Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: FOSS, Multiplatform Skype Replacement for PC-to-PC Video Chat?

obarthelemy writes "Skype having just been borged, now may be a good time to hedge our bets and look for a replacement. I'm *not* looking for something that interfaces with POTS, but just a simple PC-to-PC video chat tool that is very easy to configure and use, reliable, multiplatform (my family has Windows, Linux, MacOS; iOS and Android would be nice extras), and has good video/voice quality. We're almost only skyping with each other. What would you recommend?"

281 comments

  1. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. Congratulations.

  2. Chatroulette or Omegle, obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly, you want to be using Chatroulette or Omegle.

  3. Ekiga by leoplan2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ekiga?

    1. Re:Ekiga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, Ekiga

    2. Re:Ekiga by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      They said they wanted something that has Mac support, Ekiga is only Gnome and Windows.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:Ekiga by PReDiToR · · Score: 2

      I run Arch with Enlightenment. Yes, I do have GTK installed and a few other Gnome dependencies, but I don't have to look at the Gnome interface.
      I also have Android.
      Ekiga runs fine behind my NAT system, I know this because a friend of mine called me from his iDevice the day we heard that MSFT was buying Skype. However, my Windows friend can't make his SIP work.

      I don't know which SIP client I like best on Arch. Twinkle, Linphone or Ekiga. I do know that between Linphone, SIPDroid and CSipSimple on my Android I'll stick with CSipSimple. It's compatible and integrates well.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    4. Re:Ekiga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to use the same client on each platform. There are a couple of Mac clients that can Video Chat with Ekiga, and Windows actually comes with a compatible client (Windows Messenger):
      http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/Ekiga_Interoperability

    5. Re:Ekiga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH! I know...

      It's a trick question. There's no such thing as a good SIP client.

    6. Re:Ekiga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or YateClient from this page http://www.yate.null.ro/pmwiki/index.php?n=Main.YateClient

      supports YateClient is an universal, skinnable VoIP client which supports H.323, SIP, jabber, and IAX based on the QT library.

      with versions available for Linux, Windows and Mac

  4. Skype by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    uh....skype maybe. Just because MS got a hold of it means its down the tubes just yet.

    1. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      uh....skype maybe. Just because MS got a hold of it means its down the tubes just yet.

      Skype isn't FOSS.

    2. Re:Skype by Spicerun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously you haven't had the joy of using something after MS took it over. I've seen a few programs go down the tubes after MS bought the company. Sure, they didn't go down the tubes immediately, but they did die a long slow painful death. And the customers who stuck with those acquired programs got screwed ultimately.

    3. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh....skype maybe. Just because MS got a hold of it means its down the tubes just yet.

      Skype isn't FOSS.

      Skype never has been open. The poster obviously wants a free alternative, or maybe they're astroturfing for MS, because there's nothing remotely close to Skype on all its currently supported platforms (expect a few to get severed now MS are in control).

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

      Examples please?

    5. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If anything, I am hoping Microsoft will actually work well on it and improve on it greatly.
      It sorely needs more manpower behind it. There are some stupidly awful full OS crashes in there ever since V5, huge one relating to the video pane on top of all calls now. (with no way to go back to the old display picture pane instead)

      Not to mention general bugs that don't auto call, don't show people online half the time until you interact with them or they go off and come back on, THE WORST COPYING IN THE HISTORY OF ANYTHING EVER, awful volume control, some weird thing where the caller gets priority mic volume... when it is multi-chat.
      I looked through the issue tracker and my face caved in. Almost wanted to delete it rather than reporting the bugs. But sadly I depend on this crap too much at the moment because others are too lazy to get a decent, lightweight client that has way more features and control over every facet of a call than Skype could dream of.

    6. Re:Skype by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about QDOS? They bought it from Tim Paterson, renamed it, upgraded it over the next 20 years, added a GUI, then released Windows ME. Anybody who used Windows ME was screwed pretty hard.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

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

      Probably time to get over QDOS

    8. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. Remember Foxpro? It was actively maintained, and the developers actually listened to users' requests. When Microsoft announced .NET, suddenly all support for Foxpro went down the drain. Bugs kept cluttering programs and all complaints went to deaf ears.

      Worse: Even with its limitations and abandonment, Microsoft won't relase the foxpro (and ide) source code so we can make our improvements. Why? Because it might compete with "better" Microsoft solutions. This is a perfect case of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

    9. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahaha....

      You funny....

    10. Re:Skype by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      Yeah, like that really crappy program they bought once upon a time and became Excel? /s

      Skype isn't all that great - I've been using it a lot lately and it can't even keep track of the online status of my 20 some contacts, keeps refusing to send my IMs, etc. Honestly I think MS paid about 7 billion too much.

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

      They removed Skype support for Asterisk... it's already half way down the tubes

    12. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. If any company is experienced with releasing a horribly buggy product and then eventually patching it up into a half-decent one, it's Microsoft.

    13. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it will PlaysForSure on OS X and Linux in the future...

    14. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as long as you're using the Windows Skype client and talking exclusively to other Windows Skype clients or paying to talk to POTS stations then you'll be just fine. As for the rest of us, we're going to be looking for replacements as we've already seen Micro$oft's behavior when it comes to supporting non-Micro$oft operating environments.

    15. Re:Skype by maraist · · Score: 2

      While not a death knell for say.. The one that hit me hard was visio. From $50 to $300+. Most of my co-workers who can 'justify' the added costs say it's crap these days anyway.

      --
      -Michael
    16. Re:Skype by aztracker1 · · Score: 2

      I think they'll probably work on integrating it with windows messenger, which has been pretty open architecture wise, while not porting their own client has been friendly to alternatives.

      Without some serious corporate funding a a real alternative cant exist. Google talk + voice comes very close though... a more open alternative wold be very hard, as you really need a central authority with these kinds of services to work around technical complexities that would otherwise make things useless for mom/dad etc.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    17. Re:Skype by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe because:
      - We care about our freedom in general, Skype shouldn't be the exception
      - We don't trust Microsoft
      - We do trust the US government AND the Chinese to spy on us using the Skype network. There's already a "special" Chinese version with the "feature" to have big brother listening. Who know's what the "normal" version does.
      - Skype on Linux is crap, there's no 64 bits version (no, the package they pretend to be 64 bits isn't 64 bits at all, it's a 32 bits version with some lib32 dependencies). Moreover, it crashes, and you have to use loads of tricks to have everything working, like starting it with "env LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib32/libv4l/v4l1compat.so skype", otherwise it simply doesn't work. Even Adobe Flash has a real 64 bits version. Skype is the only software on my OS which is like that, and even if so many people asked for a real build for 64 bits, they've been ignoring all requests.
      - The one and only one Linux developer for Skype has already proven, through the BTS and others, that he isn't competent to do the job. Do you think this is going to change with MS on board? That they will hire better coders? That's a big bet.
      - Skype is the only instant messaging app that doesn't integrate well with multi-network libs like purple from Pidgin.
      - Skype said they would at some point provide a "libskype" so that we could implement our own GUI, but it's not happening
      - No announcement has been made by MS about the future of Skype for Mac or Linux
      - Skype audio support is bad, it crashes often.
      - Skype is the only absolutely needed piece of software for which we don't have source for, if you don't account flash as well (but flash has (buggy) compatible alternatives which you can deal with, Skype doesn't)
      - Did I mention that Skype crashes often in Linux? :)

      And also, please avoid to call FOSS supporters "knee jerk" in this site, as there's a good chance that others wont like it and will mod you out (I don't get why this hasn't happen already by the way). Anyway, the issues with Skype aren't new, and have absolutely nothing to do with the fact it's now a MS product.

      Now, I don't get why the OP went through. We all have been knowing for a long time how bad the situation is, and how much we need some alternatives. Something open, with encryption at all levels, multi-platform, and decentralized. I'm sure it will happen, but I'm also sure this wont be tomorrow.

    18. Re:Skype by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If anything, I am hoping Microsoft will actually work well on it and improve on it greatly.

      Microsoft is very likely to work on Skype and improve it greatly.

      Microsoft is very unlikely to make the versions they have worked on and greatly improved available for any platforms other than Microsoft Windows, and possibly OS X if you're really lucky.

      Got an Android phone? You'd better stop depending on Skype, as quickly as you can, because you can bet your bottom dollar one of the first things that will happen is that "chat with all your friends on Skype!" will become a unique selling point of the Microsoft Windows Phone platform.

    19. Re:Skype by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      too bad you posted as anonymous, i was going to mod you as funny.

    20. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad I'm too lazy to log in, I was going to mod you offtopic.

    21. Re:Skype by sydneyfong · · Score: 2

      Interesting how a *phone* would advertise a "feature" that only allows you to (voice) chat on the same platform... :)

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    22. Re:Skype by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Without some serious corporate funding a a real alternative cant exist. Google talk + voice comes very close though... a more open alternative wold be very hard, as you really need a central authority with these kinds of services to work around technical complexities that would otherwise make things useless for mom/dad etc.

      You don't need a central authority for e-mail and it works well.

      What really needs to happen is for internet providers to setup VoIP servers in addition to e-mail servers. Set up SRV records and tie in the authentication to the same database as the e-mail addresses. I should be able to fire up a SIP client, type in 'joe@comcast.net' or 'joe@mydomain.com' and be talking via SIP to a server that can route my calls to 'bob@aol.com' or '555-1234'. It's really not that hard--there's just no motivation for an ISP to do it because no one else has done it yet...

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    23. Re:Skype by RobertinXinyang · · Score: 1

      "- Skype is the only instant messaging app that doesn't integrate well with multi-network libs like purple from Pidgin."

      Wrong, QQ also will not work with Pidgin.

    24. Re:Skype by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Thats not the point. Having a nice PC to PC video connection would be handy. Why do you need to stick a server/service in between them to connect? I shouldn't have to connect to some third party to make a PC to PC video call.

      --
      Good-bye
    25. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! Tell that to those that run Skype for Asterisk.

      Do you even read /. or are you just venturing outside the MS network?

    26. Re:Skype by brainzach · · Score: 1

      Limiting Skype to Windows Phone would just give an opportunity for a competitor to take over especially since they doesn't have a dominant share of the smartphone market.

      People using Skype on other platforms will benefit Microsoft indirectly through its network effects. The more people using Skype, the more valuable it is to users and the harder it is for a competitor to take over.

      Microsoft's is probably using Skype's network as a platform to make it easier to integrate into Windows Live services. There might be some features that limited Microsoft's devices, but there is little incentive for them to lock out whole platforms. They need as many people as possible using Skype if they want success

    27. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh....skype maybe. Just because MS got a hold of it means its down the tubes just yet.

