi Phone
      That one may not use skype, but its VOIP.

    4. Re:How long until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...someone develops a phone that looks and feels
      > like a regular household portable phone, but uses
      > Skype via your home wifi network?
      Skype are using a proprietary format you will have to wait until the Skype guys decides to develop it for you.

    5. Re:How long until... by tech_guru5182 · · Score: 1

      What about this one Cisco 7920

      --
      BAN BPL! Keep the radio spectrum free fro
    6. Re:How long until... by prs_013 · · Score: 1

      Not too long! what you REALLY need is this Motorola phone.. one for the home and the same one for the road! Motorola's Wifi Phone

      --
      PRS.
    7. Re:How long until... by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

      snom.com has phones that do this. it is a standards-based voip phone and can talk with anything that can talk to a SIP server (including MSN messenger).

      it has a web interface of its own that you can initiate phone calls if you only know the IP of the other person, in which case you don't even need a SIP server.

      very nice phone, in my opinion.

  4. No OS X version? by revscat · · Score: 2, Informative

    This would be very handy to have on my Powerbook, but alas it seems no such beast exists. If it compiles under Linux, it shouldn't be too hard to do a straight port, even if it has to run under an X client instead of being a pretty Quartz app.

    Course, if they had used SWT this wouldn't be an issue.

    1. Re:No OS X version? by patvan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yesterday on macbidouille, they reported on this:

      "On June 16, 2004, there was an internal demonstration at Skype of the alpha version of Skype for MacOS. The alpha version worked well and the development team is working towards a beta launch of Skype for Mac. It will likely take about 2-3 months until release. When Skype for Mac is available, an email will be sent to you through Public Mind to let you know. Thanks for your patience."

    2. Re:No OS X version? by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This meme must die!!!!

      Aside from the standard POSIX calls, which don't include lots of things that a modern program that goes beyond the command line must do, Mac OS X and Linux are as different as can be. Although Mac OS X has an optional X11 server that can be used to porn X11 programs over, there is one other critical area where they are completely different: sound! Linux sound IO and Mac sound IO are completely different.

      Not to mention that when somebody says "Linux", they usually mean "Linux on x86", so you have completely different processor architectures to deal with too.

      Yes, Linux and Mac OS X share various underpinnings, but that does not make a port of a program between them, in either direction, to be necessarily easy.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    3. Re:No OS X version? by Teancom · · Score: 1
      Although Mac OS X has an optional X11 server that can be used to porn X11 programs over

      That has to be the funniest typo I've seen in a while. The best part being, of course, that on qwerty keyboards at least, "n" and "t" are quite far apart, making one suspect some sort of Freudian slip. Thank you!

    4. Re:No OS X version? by bundaegi · · Score: 1

      Skype's GUI is QT + they already have a linux version. So I'm pretty confident they will have an OS X version... if they had enough money to buy the QT TrioPack license, that is!

      --
      bundaegi is good for you
    5. Re:No OS X version? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Nice catch! However, I must disappoint you; I use Dvorak, where N and T are, sadly, adjacent.

      I doubt if it's a freudian slip, because I always look at porn using native Aqua programs....

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    6. Re:No OS X version? by suraken · · Score: 1

      I really do hope that they are smart enought to develop the GUI to the OSX version seperately. Having the GUI written QT will make it a really bad OSX-application.

      Should not be to hard to write a Cocoa-layer ontop of their existing system and it will make the application so much better.

    7. Re:No OS X version? by jx100 · · Score: 1

      On a Dvorak, the "n" and "t" are next to each other.

  5. The new spyware by dsbaha · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can see it now, the new spyware will work like this:

    When you make a voice call, the spyware will listen to your conversation, then start producing popups on what you say ..

    for example:

    Me: "Hi Mom"
    Spyware: *incest p0rn popups*

    1. Re:The new spyware by Klar · · Score: 1

      Me: "Hi Mom"
      Spyware: *incest p0rn popups*

      and that's a bad thing?? :$

  6. Gaaaahhh [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What's with the IT color scheme? It hurts my eyes.
    Please change it ... anyone?

  7. Correction by Patik · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's Windows 98/ME that doesn't work

  8. Any idea of pricing for the outbound calls by grandmofftarkin · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just being stupid but I can't find any pricing page on their website.

    1. Re:Any idea of pricing for the outbound calls by Pacifix · · Score: 1

      It's there. It's a few 100s of a euro for most place per minute - about 1/10 the usual cost. Why do they give it in Euros? And what do you call 1/100 of a Euro? A europenny?

    2. Re:Any idea of pricing for the outbound calls by whyne · · Score: 1, Informative

      https://secure.skype.com/store/help.pricelist.html

    3. Re:Any idea of pricing for the outbound calls by grandmofftarkin · · Score: 1

      Thanks! The page has ground to a halt (probably because of slashdotting) but I'll have a look later.

    4. Re:Any idea of pricing for the outbound calls by mlk · · Score: 1

      Cent.
      Or Lepto in Greece.

      I'll prob. call it a penny if it ever invades the UK.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    5. Re:Any idea of pricing for the outbound calls by mlk · · Score: 1

      I should really give a link to back that up EuroCoins.co.uk

      The greeks have Lepto on the back of the coin.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    6. Re:Any idea of pricing for the outbound calls by Devi0s · · Score: 1

      The rates are actually pretty good. The software is free to install and free to use to talk to other skype users. The quality is incredible between broadband users - I spoken on landlines with poorer quality.

      Once you install the software, there are links within the application to a page where you can check the rates out.

      From what I understand, here's the hook on Skype Out: The software leverages a global P2P network such that, if I am in the US, and want to call Australia, my call is routed through the P2P Internet network to Australia before the toll call is actually placed, so I can pay Australia to Australia rates, but really be in the US.

      --
      - Have you ever noticed that the more you learn about technology, the more stupid you sound trying to explain it?
    7. Re:Any idea of pricing for the outbound calls by magefile · · Score: 1

      Cents. At least in Germany. Or "eurocent", if you're feeling formal.