      True. It's been going down the tubes for quite a while. Bloated to all hell (the memory footprint is atrocious for what it does in idle), useless misfeatures (daily talk bubbles of stuff I don't need to read), an interface that gets worse instead of better with every iteration, pointless and harmful "integration" with Facebook and the like, an interface that with every revision tries to get you to accidentally use costly features, and of course an opaque protocol and security model which relies on you trusting Skype and eBay with your privacy, absolutely.

      The only reason Skype can do this is that it has critical mass. For now. So yeah, looking for a replacement is a good thing -- and if no good one exists, maybe this will give projects the push to do better.

    28. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about FolderShare? Microsoft took that over and kept it running under various names. It's currently Windows Live Mesh and works pretty well and I think may even be quite a bit more efficient than FolderShare was years ago. Plus it's still free.

    29. Re:Skype by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      Just because MS got a hold of it means its down the tubes just yet.

      "Despite its promises that Skype would continue to be offered for other platform, including free ones like Linux and Android, it looks like Microsoft is starting to erect some walls after its purchase of the company.
      The communications company Digium, which develops Skype for Asterisk, a software implementation of a PBX, has announced that it will be ceasing this development"

      In a product notification message, Digium said it had developed Skype for Asterisk in co-operation with Skype.

      "It includes proprietary software from Skype that allows Asterisk to join the Skype network as a native client. Skype has decided not to renew the agreement that permits us to package this proprietary software. Therefore Skype for Asterisk sales and activations will cease on July 26, 2011," the message said.

      http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/47366-development-of-skype-for-asterisk-to-cease

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    30. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teamfoundation....visio....

    31. Re:Skype by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 2

      The MechWarrior Series has been effectively killed by Microsoft. Although Microsoft has sold the rites to the MechWarrior back to the original creator, Piranha Games has been mired in a lawsuit from Harmony Gold over "the unseen" having been seen in an early trailer. Until this mess is sorted out once again, MechWarrior is effectively dead. Thank you MicroShyte for killing a game franchise I greatly enjoyed.

    32. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It already has happened: http://jitsi.org . End to end encryption with ZRTP, support for Linux, Mac OS X and Windows. Working with SIP and XMPP. While not p2p, the latter gives you all the distribution that actually matters. Besides it also comes with desktop sharing, support for Yahoo! Messenger, MSN, ICQ, AIM, etc. and online provisioning. None of these are available with Skype

    33. Re:Skype by PARENA · · Score: 1

      Actually, Skype on Linux works fine for me. I have it running in the background (hide all windows using kwin rules) and then I have the kopete skype plugin so I get my gtalkers, other jabberers and skypers all in one chat window. Oh and voice and such works as well. No crashes no weird ways of starting it. It's weird to say, but "it just works" over here (opensuse 11.4 with same results on 11.1-11.3). I do know it's not like that on all distros and there's plenty to be desired, but to say it's crap because it doesn't work as expected on your distro is a bit too much.

      --
      Here's the secret to immortality: ...oh dang, I forgot.
    34. Re:Skype by terminal.dk · · Score: 1

      Microsoft just did its first step in imporving Skype. They cut the Asterisk plugin license.
      They are trying to make it an isolated island. Call this an improvement if you wish.

      There is only one way to go. Open standards, and FaceTime :)

    35. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NAT is the reason for the season.

    36. Re:Skype by pmontra · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the link. Skype has a limited form of desktop sharing. Actually it's a desktop camera: you send a video stream of your desktop or a part of it but there is no shared mouse, clipboard or keyboard. It works cross platform (obviously) and I use it sometimes to show code to the people I'm working with. Sometimes I'd love to be able to click on the desktop of my friends asking for help for fixing broken stuff on their PCs.

      By the way, Skype crashes very little on my Ubuntu, maybe 2 or 3 times per year. I don't remember how it compares with Skype for Windows (not using it since a couple of years ago) but it's better than Windows Explorer.

    37. Re:Skype by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      There's mostly no motivation for an ISP to do it, because most of them are also your telephone company, and they'd be killing their long-distance calling business stone dead.

      Given that VoIP of any sort will eventually do this for them anyway, they should be setting up their own VoIP servers as a value-add (and maybe even charging a few bucks a month for them), rather than doing the opposite, which is attempting to prevent VoIP from taking hold.

    38. Re:Skype by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      Skype does well at poking holes through NAT, it uses a couple of pretty neat tricks to do it. You can tell that this works because it's manual doesn't have a "what incoming ports do I need to open for feature X to work?" page (there is one for outgoing ports, but it mostly says "anything is nice, but in a pinch, HTTPS will do").

      Skype is actually mostly P2P in operation, from what I understand.

      Any successful solution needs to duplicate the tricks that Skype uses for port tunnelling, or it's not going to be taken up by the masses. And being taken up by the masses is the cornerstone of success for any communications program.

    39. Re:Skype by IZN0GUD · · Score: 1

      oh, yes it does mean exactly that. If MS ever knew what to do and how to do it well, they would never have to buy Skype - MSN Messenger would've been their app of choice, one they would support and advertise and what not. Skype is gonna die out, same way ICQ died long time ago.

      --
      .Play.Open.Minded.
    40. Re:Skype by goarilla · · Score: 1

      Another anecdotal example here: skype on 64-bit slackware 13.1 doesn't crash as well.
      It's true though that the linux (GUI) is actually like a lite version of what is presented to windows users.

    41. Re:Skype by jambox · · Score: 1

      Skype works perfectly for me on any linux I tried it on. We've been using it to keep in contact with relatives in China where each of us has an Acer Aspire One (the distro in question is Linpus Linux Lite, which is derived from an old FC - 6 I think). Skype installed and has worked perfectly there for years, more recently also on my Debian 6 laptop and a couple of Ubuntu machines.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    42. Re:Skype by smash · · Score: 2
      actually, maybe he's not so far from the mark.

      VOIP is a market in which microsoft does NOT have a stranglehold. They are competing with Google on this, and to completely fuck Skype up in the face of cross-platform Google talk would be a rather foolish idea.

      Microsoft don't clamp down on a market until they dominate it.

      I mean, they can't make it much worse - the Skype client as it currently stands, is malware.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    43. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft hasn't even officially purchased Skype yet. Just more FUD from the FOSS losers.

    44. Re:Skype by vlm · · Score: 1

      NAT is the reason for the season.

      Thanks to ipv6, NAT will soon die the death it deserves. Buh Bye NAT!

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    45. Re:Skype by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

      So true, I used to use a nice OS called 86DOS and it was mean and lean. small, and just supplied the CP/M like service I needed. Then Bill got his hands on it, and it went to hell. Oh, well, another piece of software perverted.

    46. Re:Skype by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      "Soon" in geological terms, perhaps.

    47. Re:Skype by Creepy · · Score: 1

      VirtualPC - once mac Virtualization for running Windows, now it is Windows virtualization for running older versions of Windows (such as XP on Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate). MS pretty much gave that market to Parallels, though VMWare is in there now, as is VirtualBox (not sure the state of the market today, but Parallels owned in marketshare a few years ago, whereas VirtualPC dominated a few years before Microsoft bought them - then MS deprecated the product and it died quickly).

    48. Re:Skype by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      "- We care about our freedom in general, Skype shouldn't be the exception"
      You can refuse to use Skype, you may choose an alternative that may not be as good, or not used by anyone else there isn't anyone stopping you. Choosing an another system may cause you to restrict your freedom on where the device runs on. GNU is incompatible with iOS app store for example.

      "- We don't trust Microsoft"
      That is fine, Microsoft is all about making money. FOSS developers have a large slew of reasons to release FOSS. Not all of them are good and right.

      "- We do trust the US government AND the Chinese to spy on us using the Skype network. There's already a "special" Chinese version with the "feature" to have big brother listening. Who know's what the "normal" version does."
      How do you know you are not being spied with other systems as well? Systems like Skype need some infrastructure. So if there is a central repository of data for routing then it could be modified to tee the data to someone else. Heck they can just pipe off the ISPs and send some of that traffic the other way.

      "- Skype on Linux is crap, there's no 64 bits version (no, the package they pretend to be 64 bits isn't 64 bits at all, it's a 32 bits version with some lib32 dependencies). Moreover, it crashes, and you have to use loads of tricks to have everything working, like starting it with "env LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib32/libv4l/v4l1compat.so skype", otherwise it simply doesn't work. Even Adobe Flash has a real 64 bits version. Skype is the only software on my OS which is like that, and even if so many people asked for a real build for 64 bits, they've been ignoring all requests."
      Because not too many people use Skype on Linux... Sorry... Linux is a Server OS not a desktop OS. If it crashes perhaps because Linux is open source you can make a patch to work around those issues.

      "- The one and only one Linux developer for Skype has already proven, through the BTS and others, that he isn't competent to do the job. Do you think this is going to change with MS on board? That they will hire better coders? That's a big bet."
      Citation Needed. If MS can make money off of skype for linux they will put more coders on the job. Oddly enough software developers can work on multiple platforms and languages.

      "- Skype is the only instant messaging app that doesn't integrate well with multi-network libs like purple from Pidgin."
      Perhaps it is purple from Pidgins fault not skype.

      "- Skype said they would at some point provide a "libskype" so that we could implement our own GUI, but it's not happening"
      So it didn't happen in 2 days so it will never happen. Boo-Hoo

      "- No announcement has been made by MS about the future of Skype for Mac or Linux"
      So they also didn't say they are going to remove it either.

      "- Skype audio support is bad, it crashes often."
      Linux audio support is bad and it crashes often... Heck Linux Copy and paste support is bad too.

      "- Skype is the only absolutely needed piece of software for which we don't have source for, if you don't account flash as well (but flash has (buggy) compatible alternatives which you can deal with, Skype doesn't)"
      That is a bold claim. 1. absolutely need of skype seems dubious. 2. Photoshop (Gimp is not an alternative... Deal with it)

      "- Did I mention that Skype crashes often in Linux? :)"
      Yes you did, except for complaining about it perhaps you should fix the bug in Linux that causes skype to crash.

      "And also, please avoid to call FOSS supporters \"knee jerk\" in this site, as there's a good chance that others wont like it and will mod you out (I don't get why this hasn't happen already by the way). Anyway, the issues with Skype aren't new, and have absolutely nothing to do with the fact it's now a MS product."

      Knee Jerk response is often when someone makes a decision without fully looking at the situation. if you have a mindset of FOSS = GOOD Closed Source = Evil and you choose FOSS just because of that it is a knee j

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    49. Re:Skype by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Yes I do. But I think FoxPro death was more towards the fact its strong areas at the time have been outdated by the time of .NET
      FoxPro was great it was an easy to use language had better OO then VB at the time. And integrated very well with the database. However it required it own special file based database. Which causes file corruption for more then 2 or 3 people using the app, record locking that will often never get unlocked.

      With .NET and better integration with SQL server FoxPro need was reduced. If MS didn't buy FoxPro it would have been dead by 1999.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    50. Re:Skype by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      I've never used Skype in this way before, but I've heard in the past 24 house that users who use Skype as part of a SIP system have already gotten an email stating that support will soon be ending. Can't remember exactly the details to it, though -- anyone have any more info?

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    51. Re:Skype by npsimons · · Score: 1

      Got an Android phone? You'd better stop depending on Skype, as quickly as you can, because you can bet your bottom dollar one of the first things that will happen is that "chat with all your friends on Skype!" will become a unique selling point of the Microsoft Windows Phone platform.

      This. And just as a little reminder, if Skype had been open source, no one would be worried about Microsoft buying the company. Just sayin'.

    52. Re:Skype by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Ah, for want of mod points... :-D

      It's very obvious he's not had this dubious joy experienced yet- else he'd not be making this comments. There IS a reason I'm looking for alternatives.

      There's two sets of answers right at the moment:

      Pick a SIP based service that's "free" that will work with Ekiga or Jitsi (or a host of others on Linux...).
      Pick Google Talk and use something on the Linux/MacOS side like Pidgin or Jitsi (or perhaps the web plugin...) and use the web plugin or the desktop GTalk app.

      Everything else is mainly Windows only right at the moment.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    53. Re:Skype by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Be that as it might be...the odds of a Linux client seeing those improvements are slim to none...and I think slim took a sabbatical...

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    54. Re:Skype by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      The poster obviously wants a free alternative, or maybe they're astroturfing for MS

      Why the fuck would Microsoft waste time and money paying astroturfing on slashdot?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    55. Re:Skype by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Choosing an another system may cause you to restrict your freedom on where the device runs on. GNU is incompatible with iOS app store for example.

      You are mistaking between 2 different notion: freedom and possibilities. Using a GNU application will certainly add some freedom, but I may not have the possibility to use it. The later has absolutely nothing to do with freedom.

      Microsoft is all about making money. FOSS developers have a large slew of reasons to release FOSS. Not all of them are good and right.

      We don't care what the other FOSS developers intention are, what counts is what type of license they use. It shall not be possible for a given FOSS application to restrict my freedom, even after the application is released. If the developer is not doing a good job, someone else must be able to take over his work, and release a new version, forked from the original work. You may want to have a look to the DFSG for example, which explains this very well: DFSG.

      How do you know you are not being spied with other systems as well? Systems like Skype need some infrastructure. So if there is a central repository of data for routing then it could be modified to tee the data to someone else. Heck they can just pipe off the ISPs and send some of that traffic the other way.

      I know I'm not being spied on, because I use state of the art encryption, either SRTP/ZRTP for the transport and TLS for SIP, or simple TLS when I use mumble. The ISP can just pipe my data if they like, they will still not be able to spy on me.

      Citation Needed. If MS can make money off of skype for linux they will put more coders on the job. Oddly enough software developers can work on multiple platforms and languages.

      I specifically pointed out the bug tracker system of Skype because it's there. Feel free, search in it, and you'll find it out. I've done my homework, please do yours before replying to someone.

      Because not too many people use Skype on Linux... Sorry... Linux is a Server OS not a desktop OS. If it crashes perhaps because Linux is open source you can make a patch to work around those issues.

      Well, I've been using Debian as my main Desktop system since 2004. My wife, her father, mother and sister are also using Debian or Ubuntu as their operating system. Oddly enough, for all of them, it was more easy and safer to use Ubuntu. I didn't have to reinstall the OS (it just worked), and as they didn't know Windows much, they didn't complain, and were very happy about it. Why are you saying Linux isn't for Desktop? Are you frustrated?
      As for the crashes of Linux, no, we do not have the source code of Skype, so we can't fix it. Are you saying that suddenly, they released an open source version? Gosh, this should make the headlines of Slashdot!

      Perhaps it is purple from Pidgins fault not skype.

      It's not. We don't know the way Skype works, because it's a closed technology. Unless you are really good with reverse engineering, it's going to be very hard to understand Skype protocol. So yes, it's the fault of Skype if Pidgin can't connect to the Skype network.

      So it didn't happen in 2 days so it will never happen. Boo-Hoo

      Yearh, 2 days, right... In your post, you can reduce the YEARS of waiting from the Linux community into 2 days, but it wont change the real facts.

      So they also didn't say they are going to remove it either.

      Did you read the article which is on top the very page you are reading right now?

      Linux audio support is bad and it crashes often... Heck Linux Copy and paste support is bad too.

      Did you care reading my post? I wrote that Skype audio support was bad, not the audio in Linux, which works very well. And copy pas

    56. Re:Skype by Openstandards.net · · Score: 1

      VOIP is a market in which microsoft does NOT have a stranglehold. They are competing with Google on this, and to completely fuck Skype up in the face of cross-platform Google talk would be a rather foolish idea.

      I'd call a lot of Microsoft's ideas foolish, and I'd use their stock chart for the past decade to prove it. Like, for instance, requiring OS upgrades to upgrade IE... foolish. The OS dependency of .NET has hurt, not helped, .NET. The biggest weakness of SQL Server is its dependence on the OS, and part of the reason it can never truly compete with DB2 and Oracle. When the FTC quit trying to break up Microsoft, I told everyone to dump Microsoft stock because its OS division is its own worst enemy. Yes, it sustained its cash flow for years to come because of Windows. But, it did this at the long-term cost of innovation and competitiveness in nearly every other area of its business.

      If it Skype becomes Windows only, it will be very foolish. But, that would hardly be a new line of thought for Microsoft.

    57. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This acquisition is different though, unlike most other MS acquisitions Skype won't be subsumed by Microsoft, it will continue as an independent division run by the current Skype CEO who will report only to Ballmer. You can't assume the same will happen to Skype as MS's other acquisitions since their previous acquisitions all became part of Microsoft and Skype won't. Of course once it goes through Ballmer will probably have the final say over what Skype does, but still it might just turn out different because of this somewhat unique (for Microsoft) arrangement.

    58. Re:Skype by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      Wow you actually used W ME? The only people I ever knew who used that aborted fetus were people that bought Packard Bells.

    59. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh....skype maybe. Just because MS got a hold of it means its down the tubes just yet.

      No vitriol and no flames just a suggestion that you read this:
      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/05/24/2010222/Microsoft-Kills-Skype-For-Asterisk?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email

    60. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is FoxPro?

      Maybe there's a reason it "went down the drain"?

    61. Re:Skype by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I dont really care about it being taken up by the masses. Is there a stand alone point to point video client between 2 machines? I dont care about a directory service etc. Basically each side exchanges IPs and then fire up their clients and one sends a request to start video chat. Like back in the olden days when we used to play online games by connecting to our friend's quake server IP.

      --
      Good-bye
    62. Re:Skype by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      This. And just as a little reminder, if Skype had been open source, no one would be worried about Microsoft buying the company.

      True. And?

      The people who developed Skype may have used some open protocols (I don't know the details) which they then modified for their own purposes. But that doesn't obligate them to open source their product. It might imply some sort of moral pressure, but even that is arguable. The protocol and software has always been closed source and proprietary because that's now the business men behind the product choose to do it.

      Just sayin'.

      John Holmes had a 17-inch cock. Which is also true (probably), and of similar relevance. Just sayin'.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    63. Re:Skype by Jonner · · Score: 1

      uh....skype maybe. Just because MS got a hold of it means its down the tubes just yet.

      Read the headline again. Skype has never been Free Software and has always used a secret, proprietary protocol which may be leaking all kinds of private information.

    64. Re:Skype by cshark · · Score: 1

      Of course there was a reason it went down the drain. It sucked. And not just in the simple straight forward kind of way that programs suck today. Foxpro sucked in the most gigantic, epic way possible. But it's supporters are still religious about it. Many still use it because, if you can't solve the problem with Foxpro, it must not be a problem worth having.

      If you haven't heard of Foxpro, check out the wikipedia page on it. The history of this program is absolutely fascinating.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    65. Re:Skype by cshark · · Score: 1

      I dunno man. Just look at the history of Microsoft acquisitions in the consumer software space. That history would differ. You could be right, but the people in charge at Ms's consumer software department are stupid, petty, short sighted morons when it comes to this kind of thing. They just don't get it. Problem is that Microsoft lets this group run rampant. How much money have they lost over the years because Windows has to be the only client platform? Millions? Tens of millions? Billions of dollars? No telling really.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

  5. TokBox by ashvagan · · Score: 1

    It's nice, works on flash and will work on HTML5.

  6. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/tag/skype

    Maybe see what has been posted in the other discussions?

  7. Check the last story? by nschubach · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    1. Re:Check the last story? by drb226 · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Reading TFS gave me deja vu and now I know I'm not crazy.

  8. Fring by nut · · Score: 1

    Fring [ http://www.fring.com/ ] looks interesting, although it only works on mobile platforms right now.

    --
    Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
    1. Re:Fring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Skypey bit is, in fact, Skype, therefore depends on Skype's auth servers. The SIP bit all bounces off of Fring's own servers rather than being a proper SIP client, which makes a long-distance call sound like you're talking to an astronaut.

  9. Jitsi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.jitsi.org/
    Jitsi (previously SIP Communicator) is an audio/video and chat communicator that supports protocols such as SIP, XMPP/Jabber, AIM/ICQ, Windows Live, Yahoo!, Bonjour and many other useful features.

    1. Re:Jitsi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks interesting, and could be a replacement for the client software. But where's the everybody-uses-it replacement for the server, so I can find my friends and family?

      Also, I hope they get some more user documentation together. I went to the website with this question in mind: "if I get myself and other family members to install Jitsi, how do we find each other and connect?" And there was no answer under Documentation or FAQ. I guess they figure everybody knows what SIP or XMPP are.

    2. Re:Jitsi by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      > It's in rapid development at this point, but has been stable for me since began using it a couple of weeks ago.

      I too have been using Jitsi, including extensive use with my over-60 parents on Windows and people using Linux and OS-X. It has been extremely satisfying, offering both more stability and higher voice quality than my cellphone -- plus video.

      Connections can be made peer-to-peer, and with end-to-end encryption. And if you want to get really obsessive, you can tunnel over SSH, through multiple hops, whatever floats your boat. No more blind trust of third parties.

      There are also services for linking a traditional telephone number to your SIP account for under $10/month, so you can get everything you get with Skype.

    3. Re:Jitsi by higuita · · Score: 1

      you simply have to know their contact, just like skype, google talk and friends...

      as this is jabber/XMPP, the contacts are in a form of email address (user@server), where most of the time that address is really the main user email (user@gmail.com), so just have the friends install the apps, register their use and use it

      i too recommend jitsi, its simple and it works

      --
      Higuita
    4. Re:Jitsi by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      That was the first thing I tried as well. Got myself a jitsi account, tried to configure SIP with this account on my N900, tried again, tried for 3 full hours, and no. The account is not even recognised as capable of making voice calls. Maybe the jitsi client itself works with this account, but I am afraid I cannot call anyone else or any system that does not have the exact same software.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    5. Re:Jitsi by crush · · Score: 1

      This is another recommendation for Jitsi.