  9. What's all the Skype About? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Funny

    You could think of us as the big, free Internet telephony company. We prefer to think of ourselves as a big group hug, even a present. Yes... that's it... we're a present... but without the ribbon.

    ..can't ...hold ...back ...sounds like ...project kickoff meeting.

    *wharf ralf barf*

    :-@~~~~*

  10. Important change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    As you can see in the linked release notes, there's a new EULA. It forbids you to make worldwide calls between Skype users so it seems like Skype has contracts with the telephone companies as well!

    1. Re:Important change by duguk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, there is a new EULA http://www.skype.com/eula.html, but unless I'm seriously mistaken, it does not forbid you to make worldwide calls; it says: "Please note that you are not allowed to use the Skype Software and the Services in territories where offering or using such services is forbidden by law. By agreeing to this End User License Agreement, you will explicitly state that you have verified in your own territory if the offering and use of such services is allowed." That's usual. If I'm wrong though, please correct me! Dug

    2. Re:Important change by cching · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't see where it says that. I searched for world and call and didn't find any references that support what you're saying. Anyone else see it?

    3. Re:Important change by benjaminchoate · · Score: 0, Troll

      troll: mod parent down

    4. Re:Important change by vk2 · · Score: 1

      What.. ? Are you drunk ?

      --
      No Sig for you.!
  11. Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC did... by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "I knew it was over when I downloaded Skype," Michael Powell, chairman, Federal Communications Commission, explained. "When the inventors of KaZaA are distributing for free a little program that you can use to talk to anybody else, and the quality is fantastic, and it's free - it's over. The world will change now inevitably."
    Fortune Magazine, 16th February 2004


    I don't see a 2/16/2004 edition of Fortune according to their archives but I did find an article on 2/9/2004 which I cannot see in its entirety (see here for more bitching about that topic).

    1. Re:Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC did... by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • "I knew it was over when I downloaded Skype," Michael Powell, chairman, Federal Communications Commission, explained. "When the inventors of KaZaA are distributing for free a little program that you can use to talk to anybody else, and the quality is fantastic, and it's free - it's over. The world will change now inevitably."
        Fortune Magazine, 16th February 2004
      Amazing perceptive for the FCC considering some of the stuff they've done of late (media consolidation rules for one). I have to agree with him, which is why I, for one, wasn't surprised that the Senate decided VoIP had to pay the universal access and 911 fees. The writing's on the wall and VoIP will overtake the traditional telcos probably within the next 20 years or so.
    2. Re:Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC did... by CoolnessItself · · Score: 1

      It is indeed in the 2/9/2004 issue:

      Very high places. Just 24 hours later and 5,700 miles away, Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, sits before academics, students, and telecom executives at the University of California at San Diego and explains that telecom as we know it is through. "I knew it was over when I downloaded Skype," he says. "When the inventors of Kazaa are distributing for free a little program that you can use to talk to anybody else, and the quality is fantastic, and it's free--it's over. The world will change now inevitably."

    3. Re:Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC did... by Hollins · · Score: 1
      Amazingly perceptive for the FCC considering some of the stuff they've done of late (media consolidation rules for one).

      Actually, Powell has been entirely consistent and frequently misunderstood. His policies and decisions come from his underlying belief in minimal regulation. This was first evident in the modifications to the FCC consolidation regulations (as an aside, many legal experts believe that the former regulations would never have stood up to court challenge and the revised version championed by Powell was likely the most restrictive that could). Since then, he has repeatedly sided against big media by opposing additional restrictions on issues such as VoIP regulation, fees for internet radio stations, the use of FM frequencies by neighborhood radio stations, etc. Overall, I think the media consolidation ruling will be the least significant of these. Every week, I get less and less content from major providers and more and more from independent sources on the web.

      Whether you side with him or not, it is not appropriate to dismiss Powell as a 'tool for big media'. He seems to act with integrity.

      It's puzzling to me to see so much animosity toward Powell from the Slashdot crowd.

    4. Re:Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's puzzling to me to see so much animosity toward Powell from the Slashdot crowd.

      Not puzzling at all. He's Black.

    5. Re:Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC did... by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • Not puzzling at all. He's Black.
      I seriously doubt that's it. I for one had no clue (nor do I care) what color his skin is.
    6. Re:Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Grandparent was a troll.

      The real reason Slashdot hates him is that he's a Republican. Son of Colin Powell.

    7. Re:Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC did... by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • No, Grandparent was a troll.

        The real reason Slashdot hates him is that he's a Republican. Son of Colin Powell.

      And you think that's not a troll as well? Sorry I also didn't know (or care) what political party he affiliates himself with.
  12. One thing I like about vonage. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Informative

    One thing I like about Vonage is that you are using a regular telephone (wired or cordless) with the system instead of being tied to a headset that is wired to your computer. There is a USB headset that is wireless. See here. I have not used it, but it is advertised and makes sense that there is a product. Also you might find something with Hello Direct

  13. Skype by duguk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been using Skype at home for a few days now; the sound quality is adequate, and I haven't had any problems with it; its probably equal or better than the POTS.

    Plus you can log into Skype onto multiple machines, if someone tries to contact you they both ring. I'm not sure about messaging yet though!

    Still, I'll be downloading this and upgrading. I like it! Its definately worth a try out if you're interested in making phone calls. I've only tried the IP2IP connections btw, and have no idea of IP2POTS :)

    Dug

    P.S. I often make up words due to psudeoapathy.

  14. We need an Open Source Skype by Sanity · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I am amazed that nobody has built an open source VoIP application, perhaps around the Speex codec, which employs simple UDP NAT circumvention to get around the nasty configuration issues which plague most VoIP applications.

    Until someone does, Skype, a proprietary closed protocol, but the only "zero configuration" VoIP application I know of, is likely to continue to acquire users.

    1. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by hey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would be nice but what about the POTS interconnect?

    2. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Win32, try DIAX.

      The application isn't open source, but the protocol is open. Works great for me.