      In addition to all the above advantages it also offers encryption of audio calls through ZRTP.

    6. Re:Jitsi by Bryan3000000 · · Score: 1

      I don't even know what you're talking about. Jitsi is software, not a service. They recommend a couple of free SIP providers, but those are for internet-only use, no calling out. There are definitely problems in configuring SIP, and the only [easier and] reliable way to do it would be a paid service. With that, you can have functionality equal to Skype-in and Skype-out, and do video calls with real SIP video phones.

      However, Jitsi does all the other common protocols for IM, and does video over some of them as well. That's free and easy.

    7. Re:Jitsi by mounthood · · Score: 0

      Thanks! This is why I read Slashdot.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    8. Re:Jitsi by phtpht · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been using Jitsi for some time now, it seems to "just work" for audio/video calls and desktop sharing. It works over xmpp (jabber), which is massive plus, and it supports encryption of transfers in quite easy way. It also crawls over NATs, albeit not as aggressively as skype.

    9. Re:Jitsi by integral-fellow · · Score: 1

      Features here: http://www.jitsi.org/index.php/Main/Features

      Yes, finally ZRTP (Phil Zimmermann's Zfone prototcol) and OTR. I'd like to see H.323 next, please! It also works over XMPP and Google's gChat infrastructure.

      I have to concur with Jitsi being an excellent FOSS (FLOSS) replacement for Skype. The developer has gone multi-platform with Java and some native elements for video and audio. It needs some simplification of the UI, but that's not the hard part. The story of it's development was recently included in a /. story on OSS projects book earlier this week:

      http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/05/23/2227232/The-Architecture-of-Open-Source-Applications
      http://www.aosabook.org/en/jitsi.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZRTP

    10. Re:Jitsi by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I have been meaning to try Jitsi, as I've been disappointed by many implementations of SIP and Jingle in the past. It seems like it might be a potential Skype replacement since it supports so many protocols and is cross-platform. However, to be as easy to use as Skype, you'd still have to use a standard configuration which didn't require users to know anything about the protocol, codec, and other technical details.

    11. Re:Jitsi by Bryan3000000 · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that offering a wizard to sign up for a new account pretty well meets this requirement, if done right. Jitsi already has most of this in place, the only thing which might make it super easy would be to offer to set up an XMPP account immediately - free and gets you all the features. But its real power is in the multiple protocols, and more in the way of wizards to deal with that (especially for paid SIP accounts) would help.

  10. Replacement for Skype? Ekiga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    On the announcement that Microsoft had bought Skype I uninstalled Skype and installed Ekiga. I signed up for the free Ekiga account. Got it all running within a few minutes. No tinkering with configuration files. Just plug in the account information you registered at Ekiga.net. Emails are out to all my correspondents now urging them to convert to Ekiga.

    My immediate family has already converted, even the Windows only users. My favorite correspondents have too.

    Ekiga is installable from the Ubuntu repositories and works out of the box.

    1. Re:Replacement for Skype? Ekiga by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      No mac client though.. can you use the ekiga.net info for a mac sip client?

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    2. Re:Replacement for Skype? Ekiga by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Not going to be available on iOS or WinMo any time soon I guess.

    3. Re:Replacement for Skype? Ekiga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you didn't really get that multiplatform part, did you? It is gtk only. No juju for mac or ios.

    4. Re:Replacement for Skype? Ekiga by qpqp · · Score: 1

      You need a software to use this address. Any SIP aware software will do, but we recommend our free Ekiga softphone, which has Instant-Messaging, Audio and Video built-in.

      from the homepage.

    5. Re:Replacement for Skype? Ekiga by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can. In fact, there's several Mac/Win/Linux clients available. However, Ekiga.net's configuration's problematic with at least a few SIP clients- it relies on STUN to obtain the public IP for register with the service (Which is the OLD way of doing things and is a deprecated mode of operation per RFCs...). Jitsi, a likely cross-platform candidate (as it's in mostly java with the Video/Audo streaming handled by JNI driven native code...), only supports the new tech, "ICE", to traverse NAT firewall configurations and the SIP support's not yet fully implemented. As a result, you can't register Jitsi and a few other SIP clients on Linux and MacOS with Ekiga.net. If they'd reconfigure things, they could handle anyone. Jitsi suggests iptel.org as the SIP registar and router service instead of Ekiga.net. In truth, as long as you can find a SIP service that will work with your client, you SHOULD be able to set up calls with most other clients on other services as long as you know what service they're on. Beauty of SIP- and XMPP is a similar story.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  11. Skype just works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because people have put an incredible amount of research and effort into preventing reverse engineering, and poking holes in the most common network configurations (using 80/443 and sending encrypted data over that channel.) It's such a simple but robust model that it's a pain to block on the firewall (you can block Skype.net for instance to prevent fresh installs from downloading Host Cache's but if a system has a supernode in it's cache that doesn't match Skype's ip space, you're kinda F'd and have to move up the OSI to block it.

    It honestly acts more like Malware than anything, so it'll be interesting to see how Microsoft deals with it since it sells ISA (and now Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway 2010) this seems like the two are going to be at loggerheads. Though if I were a betting man I'd bet the best place to start looking at *new* Skype changes would be Forefront updates.... But hey, now I'm just thinking like the badguys.

    1. Re:Skype just works by emt377 · · Score: 1

      It honestly acts more like Malware than anything, so it'll be interesting to see how Microsoft deals with it since it sells ISA (and now Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway 2010) this seems like the two are going to be at loggerheads.

      MS will probably be pushing UPnP.

    2. Re:Skype just works by mick88 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's existing Voice over IP product, Lync (and OCS before it) both work by using voice over port 443. By default, they will try to use encrypted UDP. But if UDP is blocked, it will fall back to encrypted TCP over 443. Skype works similarly and won't pose any new problems for MS that they haven't already addressed with Lync and OCS.

      --
      I created this account just so I could comment on this story
  12. You mean a SIP client? by bradm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps you could start evaluating some of these?

  13. Jabber / Google Talk by kiwix · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jabber is a good open protocol for Instant Messaging, and it has extensions for voice and video. The main idea is that it works like the email system: you can have an account on any server, and chat/talk/video with someone on a different server. There a many different clients to use the Jabber protocol, just like there are many different mail clients. And all of them are supposed to interact nicely with each other.

    My favorite client is telepathy which support the voice and video features (but getting the right codec is somewhat painfull), and has good NAT traversal capabilities. It runs on Linux, and on my N900.

    If you're looking for something more Windows-friendly, you can use the Google Talk plugin: Google Talk is just a Jabber server, and you can use it with any other Jabber server, and any client. The plugin is available for Windows and Linux (and there is probably something for Android).

    1. Re:Jabber / Google Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Mac as well.

    2. Re:Jabber / Google Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coworker and I were discussing using jabber protocol to lay an underlying framework together to front-end (or back-end, depending on your perspective) a persons accounts on all the major social media sites. Yes, it might seem like dual-layering the tech, but since your social media data is now housed on your* jabber server, you can implement and manipulate it in ways that the social media sites specifically restrict or haven't implemented yet.

      There's something to be done w/ jabber and the social media sites, but we haven't quite figured out what exactly would be best.

    3. Re:Jabber / Google Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two projects: http://jitsi.org
      and http://oneteam.im/

      both can be used for jingle which is the google talk protocol.

    4. Re:Jabber / Google Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've successfully video chatted with a friend using Google Talk on a Honeycomb tablet talking to a MacBook. So that brings it to Linux, Windows, Mac, Android. Not sure if it works on iOS.

  14. Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, seriously? Skype was a non-open source program before, which met all your needs, and did a great job. Microsoft is likely going to invest heavily in it, and integrate it into Windows 8, XBox360, and a lot of other things, making it more useful to you as more people will be using it.

    Microsoft is no angel, but they aren't the devil either.

    1. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Tetsujin · · Score: 2

      Come on, seriously? Skype was a non-open source program before, which met all your needs, and did a great job. Microsoft is likely going to invest heavily in it, and integrate it into Windows 8, XBox360, and a lot of other things, making it more useful to you as more people will be using it.

      Well, it wouldn't be more useful to me if they wound up discontinuing Linux support, you know?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    2. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by KitFox · · Score: 1

      Yup. There's no way Microsoft will pull any features out.

      --

      @Whee

    3. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by concord · · Score: 3, Funny

      Microsoft is no angel, but they aren't the devil either.

      Yeah, I mean ... at least they're not Apple.

      --
      MFG: "The system supports both the LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) and WIMP (Windows, IIS, MySQL, PHP) platforms."
    4. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the comments to that article, you'd know there's no way Microsoft is responsible for that decision. The regulatory bodies would axe the deal if Microsoft started telling Skype what to do before the deal is approved.

    5. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

      If you read the comments to that article, you'd know there's no way Microsoft is responsible for that decision. The regulatory bodies would axe the deal if Microsoft started telling Skype what to do before the deal is approved.

      You sir have no idea how the world often really works. Many things are decided by powerful people behind closed doors, and many "powerful" people jump from the big companies to the regulatory bodies and back, getting promotions all the way. They may not have had something to do with it in this case, but do I believe Microsoft has never done anything unethical that would save/make them tons of cash? Wait, what? Almost forgot who we were talking about....

      --
      Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
    6. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      come on, seriously? microsoft is exactly that to open source software. they've conducted multiple massive ad campaigns trying to defame open source software and linux. they've threatened patent lawsuits. they've done lots of things over the years that shows they want to squash FLOSS. there's no doubt that they'll kill skype for linux. why would they help their underdog competitor by allowing them to use one of microsoft's products?

    7. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Palpatine_li · · Score: 1

      They may sometimes even be angels, too bad for Windows users only.

    8. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Tom · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is no angel, but they aren't the devil either.

      Only because those don't exist.

      Microsoft does have a history of poisoning everything they touch. I'm certainly not alone in still being angry about essentially destroying one of the major Mac games studios when they bought up Bungie just so they could have an xbox exclusive launch title.

      It's not paranoia. These guys don't buy up companies out of charity, they do it to strengthen their platform(s) and to undermine the competition, which to MS means: Absolutely everyone else. Even when they create or buy up great stuff, like Photosynth for example, they can't resist the urge to chain it to the rest of their stuff for no reason at all, in that case MS Live ID.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember a great signature on one /. user which was something like

      I'm not one of those that thinks Microsoft is the Devil.... they just don't need a translator to talk to each other.

    10. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      No but we know the devil, and he doesn't like people playing outside his own hell.

    11. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is, no matter what evidence is presented to you, and no matter how simple occam's razor makes it, you'll somehow always twist it to make MS the bad guy.

      Gotcha.

      How are you going to spin MS giving upgraded Xbox 360 consoles to people affected by the firmware update problems with early generation ones? Some sort of "forcing people to stay in the closed ecosystem tyranny!" angle?