    3. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe if enough linux users got together, we could do something along the lines of tcp.int

    4. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by cching · · Score: 1

      I've been using TeamSpeak http://www.teamspeak.org/ and, though it is a bit of a different beast from Skype (no POTS, no IM, etc.), it works brilliantly as a simple VoIP communications mechanism.

    5. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a bit confused. Speex is a codec, and as such, employs tricky bits of math and that's about it. UDP NAT traversal could be done by applications that use Speex, but it's entirely orthogonal to the codec being used - the software could just as easily traverse NAT with the GSM codec, for example.

    6. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by wfberg · · Score: 2, Informative

      The clients on offer at free world dialup all support STUN for NAT traversal, and some (like X-ten) support speex.

      They're all preconfigured to use free world dialup if that's where you download them. Pretty much zeroconf. I think X-ten also does GSM codec (though it doesn't say whether it uses EFR).

      Too bad the default codec is G.721 muLaw (64 kbps, feh!).

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    7. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by cureless · · Score: 1

      You mean like http://www.wirlab.net/kphone/ or http://www.gnomemeeting.org/? kphone only has a few codecs and I can't vouch for it's full functionality since I haven't used it for calls (though it seems to authenticate me just fine). gnomemeeting doesn't do SIP yet, but they're working on it.

      And, BTW, like others have said before Speex is unrelated to NAT.

      --
      Reply . . . let's get it over with.
    8. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it uses an open protocol, someone could write a SIP gateway. I'm sure that many of the current SIP-to-POTS providers would love to operate such a gateway if it means they can sell more minutes.

    9. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by Sanity · · Score: 1
      You mean like http://www.wirlab.net/kphone/ or http://www.gnomemeeting.org/?
      No, because neither of them do UDP NAT circumvention AFAIK.
      And, BTW, like others have said before Speex is unrelated to NAT.
      I know, so what?
    10. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      I am amazed that nobody has built an open source VoIP application

      John Walker, of Autodesk fame, did, back in 1991.

      He discontinued it because the increasing ubiquity of proprietary routers and firewalls made it less and less easy for the average user to open a port to use P2P applications like SpeakFreely.

      Unlike Skype, SpeakFreely is entirely point-to-point (although at one time Walker set up a directory) which more or less means the caller must know the receiver's IP address. Skype automates this.

      SpeakFreely allowed the use of theoretically arbitrary encryption, although I was never able to get it to work with PGP (I did get it to work with some built-in encryptions.

      Sound quality was pretty good.

    12. Re:We need an Open Source Skype by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      I signed up for FWD just for kicks, after I found
      that KPhone also can work with their network.
      Then I switched to VoIPalk.org, and can call a
      POTS number as long as there's credit on my
      account. Shame it's in the UK, so Scandinavian
      phonecalls can get a bit expensive. Works great
      for me, though, until the local VoIP companies
      start supporting KPhone/X-Lite :)

  15. Ability to call strangers? by Pacifix · · Score: 1

    What's been your experience with the directory listing, ie, listing yourself as wanting to chat via voice? Sounds interesting but subject to the same problems as most IMing. I loved Odigo for its international flavor and ability to match up interests. How does Skype compare to this?

    1. Re:Ability to call strangers? by slobbargoat · · Score: 1

      just think of the spam possibilities :( poor us.

  16. Prove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until you quote the relevant section of the EULA I don't believe you.

  17. 1.0 is same as 0.98.0.68 ... only TEXT changes by kwanbis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    27.07.2004 Skype for Windows 1.0.0.9 * change: new EULA * change: minor text changes * change: changed progressbar colors

  18. Nice try, troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you'd like to include a fake quote next time you try an outrageous lie like this, seeing that there is no actual quote in the document you're linking to that supports your conclusion.

    To summarize for you mods:

    1) There is no actual quote provided

    2) The EULA says nothing about 'forbidding worldwide calls between Skype users'

    Conclusion: Parent is a troll.

  19. Re:pricing by whyne · · Score: 0

    google cache of price list http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9ixTGC7CReQJ: https://secure.skype.com/store/help.pricelist.html +&hl=en

  20. Malware? by cghancock01 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is this thing not chock full of adware, spyware, malware, and all those other wares that make me wary? From the makers of Kazaa? Come on, I don' trust Kazaa as far as I can throw it!

    1. Re:Malware? by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not yet, which is the beauty of it all. Friends of mine were all hyped up about this a few months back, but when I saw who was behind it I chose not to go with the flow. There are lots of provisions in licenses and texts that says they are allowed to add third party stuff later on under certain circumstances. They do say you have to agree, but couple that with provisions that say that they don't need to provide you with the next version and that new versions need not be compatible I think we all see where it is heading. Add in the fact that most users simply agree to anything, and we're already there.

      I might well be wrong and they've seen the errors of their ways, but I doubt it. I'll just wait and see. It is quite possible I'll not support it simply because they've been *really* bad before and people who behave badly should not get away with it by just starting over.

    2. Re:Malware? by magefile · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I understood it, these guys operated a "clean" Kazaa, and the malware only came in when Sharman Networks, or whatever it was called, took over. Am I misinformed?

    3. Re:Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying they won't sell out again?

    4. Re:Malware? by jlleblanc · · Score: 1

      Do understand that they have an actual revenue stream (SkypeOut, allowing calls to landlines for varying rates) and probably won't need to weigh the client down with adware to make money.

      -Joe

    5. Re:Malware? by owlstead · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, you are not misinformed. According to a Dutch television documentary the programmers did not want that to happen. A collegue, who handled the commercial part more or less, sold the program to an Australian company, without them knowing. Basically they were conned out of their business. After that the ads came in.

      This out the top of my head, since I don't have the documentary lying around. It was shown to me at the Copy=Right? festival of my ISP, XS4ALL (.nl).

    6. Re:Malware? by hexag · · Score: 0

      I read in The Economist recently about this & the bloke who came up with the idea said there's no need for spyware, as there is actually a way to make ligitimate money out of this thing. There was an air of regret about loading Kazaa with spyware & a desire not to repeat the same folly.