      What about their continued development of things like Mac Office (including a total rewrite of the macro and scripting for the Mac version)?

      They're not stupid - they picked Skype precisely because so many people use it. It's not in their interests to drive people away from the platform.

    12. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another fanboi who waves the flag of FOSS on high like it's a new religion. And from your totally ignorant comment I can see that you need about as much proof as the religious masses.

    13. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because the deal hasn't gone through yet and Microsoft doesn't have any say in Skype's day-to-day business dealings.

    14. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read more than the headline, you'd realize that Skype discontinued support for Asterisk BEFORE making a deal with Microsoft.

    15. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Psyberian · · Score: 1

      They aren't the devil, but this quote always makes me think Microsoft "Why would anybody assume Microsoft funded this? I suppose maybe because it's something Yosemite Sam would do."

    16. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by rathaven · · Score: 1


      Agreed. If you look at Microsoft's catalogue they need Skype:

      1) Market share (mainly)
      2) A lightweight cross platform voice link with Microsoft Linc/Exchange/Office 365 for Microsoft Live users

      Microsoft have some very strong capabilities in this sector but no market share or cross platform support. Skype might just be the stepping stone they needed.

    17. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skype was a non-open source program before, which met all your needs, and did a great job.

      No, Skype was never that for me. It's a closed protocol eating up a new market and keeping a decent protocol from entering. I'm not allowed to use it when I travel, because of security restrictions. Skype has too much control over video chatting and now they're handing those keys to Microsoft.

    18. Re:Oh noes, Microsoft! End of world! by cshark · · Score: 1

      Nobody said they were.
      But I wouldn't put money on continued Linux or Mobile other than Windows Mobile support for it.

      Would you?

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

  15. Google talk or QQ by nhtshot · · Score: 1

    There's a whole assortment of options, but I've had good luck with both google talk and QQ. Granted, QQ is mostly used by Chinese, but it works well in the western world and is available (english version) for windows, macos, linux and EVERY mobile phone ever made that supports any kind of data service.

    1. Re:Google talk or QQ by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      There's a whole assortment of options, but I've had good luck with both google talk and QQ. Granted, QQ is mostly used by Chinese, but it works well in the western world and is available (english version) for windows, macos, linux and EVERY mobile phone ever made that supports any kind of data service.

      Where is the English version of QQ for Linux you speak of?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    2. Re:Google talk or QQ by RobertinXinyang · · Score: 1

      There is a Linux QQ client. However, it is only in Chinese. To make it worse, it is terribly (unusably) unstable.

      I have tried to use it However, it crashes constantly and I can not plan on completing a chat session of just a few messages without needing to restart it at some point.

      The lack of a, working, QQ client for Linux is one of the reasons (really the main reason) that I use windows on my desktop.

    3. Re:Google talk or QQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware what THE Party is doing with software? Few if any other governments in the world are more likely to add backdoors at the program level. USA has a tendency to interfere less with businesses and their software and they add backdoors at the infrastructure level most of the time. :-)

      I do not trust a computer with the official qq installed. That is a Chinese Government computer that needs to be on a separate VLAN from the rest of the computers. But it does work and it is full off entertainment as long as you keep focused on your own physical and political safety.

      The Chinese government is a horrible gang, but they are at least somewhat honest about it. They do tell people they watch, suppress, jail, and so on the Chinese citizens they do not like. I just treat China as any other horrible dictatorship when I am visiting the country. It is like being in Saudi Arabia, Libya, North Korea, Zimbabwe, or any other country where opinions is honoured with torture and jail.

      I have been using the Chinese Skype with the similar type of issues. That works just fine with the same rules and attitude as for qq.

    4. Re:Google talk or QQ by unkiereamus · · Score: 1
      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    5. Re:Google talk or QQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a whole assortment of options, but I've had good luck with both google talk and QQ. Granted, QQ is mostly used by Chinese, but it works well in the western world and is available (english version) for windows, macos, linux and EVERY mobile phone ever made that supports any kind of data service.

      Where is the English version of QQ for Linux you speak of?

      I've to say that QQ for Mac has limited functions. Voice and video talk are removed.

  16. How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skype?

  17. What about Skype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear Skype does everything you want. Perhaps you are dissastisfied with it because your microphone only recognizes oral communication and is unable to understand when you talk out your ass.

    1. Re:What about Skype? by cloudmaster · · Score: 2

      He's just irritated because every time anyone says "hedge" it sounds like "edge",

  18. Google Chat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't Google Chat do this already? Honestly, I don't really do video chats, so maybe there's something I'm missing. I just remembered hearing that they had added it, and a quick look at their site confirms...

  19. Jitsi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jitsi has been "moving and shaking"
    http://www.jitsi.org/

    Voice/Video/SIP/Jabber/Gtalk/etc./etc.

  20. Google video chat by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

    Google voice and video chat is pretty solid and multiplatform option. You need to keep a gmail or igoogle tab open in the browser (with the plugin installed) to be online, but other than that it's pretty decent. Android support is currently in 2.3.4 (the Nexus S only yet officially IIRC) but it is going to be rolled out to older versions shortly. It's not yet on iOS but its rumoured to be in the works.

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    1. Re:Google video chat by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Isn't Google's offering an instance of Jabber? I have certainly used Mac OS's iChat to lot into my gmail account via its Jabber support (not that I have actually USED it for anything, so no information about if it actually works, or how well).

  21. No such thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I'm [lookingo for] a simple PC-to-PC video chat tool that is very easy to configure and use, reliable, multiplatform (my family has Windows, Linux, MacOS; iOS and Android would be nice extras), and has good video/voice quality. We're almost only skyping with each other.

    Skype was successful because it can handle firewalls, which SIP can't. At this point, There Is No Alternative (TINA.)

  22. yahoo? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Not sure about android, but on pc and mac it does video..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:yahoo? by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Yahoo is a good alternative because MS will never get their hands on that company. I mean, stop and think about it, Yahoo management would have to essentially throw in the towel in order to cash out while not caring about the company if they were to go near MS. It will NEVER happen, they would not only become a silicon valley laughing stock, but also hasten their slide to irrelevance. Yahoo + Bing, can you imagine that absurdity?

      Oh wait......

      Does AltaVista have a phone client?

                    -Charlie

      (Note: Slashdot strips HTML6.1 compliant tags. The above may not be rendered right if you use an older browser.)

  23. You have it all wrong by Troke · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is the perfect excuse to stop talking to your family.

  24. Re:Google talk by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

    Google Talk is not FOSS. look at the title.

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  25. Edge a bet? by capnkr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dear story submitter/writer and /. editors:

    You don't 'edge' bets, you Hedge bets. FYI.

    --
    "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    1. Re:Edge a bet? by maiki · · Score: 1

      You don't 'edge' bets, you Hedge bets. FYI.

      Maybe the submitter is French and has an accent, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Edge a bet? by LittleBigScript · · Score: 1

      And this is why fencing is better than hedging.

    3. Re:Edge a bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may not be able to pronounce an "H" but they are still able to spell with an "H"; hommage, l'hôpital, aujourd'hui. Yeah, they can spell with the letter the just refuse to pronounce it.

    4. Re:Edge a bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For for

    5. Re:Edge a bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gave the writer credit for pronouncing a silent "h", and was able to stick to the content of the message without getting sidetracked onto spelling and grammar. I would rather have someone explain the terms "borged" or "borg'd" and "S.P.E.C.T.R.E." than teach the difference between edge and hedge. -jrbuck2

    6. Re:Edge a bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author is probably a Cockney - they drop their aitches guv'nor

    7. Re:Edge a bet? by mattbee · · Score: 1

      Not sure it affected the reading of the article. So it's a moo point.

      --
      Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
    8. Re:Edge a bet? by maartendeprez · · Score: 1

      For a non-native English speaker like me, it's useful to know the right spelling. Thanks for the information.

    9. Re:Edge a bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe's from London.

      "In 'Artfordshire, 'Erefordshire and 'Ampshire, 'urricanes 'ardly hever 'appen."

    10. Re:Edge a bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously it was submitted by someone with a Cockney accent.

    11. Re:Edge a bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder security escorted me and my weed whacker out of Caesars.
      They didn't take kindly to me "edging my bets" at the craps table.

    12. Re:Edge a bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah! It's a mute point! Being edumacated has French Benefits, you know...

  26. There is nothing else by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Skype outpaces all other alternatives by far, particularly with regards to satisfying the "very easy to configure and use, reliable, multiplatform and has good video/voice quality" requirements. There's a reason so many people use it, and there's a reason Linux users still installed Skype when they were thrown scraps in terms of support and updates.

    Keep using Skype until such time that it NO LONGER WORKS (which I suspect will be for a very long time). Just because Microsoft owns it now doesn't mean it's dead. If it finally falls over in something like Linux, then you can move onto something such as Ekiga or whatever else has been developed, but there's simply nothing else in the consumer world that compares.

    Heh... "Skype having just been borged". You could at least explain how Skype no longer works for you instead of letting emotions cloud logic.

    1. Re:There is nothing else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you obviously haven't used the latest version for the mac. granted those ui changes happened before the merger, but one can't help to wonder if that was intentional.

    2. Re:There is nothing else by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Devil's advocate: MSN Messenger has gone through a number of protocol revisions, and IIRC only a couple of those are supported at a time. It's not inconceivable that MS would revise the Skype protocol (adding new features, say) and leave the legacy non-Windows clients to rot.

      Don't suppose the EU would be interested in making MS open the Skype protocol.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:There is nothing else by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 1

      Devil's advocate: MSN Messenger has gone through a number of protocol revisions, and IIRC only a couple of those are supported at a time. It's not inconceivable that MS would revise the Skype protocol (adding new features, say) and leave the legacy non-Windows clients to rot.

      That is something which would happen. It's probably likely I'd say - Messenger already has audio/video support and integrating the Skype protocol would mean not requiring a separate Skype application anymore, at least on Windows.

      Don't suppose the EU would be interested in making MS open the Skype protocol.

      You'd have the Windows fanboys in an uproar over that, even if the EU has been one of the few organizations able to stand up to Microsoft.

    4. Re:There is nothing else by maraist · · Score: 1

      skype on linux is buggy and so so. I give it two chances to get better under MS management, slim and none. Thus as an avid promoter of thin-client linux boxes, I'm not unlikely to want to risk investing in corporate multi-screen-sharing chat accounts, and or skype centric voip phones.

      --
      -Michael
    5. Re:There is nothing else by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      skype on linux is buggy and so so. I give it two chances to get better under MS management, slim and none. Thus as an avid promoter of thin-client linux boxes, I'm not unlikely to want to risk investing in corporate multi-screen-sharing chat accounts, and or skype centric voip phones.

      Skype has been crap under Linux for ages, and hadn't shown much sign of getting better even before Microsoft bought them out. I remember the announcement that the Skype UI would be open sourced - what's happened since? Absolutely nothing.

      Point is, if you look at the direction Skype has been going on Linux (nowhere), you probably wouldn't have picked Skype to use on your Linux boxes with or without Microsoft's influence, and would have looked elsewhere. Besides, I thought the commercial side of VoIP was already a mature market, with many alternatives to Skype (we're talking corporate level here, not consumer).

    6. Re:There is nothing else by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      > You could at least explain how Skype no longer works for you instead of letting emotions cloud logic.

      It is not an emotional connection that is being made, it is a logical one (though you may have a different set of premises). To more clearly understand the hypothesis, consider the following:

      Skype does not include support for standards-based interop, such as SIP. This is a problem because of network effect.

      The Skype service is centralized, with all calling controlled by Skype machines. If used in the most common way, this makes your contact list dependent on Skype (and its parent company).

      Neither of these flaws is new as of this acquisition, but the expected risk has increased due to the purchasing company's history of anti-competitive practices. Hence the net expected value of using Skype and the Skype service has, in fact, decreased.

      I hope that sufficiently clarifies the issue.

    7. Re:There is nothing else by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that MS hasn't opened up the checkbook and handled the EU yet. Does the EU not allow bribing....er....I mean lobbying?

    8. Re:There is nothing else by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 1

      I hope that sufficiently clarifies the issue.

      Clarifies it enough, at least for your purposes. At least it's more thought out than HURR HURR MICROSOFT = SATAN, which I see a lot around here.

      Having said that, Skype (before Microsoft's acquisition) was already shown to be scum with regards to having possible backdoors and bowing down to regimes so that they could conduct business in less politically desirable areas. It's only when something involves Microsoft that people become irrational. Most major corporations/companies are scum or have done scummy things in the past - why take action only when it's Microsoft?

    9. Re:There is nothing else by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      > Most major corporations/companies are scum or have done scummy things in the past - why take action only when it's Microsoft?

      I don't think this forum fits your description. For example, consider the tide of sentiment regarding Google. A company that once -- when it took its mission statement seriously -- could do no wrong in the eyes of this community, is now often derided as an abuser of market dominance and for having sacrificed its stated objectives for money in cases like China.

      And while the reaction to Microsoft is more reliable, that is because Microsoft has a more reliable record when estimating the probability of market-harmful outcomes. Predicting the future actions of corporations inherently involves considering their history. Assessing that history objectively is an integral part of making the best business decision. That Microsoft's history makes it a less desirable participant in some information systems is not the fault of those who observe the fact.

    10. Re:There is nothing else by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      The EU goes to you when you have not lobbied them enough and forces a donation.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    11. Re:There is nothing else by blarkon · · Score: 0

      Because it gets you lots of positive Karma. Slashdot is increasingly becoming more uniform in the opinions expressed in the comments as people who don't share those opinions have migrated away to other sites.

    12. Re:There is nothing else by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      Seeing that the alternatives at the moment are not exactly in the same league, they could do with more users/testing. And waiting for the Linux Skype client to be almost unable to talk to the Skype servers due to being extremely out-of-date (aside: anyone using the official Yahoo Messenger Linux client these days?) is not a good way to help having an alternative to jump to by that time.

    13. Re:There is nothing else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No and when caught they get their balls chopped off and fed to their nostrils fried , Well thats the theory of it in fact they get smack hands naughty boy dont do it again .

      I would like to see them put on the rack and given a stark reminder we are not the USA money does not control government it is the other way round government controls the trolls with the wonga

      YMMV no hope with mine

    14. Re:There is nothing else by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Don't suppose the EU would be interested in making MS open the Skype protocol.

      I guess we'll have to wait and see if Microsoft abuse it in a monopolistic fashion. i.e. if they use the market dominance position of Skype to advance their dominance of another market e.g. WinMo, XBoxLive, etc.

    15. Re:There is nothing else by goarilla · · Score: 1

      At least it's more thought out than HURR HURR MICROSOFT = SATAN, which I see a lot around here.

      What do you expect this is a linux website, and we've been fucked by Microsoft so many times
      It would be very foolish to trust them on anything !

    16. Re:There is nothing else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not emotions. Many of us have been around long enough to have gone through it before. One of the nice things about Skype is Linux support. They were supporting Linux when very little else was. Microsoft has never played nice with Linux, quite the contrary. They have never missed an opportunity to screw us over, so far. We just know Linux support will be the first thing they'll drop. Let's start a bet to see how long it takes. As for my family, I've moved everybody to Google Chat already.

    17. Re:There is nothing else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my experience with Skype on Linux, it does outpace all alternatives by far . . . in terms of CPU and memory usage, and that's a quad-core box with 4GB of RAM. How can such a little chat client, not even being used for audio or video, eat so many resources? I've noticed similar resource issues in Windows. I've removed it from any system I use, and refuse to use it. Pidgin, Jabber and Google talk are the way to go, if you ask me.

      I think Skype is a perfect fit for Microsoft, it will use all the resources you throw at it and encourage you to upgrade hardware.

    18. Re:There is nothing else by dintech · · Score: 1

      Heh... "Skype having just been borged". You could at least explain how Skype no longer works for you instead of letting emotions cloud logic.

      He said borged, not borked. As in assimilated, not broken.

    19. Re:There is nothing else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skype works great... as an expanding ad platform.
      I *used* to be a paying customer, but I ditched it because of the ads.

    20. Re:There is nothing else by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 0

      I've been fucked my Linux so many times as well (bad quality software, badly thought-out interfaces, lack of support for hardware, etc). Sure it's not a company or corporation I can be angry with, but at least Windows and Microsoft are consistent.

    21. Re:There is nothing else by goarilla · · Score: 1

      Linux is a kernel ! Blame yourself or your distro for choosing poor quality software.
      There is a valid point here though, i've always found the FLOSS GUI programs somewhat finicky.

    22. Re:There is nothing else by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Skype outpaces all other alternatives by far, particularly with regards to satisfying the "very easy to configure and use, reliable, multiplatform and has good video/voice quality" requirements. There's a reason so many people use it, and there's a reason Linux users still installed Skype when they were thrown scraps in terms of support and updates.

      Keep using Skype until such time that it NO LONGER WORKS (which I suspect will be for a very long time). Just because Microsoft owns it now doesn't mean it's dead. If it finally falls over in something like Linux, then you can move onto something such as Ekiga or whatever else has been developed, but there's simply nothing else in the consumer world that compares.

      Heh... "Skype having just been borged". You could at least explain how Skype no longer works for you instead of letting emotions cloud logic.

      It's rational to prefer Free Software to proprietary and open protocols to proprietary secret ones. Not only can we not fix Skype when it breaks but we have no idea when it may be leaking information we'd like to keep private. This discussion is about Free alternatives to Skype, so if you have nothing to say about that, you don't belong here.

  27. Riiight.. by Weaselgrease · · Score: 0

    Anyone arguing that MS might make Skype better or at least not screw it up? They just announced removal from one system and it's been less than a week. They're going to confine Skype in an attempt to Microsoft-only products to keep their products on top of Mac and Linux. Bet you good they're going to integrate it right into Windows 8 with a nifty API for third-parties and maybe even make it so you get special phoning discounts if you use it from a Windows OS.

    1. Re:Riiight.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      They haven't even bought skype yet. Idiot.

    2. Re:Riiight.. by smash · · Score: 1

      well they can't really make it much worse. lack of platform availability for MALWARE is a feature.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    3. Re:Riiight.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone arguing that MS might make Skype better or at least not screw it up? They just announced removal from one system and it's been less than a week.

      They don't even own skype yet and you're already blaming decisions on them?!

    4. Re:Riiight.. by Weaselgrease · · Score: 0

      I suppose that's what I get for not RTFA'ng TFA's FA. I'm surprised no one else called the guy on the article I referenced that Microsoft's involvement was insinuated and not factual. It comes across as the buyout being a direct cause of the retraction.

  28. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wine good ol' Microsoft NetMeeting you fool

  29. Switch from MS to Google? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    You're suggesting the man should switch from Newly-Borg'd to S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-from-Birth?

  30. This is a FSF High Priority project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:This is a FSF High Priority project by smash · · Score: 1

      Like HURD?

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:This is a FSF High Priority project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/#skypereplacement

      You can help.

      from the link:
      We're currently experiencing technical problems.

  31. Re:Google talk by smash · · Score: 2

    Its free. Not open source, but its as free as skype was, and not "borged". A proper FOSS alternative (at least with any form of market penetration, so you know... you can actually talk to other users) doesn't really exist.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  32. Jitsi by Bryan3000000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    What used to be SIP Communicator, now Jitsi (because they added many protocols besides SIP). I can't believe I'm having to recommend this on /. so often. It has XMPP video chat and desktop sharing, and has all the other common protocols as well as SIP. It's in rapid development at this point, but has been stable for me since began using it a couple of weeks ago.

    The state of things in integrated communications is sad indeed with so few alternatives and fragmentation.

  33. Re:Google talk by smash · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also... google talk is Jabber. Any open source jabber client will work. So actually, it kinda IS open-source.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  34. How about by Ruke · · Score: 1

    you don't split your sentances across the topic

    ---
    and the message body. It's obnoxious.

  35. Get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "may be a good time to edge our bets"
    hedge

  36. google chat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why has no one mentioned google video chat? I've been using it on linux since it started working on linux and been very happy with it. Am I missing something?

  37. zfone - encrypted and free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  38. I'd recommend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skype...why change before you have any clue about MS changing anything? If it's on principle alone, why are you using iOS/OSX devices? Apple is just as bad, if not worse, than MS...

  39. What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSN IM? Just sayin'

  40. Re:Google talk by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

    Market penetration is pretty irrelevant -- the submitter mentioned that they "only skype each other". If SIP is easy enough, it's also more than good enough.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  41. Re:Google talk by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Is the voice/video component implemented well enough anywhere else such that I can expect to teleconference with a gtalk user from an entirely open source client?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  42. Google Voice is Jabbe by kiwix · · Score: 1

    Google voice and video chat is just Jabber. It's an open protocol and you can communicate between users on different servers and using different softwares.

    So you can use a FOSS client (e.g. telepathy) and run your own server, and advise your technologically-challenged friends to use the user-friendly Google client. Everybody wins!

  43. Didn't we just have this question? by SeaFox · · Score: 0

    It's even linked right under the summary.

    The consensus of that discussion seemed to be "there are none".

    Now lets take those results and add the stipulation they support not only voice but video, too, and to top it off, they have to be Open-Source. I'm sure that will result in more programs, right?

  44. TokBox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Wikipedia: "TokBox is a web application that allows users to make multi-party video chat calls over the Internet without a download."