    7. Re:Malware? by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

      Well, that makes me a bit more positive towards them, as long as they don't make the same mistake again, that is. :)

      Actually, they seem to have a business model that might work without being assholes this time too... which makes you wonder what plans they had the last time, if any. Maybe they were just a bunch of hackers hacking away at some cool stuff. =)

  21. Still no go on linux... by pherthyl · · Score: 1

    Tried the newest version on Linux, still no go for me.

    It looks nice, loads fast, but you still can't specify what device you want to use for a microphone. It automatically assumes that you are using /dev/dsp for both your soundcard and your mic. Unfortunately I have a seperate USB mic and therefore can't use Skype in Linux at all.
    I've posted this on their forums but no official response so far.

    1. Re:Still no go on linux... by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      ROFLMAO Because it doesn't support your USB mice, it's a no go on linux?

      Go to Best Buy, get yourself a $10 headset, and go use it, or is that too much of an investment, where this company should invest thousands in dev costs bescause it doesn't support your USB mic?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Still no go on linux... by iantri · · Score: 1

      Though this doesn't really deserve a response, if they had written it properly it would interact with ALSA/OSS properly and not blindly assume your soundcard is at /dev/dsp...

    3. Re:Still no go on linux... by pherthyl · · Score: 1

      ROFLMAO Because it doesn't support your USB mic, it's a no go on linux?

      Yes. Why the hell should I have to buy a headset just to use some software. I already have a soundcard and mic that work perfectly fine so skype should work with them.

      This mindset of "the user should work around the sofware" instead of the other way around is retarded.

    4. Re:Still no go on linux... by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      "This mindset of "the user should work around the sofware" instead of the other way around is retarded."

      Well let me tell you a story. I bought a monitor with a built in KVM -> really cool, but the K and M part didn't quite work right because it was USB only and I used a PS2 to USB adaptor for my keyboard. DirectX games didn't work with a PS2 -> USB adaptor -> i couldn't play them.

      I had two choices: bitch, or buy a USB keyboard.

      Really, bitching got me no where, so I bought the keyboard.

      I think it would have been arrogant and ignorant to bitch otherwise.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Still no go on linux... by bartek · · Score: 1

      Not true. Set up your system to use ALSA. Define virtual assymetric device and set it as a default. Than use aoss to run skype.

  22. I may have found something useful... by doppleganger871 · · Score: 1

    ...like a cordless USB phone that looks fairly normal, and... uh.. isn't $400.

    http://www.cproducts.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/ on line-store/scstore/p-DH-301281.html?E+scstore+froo gle

    Yea, found it on froogle. Have at it.

    1. Re:I may have found something useful... by doppleganger871 · · Score: 1

      Oh, screw that... found something better... I think we all have a standard phone we can use, right?

      http://www.telex.com/computeraudio/products.nsf/ pa ges/P-811

    2. Re:I may have found something useful... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Oh great, it's 2.4GHz, but it's not wifi. Just what I need, something in my house to interfere with my wireless network!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:I may have found something useful... by ehollas · · Score: 1

      The breaking of long URLs is annoying. In lieu of people writing their own anchors, try TinyURL. For example: http://tinyurl.com/4hvuu

    4. Re:I may have found something useful... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      If people would READ the updated info on the post submission screen they would find out that you can now just use "http://example.com/" which will auto-link a URL.

      See, http://slashdot.org/

    5. Re:I may have found something useful... by lukew · · Score: 1
      The code is;
      <URL:http://somesite.com/>
      Which results in http://somesite.com/.
  23. Cant wait to port this to my Treo 600 by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1

    Awesome, a client for both Windows and Linux! That rocks! I cant wait to port this to my Treo 600! I wonder if it will work on Sprint PCS's 2.5G data network? Any J2ME coders out there wanna help with this project, it'll be uber-r33t. I cant wait until I see the look On the Sprint PCS guys face when I show him that I could just use my data minutes to, um, wait. EERG!!

    >8(

    --
    Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    1. Re:Cant wait to port this to my Treo 600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Port? Wouldn't you need, like, source or something for that?

    2. Re:Cant wait to port this to my Treo 600 by eWarz · · Score: 1

      Actually, Sprint offers unlimited 'vision' service for $15/mo, if the pipe were wide enough (i think it's only 14.4 though) then you could technically port it to java and do this ;)

    3. Re:Cant wait to port this to my Treo 600 by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1

      I've got Vision, and I only pay $5/mo for unlimited (they've since jacked up the price a bunch, one of the reasons I'm not getting a new handset any time soon). And no, the speeds are more like 5-10 KILOBYTES / Second. I've seen peaks around 30-40 but thats usually just when initiating a download, then it starts to level off around 5-10KB/s. Just shows you that the bandwidth is there.

      The old "Wireless Web" plan was 14.4kb/s (~1.4 KB/s) which sucked but at the time there wasnt anything better

      Oh, and if Sprint PCS is reading, um, I got my data cable so I could download my photos to my laptop, not check my email when I'm on business trips. Stupid greedy twits.

      --
      Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
  24. It doesn't work on XP either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like crap and it's delayed.

  25. VoIP - local exchange shared POTS line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, so we have BitTorrent that allows me to finally run a true Peer->Peer file transfer, sharing the resources I pay for via my cable modem.

    Why can't we take VoIP and modify it to utilize all the phone lines that most people own that are usually sitting idle?

    If I want to call from LA to NYC, then my outgoing connection is made from my PC to a PC that has a local NYC phone # so all toll charges are avoided.

    As a user, I would specify which area codes (Exchanges) I want to allow people to be able to dial out from my phone with.

    911, 411, 976, etc would all be blocked by default.

    This way we can use the internet to make the calls to POTS lines without added expense.

    There are several *NIX fax products that do this very thing. I would image the biggest difficulty would be getting enough folks to donate their phone lines for this purpose as well as being able to prevent anonymous calls from the network -- one would want a record of WHO called using their phone line in cases of abuse.

    www.acmenews.com

    1. Re:VoIP - local exchange shared POTS line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do you do when they want to use their phone and its being used by another P2P user. Hope that someone else has free line somewhere else?