  45. VOIP by Zemran · · Score: 1

    The standard VOIP is available on Linux, Mac and windows and there is a good selection of clients. I have never understood why people used the bastardised version (Skype) when the standard version is just as good. M$ have already started to ruin Skype and will continue to flush it down the toilet so that they can push MSN on people but, for voice calls VOIP is great, and for chat there are more options that I could list here.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    1. Re:VOIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well he wasn't asking for VOIP clients, and anyway the standard version isn't as good for home users, because:
      1. Skype does a good job getting around the limitations home users' consumer grade bastardized internet connections which have: Filtering, traffic shaping, port blocking, NAT, firewalls, etc., and no administrator to set things up properly, along with non-cooperative or even hostile ISPs.
      2. Is you use "standard" VOIP software, then you need to use another VOIP provider. When there is a problem, you need to figure out which side has the problem - whether it's your software, or their software, or your provider, or their provider, or maybe the ISP... Skype simplifies this to the point that the average person can actually use it.
      3. Skype has more users, so when you are using it for text or online voice chat (i.e. not POTS VOIP), there is a huge advantage.

      (Of course I have a Gizmo 5 account and sometimes use the client, but ... even I admit it'S not as sexy as skype, and doesn't exist for all platforms ...)

    2. Re:VOIP by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Do you even know what "VoIP" stands for? There is no such thing as "The standard [Voice over Internet Protocol]" and Skype is just one of a great many mutually incompatible options. Microsoft has sold some form of VoIP, either integrated in the OS or otherwise, for over 15 years. The Unix-like world may have had it even before that. I don't know about Macs, but it's nothing new there either.

      The important thing, though, is that all of these are different. Microsoft's meeting telepresence, software phone, and IM products don't even connect to one another (Actually, Lync may connect to Live Messenger now, I don't know). Apple's Facetime doesn't connect to anything but Apple Facetime. The various Linux programs will sometimes connect to other Linux programs, sometimes to Mac or Windows programs, and sometimes only to themselves.

      The long-standing winner in this space has been Skype, which won't connect to anything else, but that's OK becaue it runs on everything. As for your irrational fear of "M$ ... push[ing] MSN on people" the barest shred of common sense would refute that. Which of the following makes more money:

      1. Dismantle Skype, people go to a bunch of different servers, Live Messenger picks up some more users, and a market that MS just spent $8.5 billion to capture is now open for another competitor to rise.
      2. Integrate the Messenger network into Skype and stop supporting it as a stand-alone product, so now every Messenger user suddenly has a much larger network, every Skype user has a somewhat larger network, and almost everybody is using Microsoft software for their VoIP/video chat/IM/whatever.

      In case you're hurting yourself trying to figure it out, option B makes MS, including MS shareholders, a lot happier. I'm pretty sure they're going to take that route, not the one you're expecting.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:VOIP by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You can do P2P Voip so that there is no central server I have seen it done. Problem is the initial "connect" to the "cloud" take a very long time. Now to make a Skype replacement for voice only would take very little money. you just need the bandwidth. A voice only Open Source version of Skype could be set up overnight if you had several servers set up for people to connect to using ANY SIP/Voip client.

      You also would have the advantage of offering something that skype would not. NO-PC handsets in the home. for years I wished I could have a "skype cordless" that did not need a pc running.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  46. Re:What I hear: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a very selective hearing filter(translator) you have.

    Does Skype for Linux and Skype for Mac have all the features of Skype for Windows? If you haven't slept thru the last two decades, you'll know that companies Microsoft purchased have very often had their software killed, or modified such that many no longer use it.

    Nonetheless, as a Skype out user, I do hope it will still be workable from my Linux and Mac and Windows machines.

  47. Re:Google talk by dch24 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes. Empathy

    I just finished trying out gyache/gyachi (Yahoo! Voice and Video chat, open source) and it doesn't work nearly as well. Also, it just runs the proprietary codecs using the relevant wine source code, so it's not truly open source.

  48. "edge our bets" - WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good time to edge our bets

    Sweet Baby Jesus in a sidecar - is it too much to ask of the editors here to be at least semi-literate? Edge our bets? WTF?

  49. Is anybody out there? by westlake · · Score: 2

    We're almost only skyping with each other. What would you recommend ?

    The only chat client that makes sense is the client used by those you want to chat with. Skype works so well for so many, you simply can't expect them to switch.

    1. Re:Is anybody out there? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      We're almost only skyping with each other. What would you recommend ?

      The only chat client that makes sense is the client used by those you want to chat with. Skype works so well for so many, you simply can't expect them to switch.

      That's like saying that if someone prefers to communicate only on Facebook, you can't expect them to use email or if they're on the Verizon network, you can't expect them to call you on AT&T. We can't accept that kind of network fragmentation if we ever want the situation to improve.

        The unfortunate situation with voice and video is that there never has been one ubiquitous protocol, though there are a number of standard ones. Rather than just giving in to whichever walled garden is the most popular, we can choose to use open protocols and public networks.

  50. battlecom by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    oh wait... that was bought by MS as well (integrated into xbox360 VOIP i believe?)

  51. Re:Google talk by BatGnat · · Score: 2

    not available is most countries either

  52. If there was such a thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would know about it already. Let's look at the options:
    1. FaceTime - Works great on iOS and Mac OS. Not supported on other platforms yet. Closed source-code, uses open standards. Seems to require Apple encryption keys. Free to use.
    2. Skype - Works on Windows, Mac OS, iOS, Linux, Android, etc. Peer to peer, firewall busting. Closed source code and standards. Free for most use.
    3. Google Talk - Works on the web browser for chat and video. Plug-ins for Windows and Mac OS, maybe linux. Native clients for Windows and Android (with video). Uses open standards, and clients available (most are open source) for Mac OS (Adium), iOS, Linux (Pidgen), etc. at least for text chat. Free to use.
    4. Ekiga, etc. - Tries to use VOIP and similar standards. Few users, no point for non-VOIP operations. Service provider separate from the software. Big firewall problems, and limited platform support. (Of course, can theoretically integrate with softphone clients for other platforms).
    5. iChat/AIM - Works on most platforms (Windows/Mac, etc.). Uses cruddy AOL network. Free for most use. Open source clients exist, but not for video.

    So... let's recap. Basically Skype is your only good option if you want free ($) cross-platform video support that works across firewalls with no problems. After that, maybe Google Talk. Why is FOSS important for using the chat program? Are you going to modify it? really? Most of the google talk clients are Open Source, but...

  53. Re:What I hear: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The trick here is not waiting until they pull the plug, as most expect, before finding an alternative. If you want to wait until the sh*t hits the fan to see if it will hit the fan after it's been thrown, that's your choice.

    And, no, we're not dealing with a self fulfilling prophecy here but some years of experience watching Microsoft's behaviour and business tactics.

  54. Maybe that's why they bought 'em? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    ... it's a pain to block [skype]on the firewall ...

    It honestly acts more like Malware than anything, so it'll be interesting to see how Microsoft deals with it since it sells ISA (and now Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway 2010) this seems like the two are going to be at loggerheads.

    Maybe Microsoft bought Skype so they could figure out how to block it with their security products and/or kill it so it's no longer an issue? B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Maybe that's why they bought 'em? by aiht · · Score: 1

      Maybe Microsoft bought Skype so they could figure out how to block it with their security products and/or kill it so it's no longer an issue? B-)

      Or perhaps just add code to it that politely asks the firewall if it's allowed through, so the firewall doesn't need to know how to block it.

  55. zoiper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.zoiper.com.

  56. Re:What I hear: by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    Apparently you missed the announcement where they said they would be dropping a platform.

    You can't just wait until the last possible minute on this sort of thing. Stuff like this doesn't just pop out of the ether over night.

    In a working free market, this should not even be an issue. There should be 2 other obvious alternatives already in place.

    However, software usually doesn't work by free market commodity rules. That's why you have a lot of "whining".

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  57. Re:Google talk by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 2

    gtalk (as google's official client) is not, but the protocols are open. IM uses jabber protocol, video and audio uses SIP IIRC. i know pidgin and koppete in linux supports video on google talk.

    --
    What ? Me, worry ?
  58. Cu-SeeMe reborn ? by elPetak · · Score: 2

    Is Cu-SeeMe still around?
    That little piece of software was capable of group video calls like 16 years ago.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CU-SeeMe

    1. Re:Cu-SeeMe reborn ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cu-SeeMe pr0n was popular at that time."Cyberpornographia cuseemeata" - http://ipsix.org/source/Cyberpornographia.html

  59. Journalistic Podcaster & News Reporter need by MasterHundinco · · Score: 2

    As tech journalist and podcaster Skype has been the backbone of the industry for doing remote interviews. But to record it is a hack at best. Who ever makes a FOSS Video / Audio HD multiple guest video confrence software please allow for individual recording of the streams of audio and video. Skype technically could have done this but muxxed the audio from multiple guests together, the video then could be layered as different video layers using plugins on the mac side like Call Recorder. But If anything allowing for people to record multiple video sources would be key. I was originally planning a sit down with reps from TWiT, Revision3, AOL, PBS, & PixelCorps to have a sit down with Skype engineers to hopefully address these issues but the meeting was canceled a month before the announcement of the purchase from Microsoft. I understand why now. Some of the basic wishes from everyone was that skype might: 1) Split Video and Audio channels to make them accessible to 3rd party developers. 2) Remote starts and built-in recording... so everyone can double end record for higher quality 3) Higher Quality Video, in the 720p and 1080p range 4.) Dedicated connection support as to not have random changes in in audio / video quality 5.) Output of video channels for software video switchers and streamers like Telestreams Wirecast Pro

    1. Re:Journalistic Podcaster & News Reporter need by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Contact Leo Laporte. he is looking to get a group of developers together to do exactly this. And he has a lot more of a chance at getting it done.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  60. Huge opportunity for Cisco - maybe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft bought skype, and that's bad news for everybody except skype.

    But, maybe, Cisco could use this as an opportunity? Cisco needs to create a skype alternative, but something that will only work with IPv6, not IPv4.

    MS will make Skype suck, everybody knows that. But, so far, there is no real alternative to Skype. If cisco created an alternative, that would give people a compelling reason to upgrade to IPv6 - which would be a windfall for Cisco. It would also be devastating for MS, which would not cost me any sleep.

    Probably just a fantasy. But, IMO, a cool fantasy.

  61. Re:Google talk by pacergh · · Score: 1

    Google Talk is not better than Skype. Skype's audio and video quality are both superior in my experience. I'm going to miss it. Ah well.

  62. Linux Lags on Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some time SKYPE developers have focused on Microsoft and Mac systems, leaving LINUX users in an old Beta that works well, but lacks the features of the "First Class" operating system versions. Having said that, SKYPE is the best thing out there today.

    If development for LINUX was slow before, expect it to slow by another order of magnitude now.

    We need a first class system that everyone will want to use. Everything out there in the free and open world now is buggy and feature poor.