    2. Re:VoIP - local exchange shared POTS line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally, You would make outgoing calls using IP. It might route back to your own phone -- it might route through someone elses in your area -- or if the other person is IP, it may not go over POTS.

      This would of course require enough people to contribute to make it feasable.

  26. Nice... by Jason+Hood · · Score: 0

    ...its Qt based. Works great with KDE.

    --
    Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
  27. embrace and extend by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Where's my Asterix plugin for realtime conversion of SIP to Skype calls?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:embrace and extend by Styx · · Score: 1

      Rohan Mahy (co-chair IETF SIP and SIPPING Working Groups) said:

      "As with anybody who has technical problems with IETF protocols, I invite them to write a description of what problem they are trying to solve which they feel is not addressed by existing protocols and provide some motivation. Zennstrom has not provided any rigorous analysis or even detailed explanation of these alleged technical problems.

      "The traditional telecom folks want to reproduce an environment which is familiar to them. SIP does things differently, but many folks generally stop there and don't try very hard to understand how to accomplish their goals 'the-SIP-way'.

      "I believe that Zennstrom has a different motivation. He is providing a packaged service and I believe that he is afraid of the idea of open services and open protocols, because these things directly threaten his business model."

      But yeah, a SIP/IAX gateway to Skype would be very nice.

      --
      /Styx
  28. Dell X30 by paulhar · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately it still crashes my Dell Axim X30. Just freezes and on reboot complains about memory corruption.

    Remember - take a full backup first using Active Sink so that you can restore from a cold reset if needed. If it works on your unit - great!

    1. Re:Dell X30 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd my friend has one and skype seems to work fine. Are you using the newest verion of WinCe?

  29. Re:pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you, allergic to HTML? here is the cached page. Or at least, that is what google alleges will be the cached page, it hasn't loaded for me.

  30. Why? by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

    Why would you want to route point to point calls through a peer to peer network when you can just set up your own personal (or shared) ventrilo server and talk to anybody you want? Routing a latency-sensitive application through p2p just seems dumb.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:Why? by magefile · · Score: 1

      I believe it does direct connect, right? Only uses p2p to find the person you're looking for? ("Hey, have you seen $PERSON? No? Could you ask your buddies for me?")

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skype is popular because it gets around most firewalls and NAT. This includes NAT without inbound port forwarding. In order to do that, it sometimes has to route the data through other hosts, specifically when both participants are behind an outbound-only firewall or NAT. It uses direct connections whenever possible of course.

      IMHO the lack of more robust transport layer options is a major showstopper for standardized VoIP protocols like SIP/RTP and H.323. It would be a real shame if the VoIP revolution were lost to a closed source application with spyware option EULA and proprietary protocol, just because we can't offer a setup for SIP which simply works, regardless of your uplink restrictions.

    3. Re:Why? by AIX-Hood · · Score: 1

      Because ventrilo isn't free, and has all sorts of annoying licensing issues that came about a year or so ago. Unfortunately teamspeak is going that way also according to their site, but luckily isn't yet. Skype on the other hand is free in every way.

    4. Re:Why? by malok2 · · Score: 1

      I think it connects to a peer and asks it to forwards connections to you (kind of port forwarding) in the case where you are behind a firewall/router and aren't able to open a port.

    5. Re:Why? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      It uses the fastest connection available. It only routes the calls themselves though other computers if there is no other way. If both sides are behind a NAT firewall it uses a UDP protocol. Both computers get a call request through the network (using a server or easy reachable pc) and send an UDP package to each other. One of these packages will probably be dropped by the firewall, but after that the stateless UDP protocol is accepted at both sides, and high quality/high encryption calls can be made, using the shortest route available. The trick is to use a side channel to let the systems know the IP and port number of the caller/callee in advance. For this it uses the skype network.

      PS. Could somebody please confirm this?

    6. Re:Why? by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Hi, thanks for (potentially) clearing this up. P2P does indeed make sense for *lookup* and *rendezvous* but little or no sense for direct communication. Most of the VOIP stacks I have looked at (yeah, I forget all the obscure acronyms and spec numbers), deal a lot with how to just arrange the call in the first place...the rest is just cake.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    7. Re:Why? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Not really. P2P just means Point 2 Point. Which does exactly mean that you are talking straight to the computer you want to download wares from, or indeed the person that you want to talk to. The lookup part does and the configuration part are not specifically P2P, but they are clearly the most difficult to get right.

    8. Re:Why? by williwilli · · Score: 1

      p2p also means peer to peer. outside of the telecom industry I imagine this has become the more commonly known definition of the acronym. where have you been? (jk) ;-)

    9. Re:Why? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      You're obviously right :) That's what playing with PPTP etc. will do to you... Still, the idea is the same.

  31. you will still have to wait for 1.0 by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    from the site:

    Latest version is:

    Skype 0.98

    1. Re:you will still have to wait for 1.0 by ernstp · · Score: 1

      Yes, no mention of 1.0 on the homepage!?

      The linuxversion is also the old one.

    2. Re:you will still have to wait for 1.0 by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

      unless it's on the forum only, which i can't check now because it's probably /.'d

  32. Peering by peroskar · · Score: 0

    Does Skype have VoIP peering with other VoIP providers so you could call people using other providers, like FreeWorldDialup, or do they have a completely closed network of its own?

  33. Boycott immediately! by Gear_Media · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    from the article: "Skype, created by the people who brought you KaZaA, uses innovative P2P (peer-to-peer) technology to connect you with other Skype users."

    KaZaA??? I won't touch anything that has any connection to that pile o' shit!

    --
  34. Doesn't look like 1.0 by Kujah · · Score: 2, Funny

    It doesn't look like 1.0 to me, it looks like Windows Beta 0.98.0.68. Somehow I think whoever posted the summary rounded up...

  35. /.ed? by Mike+deVice · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or is the Skype site unreachable this morning? Heh.

    1. Re:/.ed? by ZeroVerteX · · Score: 1

      Looks like the forums are unavailable. Skype me skype://zerovertex

      --
      If it can go wrong it wnetscape: Segmentation Fault, Core dumped
    2. Re:/.ed? by Mike+deVice · · Score: 1
      Well, it seems to have rebounded. But just in case it dies again, this is a snipped from the forum that is kind of important...

      Note:
      Skype 1.0 is currently only compatible with Windows XP and Windows 2000. We are working on an immediate update, and recommend that you do not upgrade at this time if you are using Windows 98 or Windows ME.

  36. Dagnabit, you slashdotted my telephone! by magefile · · Score: 1

    Oh, right, it's p2p for a reason.

    How simple are those USB phones in terms of setup (in Linux)? I wouldn't mind paying for one, but as long as I can still use Asterix (or just POTS), Skype isn't compelling enough to mess around with.

    And do they have a free trial? Say, 5 minutes to check sound quality, ease of use and all that?

    Yeah, I know, easy questions. But as long as the site's /.'ed ...

    1. Re:Dagnabit, you slashdotted my telephone! by soda · · Score: 1
      And do they have a free trial? Say, 5 minutes to check sound quality, ease of use and all that?

      Calls Skype to Skype are free. SkypeOUT (Skype to POTS) and eventually SkypeIN (POTS to Skype) has a charge - But it's cheap! Get an account, throw some euros at it and give it a try. I love it and use it every day.

    2. Re:Dagnabit, you slashdotted my telephone! by karuna · · Score: 1

      You can also check Skype setup, including voice quality by calling test service user echo123. Just call it, speak some words and after 10 seconds hear your message played back to you.

      --

    3. Re:Dagnabit, you slashdotted my telephone! by magefile · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that was exactly what I was looking for.

    4. Re:Dagnabit, you slashdotted my telephone! by wellard1981 · · Score: 1

      I gotta agree with this. I've started using the SkypeOut, and I've only put 10 EUROs worth on my account, and all I can say is bloody fantastic! Sound quality is as you expect it.. it's a telephone after all. There is no lag, echoing, background noise, just a good clean line.

  37. If the INDUCE Act passes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The INDUCE act is trying to outlaw p2p software. Since Skype reports to have the ability to share files, it too will be outlawed if the INDUCE act passes.

  38. Then they'll add advertising by Animats · · Score: 1
    Yeah, the first one is always free. Wait until they start downloading ads.

    You think I'm kidding? Call Sprint PCS information. Not only do they charge you, they run an ad "For movie listings, times, and more, call...".

    And it's not even encrypted end to end.

  39. You forgot (ahem) MSN Messenger by melted · · Score: 1

    Zero configuration, free as in beer VoIP application with UPnP support built-in. Works pretty well. I've saved hundreds of dollars with it on international calls.

    1. Re:You forgot (ahem) MSN Messenger by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      they stopped supporting VOIP in their new versions.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:You forgot (ahem) MSN Messenger by melted · · Score: 1

      In which versions, exactly? I'm running 6.2, and I use VoIP every day to communicate with folks in Europe.

    3. Re:You forgot (ahem) MSN Messenger by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      are you voice chatting or PC to Phone ?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    4. Re:You forgot (ahem) MSN Messenger by melted · · Score: 1

      PC to PC. That's what VoIP is. Ability to talk PC to phone is gravy you pay money for.

    5. Re:You forgot (ahem) MSN Messenger by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      VoIP can also be PC to Phone.

      but regardless back in 2000 MSN Messenger 3.0 allowed free PC to Phone communication and now it does not.

      I can use Apple's iChat to talk to people PC to PC so it is not a big deal.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  40. Meta: Slashdot theme by Teancom · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the *worst* slashdot theme, color-wise, yet? I mean, we've had some doozies, but this looks really bad. I mean, the logo looks just like someone using gimp's script-fu and the color very closely matches the color of my three year-old's puke.

    Just thought I'd mention.

    1. Re:Meta: Slashdot theme by Uberdog · · Score: 1

      Okay, you're wrong. This is. It's a very close second, though. The light tan links are hard to read on both the white and tan backgrounds.

    2. Re:Meta: Slashdot theme by Teancom · · Score: 1

      Ooh, you're right. How could I have forgotten that pile? Theory: blind monkeys on crack pick /.'s colors. Proof? In the puddin'.

    3. Re:Meta: Slashdot theme by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      The light tan links are hard to read on both the white and tan backgrounds.

      Yeah, I think if they were a little darker it'll be fine

      Regards
      elFarto
  41. Works great for me by theslashdude · · Score: 1

    Works great on my XP. The sound quality for calls within the US was indistinguishable from a land line call. International calls sounded good enough but have a bit of a delay that you have to get used to, it's no worse then a cell to cell international call. I've also received calls from Skypeout on my land line and had no idea it was from Skype until I was told.

  42. This is why: by ernstp · · Score: 1

    They found a crasher and pulled it.
    The announcement and Windows version is back up again.
    The new Linux beta I have no idea about...

    27.07.2004 Skype for Windows 1.0.0.10

    * change: updated Chinese Traditional language file
    * bugfix: fixed crash on Windows 98/ME

    27.07.2004 Skype for Windows 1.0.0.9

    * change: new EULA
    * change: minor text changes
    * change: changed progressbar colors

  43. X-ten is pretty good... by Styx · · Score: 1

    It supports uLaw, aLaw, GSM, iLBC and speex.

    Too bad it's only for Windows and MacOS X. Still, there's gnophone and kphone for Linux.

    --
    /Styx
  44. This is why: by ernstp · · Score: 1

    They found a crasher and pulled it.
    The announcement and Windows version is back up again.
    The new Linux beta I have no idea about...

    27.07.2004 Skype for Windows 1.0.0.10

    * change: updated Chinese Traditional language file
    * bugfix: fixed crash on Windows 98/ME

    27.07.2004 Skype for Windows 1.0.0.9

    * change: new EULA
    * change: minor text changes
    * change: changed progressbar colors

  45. SkypeOut Rates (New and old) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears that SkypeOut recently raised their rates by as much as 500%. Check out this page here from the forums: SkypeOut Rates

  46. Re:Grrr (update) by Dulimano · · Score: 1

    I use it on Windows 98. It works. But it crashes without warning at about the 20th minute of calls.

    I guess they fixed it:

    27.07.2004 Skype for Windows 1.0.0.10
    * bugfix: fixed crash on Windows 98/ME

  47. To use separate devices for sound input/output by sonicattack · · Score: 3, Informative

    As of Skype for Linux version 0.9.0.14, the options to configure the soundcard settings from inside the program are still missing.

    For those (like me) who use two different soundcards (webcam microphone + internal soundcard) for sound input and output, there's something called skype_dsp_hijacker, which uses an LD_PRELOAD trick to redirect sound I/O to another device. I wrote a small patch for this useful wrapper to enable use of separate devices.

    It's located at http://195.38.3.142/skype/
    Do tell me if you find it useful! :)

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Connection Refused - secure.skype.com by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    ROFL Just installed and clicked "Skypeout - Global Calling at Local rates" and I get a connection refused.

    Uhm, that can't be a good sign right?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  50. no, you're wrong by zoloto · · Score: 1

    I actually believe this to be one of the better themes. but that's just one opinion =)

  51. Windows version 1? by HermanZA · · Score: 1

    Uhhh, where are we gonna get that and why would anyone want to run anything on Windows version 1?

  52. Softice by cycleburner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this great? I was really excited to finally use the 1.0 version of Skype, only to get this notification when trying to start it: Skype is not compatible with system debuggers like Softice. And no, I didn't even have Softice running. This is the first time I encounter such a notice. Anyone else?

    1. Re:Softice by ebonkyre · · Score: 1

      IANSIExpert but doesn't Windows load the SI VXDs even if you aren't running a debugging session? It may even be something simpler, like they are checking for the presence of the files on your system.

      --
      "Time is an abstract concept devised by carbon-based lifeforms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese
  53. Use a SIP VoIP provider charging per minutes... by jmouton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...is this is what you want.

    SIP services traverse NAT without a problem.
    There are several VoIP provider that will let you pick your software, and/or hardware to connect to their PBX. I have been using Nikotel.com for that http://www.nikotel.com/.

    The only "good thing" about Skype seems to be that the per minute rates are slightly better than the competition. For example, where Nikotel charges 2.9c/min, Skype seems to charge 2.0c/min.

    For this price difference, I would stick with an open standard, SIP, and an provider that let me know a Wifi phone if I'd like, or a softphone on Linux if this better suits what I need.

    Jerome

    1. Re:Use a SIP VoIP provider charging per minutes... by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1

      I would agree to stick with an open standard for my personal use. However if you have a company that logged a lot of phone time every month, ~50% more per minute adds up.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
  54. Population numbers... by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

    Population officially using US dollars : 294 million American Factfinder (rounded up)

    Population officially using Euros : 303 Million Euromania (rounded down)

    And with more countries joining the EU and soon the Eurozone, y'all are going to need to do a _lot_ of extra breeding to keep up.

    --
    kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    1. Re:Population numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we've got mexico to help

  55. It's been done by ElForesto · · Score: 1

    I'll add another link to the pile.

    --
    There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
  56. Echo cancellation by mhifoe · · Score: 1

    It is worth noting that Skype has particuarly good echo cancellation. We use it at work for conferencing with another office, using just a cheap microphone and some speakers.

  57. I honestly do not know what's so great about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I got it I was actually to test it, calling my CELL PHONE, when I realized it was only PC to PC.. (ie, nothing new) I won't be surprised until I can call my cell phone from my computer, or vice versa for nothing.

  58. Gaim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But does it have a gaim plugin? I can't stand having multiple IM-clients..

  59. It's here to destroy the phone cabal, by hexag · · Score: 0

    The Swedish guy who designed this software has a very anti-monopoly attitude, he sees the (firstly with Kazaa) music industry, and now the telephone industry as sectors which no longer operate in the interests of their customers, so he comes along to destroy them. He couldn't say this so complicitly with Kazaa, but he has been shouting from the rooftops (well, The Economist) about taking down the telecoms and who are we to say that is a bad thing? Yes, he made Kazaa, yes it sucked, but he might actually be on our side, atleast for now (until he gets rich atleast).

  60. Butt what about censorship? by Cumstien · · Score: 1


    Yes but will I be able to call Howard Stern and talk about farts and hairy vagina's with out the FCC getting up in my bizznass?

    If you think I'm a troll, well you haven't seen my mother.

  61. SkypeOut by wellard1981 · · Score: 1

    Me and my friends have started using Skype and found the quality to be excellent!

    I've now purchased my first 10 EUROs worth of credit to use SkypeOut, and all I can say is wow! There is only a split second delay, no background noise, no echoing, just pure telephone conversation, and after a while, you forget that you're phoning via your PC though the Internet, it's really that amazing!

  62. They already fixed it by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    From the release page

    Note:
    Skype 1.0.0.10 was released July 27 which fixed an issue with Windows 98 / Windows ME.

    They are on the ball over there. Class act all the way. :)

  63. Review by thpdg · · Score: 1

    I own a Viewsonic V37 Pocket PC. I had tried the original PocketSkype, when it came out earlier this year. Using an SDIO Wi-Fi card, the speech was stuttered and worthless when picked up by a desktop PC on the same LAN.However, now that issue is resolved. The voice quality was very good, for this connection type.
    There is still about 1 second lag before the other end recieves, but it could be a result of my choice of networking hardware. Soon, I will test it with my wi-fi laptop and the Windows version of the software, to see what happens.

    --

    -Patrick

    "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

  64. One thing missing from vonage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Why is using Vonage ok, and telnet not?

    I'd be using Vonage right now (actually returned the hardware when someone in house ordered it) if they encrypted calls.

    I think the telnet example is the clearest way of illustrating the problem with Vonage. According to Skype, calls between Skype units are encrypted (at least until FCC can change things).

    Your calls are encrypted end-to-end in order to safeguard your privacy


    Telnetting outside the lan is considered a no-no. And even Rsync and Sftp are frowned upon, as compared to ssh and ssl. The regular phone line (pots) is often derided as being wholly unsecure, but you still need, for the most part, a physical tap to compromise pots. And law enforcement needs reasonable grounds (and a judge's approval and oversite) before they can listen in. With Voip, other than Skype to Skype, anyone in the middle can listen in, from my landlord providing the lan, to my landlord's isp, to the techs babysitting the servers rooms at the upstream providers, to the carnivore system at every major hub.

    Yeah, I'm not building and arranging delivery of inter-continental ballistic missiles. But I don't use postcards for my banking transactions, don't ship my dirty laundry home to mamma in clear plexiglass boxes, and I don't use telnet across the Internet. Why are others using a form of telnet for their daily phone calls, often as their major or only telephoning ability, and this is considered ok?

    Hopefully Skype will force other providers to add encryption. And it will become prevalent throughout the system, as it should.

    If they succeed in banning encryption in Skype, why not go after ssh and ssl next?

    In the meantime, anyone reading this, and who either is using Vonage, or plans on, please go to their site once a month and search for "encryption" and "security" on their site. Maybe if they see encryption enough times in their logs, they might get a clue, and implement it. Otherwise we'll have to wait for some incidents of interception, and identity theft (and ruined lives), before they're forced to implement it.
  65. How old is this? by jimwatters · · Score: 1
    For Windows version 1.0
    I can't even find Windows 3.0
  66. l337! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is so awesome...running with kde 3.3beta2, works flawless with arts, perfect sound quality to normal phone lines on the other side of the globe. it beats my satellite phone calls in aspect to quality by a longshoot!
    hooray!

  67. Conspiracy Theory by RobertKozak · · Score: 1

    Free worldwide communication. To almost anyone else. Free. Free. Hmmmmm..

    This would make it so easy for Big Brother(TM) to feed these calls and process them for keywords and given enough storage space keep a record of everything said over the phone.

    --
    Bet this .sig looks familiar.
    1. Re:Conspiracy Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't laugh at big brother, my dear. Ever heard of Echelon?

      Anyway, below some security issues with wide use of voip, from the top of my head:

      - Other parties will be able to listen in, with skype it's the ISP (or those with access to the ISP) instead of the telephone company. (not completely different of course, ISP's also use bugged intercontinental lines, eavesdropped sattelite links and firewalls developed in Israel and the USA)
      - It might be easier to break into an ISP than into a well protected telephone company, as an ISP needs to be wired through the net anyway.
      - Through P2P monitoring other (savvy) parties might be able to monitor who's calling who.
      - No idea what kind of encryption (if any) skype uses.
      - Skype needs system access, so could be used a a channel to install any kind of stuff, just like with any other p2p tool.
      - Listening in to conversations might be easier by implementing a collection of strategically positioned skype peers: typical home-users use NAT, so will rely on a peer to forward their UDP traffic.
      - Finally a link between those email addresses and voice prints / names ! ...

  68. My first call from Skype to Phone by nadam · · Score: 1

    I've been using Skype for about a year now and have been waiting for this feature just as long.

    I just downloaded 1.0, bought 10 EUR of credits costing 11.5 EUR including Swedish VAT.

    Being midnight in Sweden, I had no one to call so I asked my girlfriend to go into another room to test it with my own phone. The sound quality was very good.

    Actually, the first call I made was to my girlfriend (in the same room as the computer) 5 minutes earlier before I told her about it. I turned down the computer sound so she couldn't hear that I was calling. When she answered I turned up the sound so she could hear her own voice echoing from the computer speakers. She got really scared and hung up before realizing what actually happened.

  69. They already do..... by brakk · · Score: 1

    "Skype for Pocket PC(TM) is free software that enables you to make Skype voice calls using your WiFi-enabled Microsoft Pocket PC based handheld computer from any WiFi hotspot."

    http://www.skype.com/download_pda.html

  70. Standards based alternative exists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe nobody has mentioned it already, but Freshtel (http://www.freshtel.net/) have been doing this with their Firefly product for months!

    The client itself isn't opensource, but it's based on an IAX2 (the completely open Asterisk VOIP protocol).

    It has almost all of the features that people are requesting with Skype:
    - Multiple "hardware" handset options
    - Transparent NAT traversal (IAX2 does not suffer the SIP/H.323 NAT issues)
    - Very competitive international call rates
    - Open architecture

    The developers (A Melbourne/AU based company) have extended IAX2 slightly to allow messaging - but they're happy to release the modifications to any developer who is interested.

    I use it to call international and national (our carriers here in AU love screwing us on STD calls), and I find the delay and quality superior to mobile (on a 512 DSL).

    In addition to this, they're happy for you to connect other clients (any SIP or IAX2 client will work) including Asterisk to their network to use the cheap call termination services.

    Sorry - this sounds a bit like an ad for them, I was just really impressed! (far more so than I was with Skype when I tried it some time ago, which seems to be getting all the hype).

  71. SIP and Nat.. by cardpuncher · · Score: 1
    SIP services traverse NAT without a problem

    No they don't. They can be made to traverse NAT by a number of different means, none of which is entirely satisfactory or problem-free.

    Protocols which pass around lower-layer addresses are broken by definition. However, they do give lower-layer equipment vendors from the Bay Area a marketing opportunity to sell solutions to their own broken architectures.

  72. No incoming calls from PSTN? by ddp337 · · Score: 1

    As far as I can tell, while SkypeOut allows you to make make outgoing calls to landline phones, there's no Skype service that allows you to receive incoming calls from landline phones. If that's true, then Vonage is a better landline replacement.

    1. Re:No incoming calls from PSTN? by soda · · Score: 1
      As far as I can tell, while SkypeOut allows you to make make outgoing calls to landline phones, there's no Skype service that allows you to receive incoming calls from landline phones. If that's true, then Vonage is a better landline replacement.

      That feature (SkypeIN) is on its way. By the way; Vonage seems to only accept US-customers. That disqualifies their service for me. ;)