    We need something that is multiplatform, multipoint, multilingual (integrate a translator in the chat portion?), and will reach POTS phones. It should support shared desktops and both live and streamed video out of the "box".

    1. Re:Linux Lags on Skype by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Already have this for Voice. there are 90,000 Voip systems and applications that work great. Video calls is what is needed, a dedicated written for video calling from the ground up not a feature duck-taped on top of another application.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Linux Lags on Skype by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      It exists now and it's called Facetime. Now we just need apple to support Linux and Windows or open up the protocol. It is possible that this could happen.

  63. Big brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not concerned with Microsoft removing features or function. However the system can now add support for any legislation passed regardinging digital communications eavesdropping. Up to his point Skype supported the best encryped point to point audio and video which also managed to make agencies like the FBI mad. What happens next worries me and makes me want to look for something else.

  64. Re:Google talk by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    I have used google talk many times. The quality is better than Skype. BTW anyone knows how to completely close your account with Skype?

    How does the security of Google Talk compare to Skype? Are the encryption protocols open? (I realize Skype's aren't really, but I'm curious to know how secure Google Talk is.)

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  65. Re:Google talk by segin · · Score: 1

    Actually, calling uses XMPP Jingle, with RTP being used as the transport, similar to SIP.

  66. Jitsi by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I highly recommend Jitsi as a Skype replacement. Check out http://www.jitsi.org./ It is also worthwhile to check out http://www.gnutelephony.org./ Both these sites have some good info on free, open source Skype replacement plans.

  67. Why ask slashdot...? by pep939 · · Score: 2

    There was an article titled "Linux-Friendly Alternatives To Skype" less than a week ago! What's the point in repeating the discussion?

  68. Simple to use alternatives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use a telephone? Admittedly you have to pay.
    Use your mobile? It's likely at least half of the family has a plan where they get ten million free minutes they never use.

    I don't get the excitement with video chat at all. If I want to eat a sandwich, stare idly out of the window, or pick my nose, I can't when I'm skyping someone. I also have to sit in front of my computer and can't multitask as easily as if it were just voice. I understand if you live on the other side of the planet from your parents and want to show them new baby shnookums but for 90% of communication I'd rather use a telephone, or even IM.

    And of course if you live within 100 miles of your relatives you can just go and talk to them with zero lag and in 100% HD (depending on your eyesight)

  69. what about google talk? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1
    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  70. sifonr browser based P2P serverless (yes, flash) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just needs addon for central annuary

    http://http://www.sifonr.com//

  71. Re:Google talk by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

    I thought Google Talk was available everywhere. Maybe you're thinking of Google Voice?

  72. Give zoiper a try! by Zoa123 · · Score: 1

    You might want to give zoiper a try, with versions for windows, mac, solaris, linux, windows mobile and iphone (currently pending apple approval). It's stable, fast, multiprotocol and supports video. (Currently only on windows, but we will be rolling it out to some other os'es as well in the near future) Disclaimer: I am involved in the zoiper development. You can find it on http://www.zoiper.com/

  73. Oovoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oovoo is free and seems to have better sound quality than Skype

  74. Welcome to the mess that is videoconferencing... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Everyone uses random codecs and styles instead of H323. this creates incompatibilities to help keep the separate walled gardens exclusive.

    If everyone used H323 Standards then this would not be an issue. Hell you would be able to call a Tandberg video conferencing unit. Thre is no real useable open source cross platform video conferencing "chat" application that works worth a damn. I have tried for years to go OSS for my gaming group and we settled on google video or Skype.

    Hopefully the Skype fiasco will cause some Foss developers to stop adding stupid features or GUI redesigns and make the applications do reliable video calls.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  75. Re:Google talk by GooberToo · · Score: 2

    My brother is out of the country. He prefers skype but his internet connection sucks. Rarely were we able to have a complete conversation and when we were, we constantly had to stop, start, and restate what was just said before the packet loss storm hit. I finally got him to try mumble. Despite using twice the bandwidth, providing vastly superior voice quality, thanks to the ability to force TCP and tweak additional network settings, we're now always able to have a complete conversation without any interruptions. And even though its using TCP, very rarely do we suffer the Max Headroom effect.

    While mumble doesn't allow for video, skype isn't even competitive with mumble for voice services. And if we really needed to, we could easily use less bandwidth than skype for comparable voice quality. The fact mumble provides for so many network and audio tweaks makes it all the better.

    Seriously, aside from PBX interchange, who gives a shit about skype in the first place. Its not like there are not tons of other solutions - almost all of which are superior.

    Hell, last time I shopped phone minutes, google talk's rates were HALF that of skype's. Seriously, fuck skype!

  76. P2P video chat tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm *not* looking for for something that interfaces with POTS, but just a simple PC-to-PC video chat tool that is very easy to configure and use, reliable, multiplatform"

    Make you wonder what use Skype is putting these supernodes to?

    "The LA Times reports that millions of Skype phone users worldwide couldn't make calls or were dropped in mid-conversation" link

  77. Microsoft bans Asterisk-Skype interaction module by doperative · · Score: 1

    "Just two short weeks after assuring us Skype was safe in their hands, Microsoft seems intent on cutting its link with Linux .. Digium .. can no longer sell their Asterisk-Skype interaction module after July 26. That means it will become impossible for this VoIP PBX to connect to Skype". link

  78. easiest video chat is koowy by terrox · · Score: 0

    I spent many weeks looking around for the simplest video chat for use with technophobes and computer noobs. http://www.koowy.com/ was the easiest by far. Flash (so pretty much multi platform), one on one is high quality, if they can click a link - they can chat! (click link, click Yes to camera access, you're chatting), no software setup. Private rooms, no BS like most chat sites, group chat also is just as easy but not as good quality (but still fair). I don't expect the site to stay normal forever, but it is pretty old. I also don't know if they record everything, I'd assume that one on one is P2P but I have no idea.

  79. a survey would be useful by thehodapp · · Score: 1

    Can we get a Slashdot survey on this? Favorite alternative Skype software?

  80. Google Talk is the way forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Talk is great. It may not be as polished as Skype for general use, but it's quality of video (Vidyo backend) is really good.

  81. Re:What I hear: by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

    Pay attention to who the "they" is that dropped support. Hint: It wasn't MS.

  82. Flash P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By far the easiest and simplest solution is Flash P2P.
    There's a simple (quite a few flaws though) P2P audio/video/chat example at Cirrus' own page http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cirrus/samples/
    It would be easy to make your own perfect chat client with this but there is at least one site I know that uses this: http://www.sifonr.com/

  83. Pidgin by hobarrera · · Score: 0

    Pidgin, with XMPP. I belive it also has voice+video support for the propietary Windows Live Messenger protocol, but I've honestly no idea.

    Gmail es multiplatform, but NOT FOSS at all, though the protocol is open (XMPP).

  84. Is Windows-only Skypea done deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the assmption that because Skype has been bought by Microsoft, that MS will discontinue all non-Windows variants of the Skype client? If they're going to lose out on client OS market share - and there are many who would bet that they will - then how about they have ownership/control over software which runs on non-Microsoft OSes?

    If they ponied up all those billions of dollars, then maybe they can see a way of making money out of Skype, and having that available within as wide a user community as possible could help them to achieve that.

  85. Truely private communication with Skype like apps? by ajevans · · Score: 1

    I would like to ensure my communications are private and stay that way. Not later dredged up, quoted out of context or leaked to competitors. Or in a more general way mined for someone else's use in profiling groups to manipulate in future advertising campaigns. If Google, Microsoft, etc are involved you can bet they will vigorously support only virtual privacy. Anyone know of "Skype like" apps that support privacy in communications for the masses? (ie not just for the tin foil hat people)

  86. Oovoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had some family members recommend Oovoo, saying that the quality is better than Skype even now. Apparently supports Windows, Mac, and iOS, but I didn't see anything for Linux, so it may not be what you're looking for.

  87. Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use gmail.

  88. Re:Truely private communication with Skype like ap by shortscruffydave · · Score: 1

    If you are so sure that Google or Microsoft would so such a thing, why can you be equally sure that Skype *wouldn't* have done something similar (say, if they'd not been bought out and had found themselves needing to make a quick buck a little way down the line)?

  89. Re:Google talk by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    ...but its as free as skype was, and not "borged".

    It's a different borg, but the principle remains the same, and we're probably stuck with it for the time being.

    If I had the resources (time and money) to start an open-source equivalent to Skype, I would probably make a number of people very happy, since Skype has hit a really good balance with its integrated voice/video/IM chat (especially the latter in my case).

    Sure, there are VOIP carriers who sell SIP calls to POTS phones a little cheaper, but the overall experience with Skype is exactly what I want. Plain old voice calls, while useful (and incidentally, I personally am not keen on video calls), are only part of the story these days.

  90. Re:Google talk by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    I'm going to miss it. Ah well.

    Just to keep things in perspective, it's not gone yet. And let's face it, Microsoft could pretty nearly freeze development for Skype on all platforms and still (for a while at least) maintain Skype's established userbase.

  91. No Jitsi on Debian PPC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this is a small and shrinking niche, but the only reason I keep my Powerbook G4 PPC on OS X 10.old is because its the best way to videoconference with my family on the big tv. When we have scheduled chats, I pull out the old Mac, put it on the mantle, hook it up to HDMI and fire up Skype. It has served me perfectly for years. The tv doesn't have VGA inputs and my Powerbook and Mac Mini PPC (running Debian) are the only devices in the house with DVI or HDMI out. Skype is still my only real option without spending hundreds on a VGA-to-HDMI adapter or even more on a laptop or HTPC with HDMI out.

    Until Jitsi drops for Debian PPC, I can't make the switch. Crap. It looks nice, too.

    1. Re:No Jitsi on Debian PPC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Scratch that whole thing about big $$ for a VGA-to-HDMI adapter. $40 at Amazon.

      http://www.amazon.com/Generic-HDMI-VGACONVERTER-Audio-HDMI-Converter/dp/B0015YWV1G

  92. Re:Google talk by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    I've used Skype on a (nominally) 56K dialup line and been able to hold a perfectly intelligible (voice-only) conversation. The worst experience I've had was attempting to use it via a satellite internet connection in rural Western Australia a few years ago, where the downstream side was fine, but the upstream latency was so poor that conversations became very disjointed.

    In the not-too-distant future, I will be moving to a much more out-of-the-way spot in Tasmania, and my best internet access options will probably include satellite. I'm hoping that there are options available to improve that upstream lag.

  93. Why don't you... by emuls · · Score: 0

    Why don't you just keep using skype?

  94. Re:Google talk by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    Check out mumble. It shouldn't be a problem. The only down side of using mumble is its not as user friendly as skype and is more technie in nature.

  95. Re:Truely private communication with Skype like ap by ajevans · · Score: 1

    Their privacy statement says they will. You voluntarially give up privacy to use Google and Microsoft apps.

  96. Re:Google talk by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Its free. Not open source, but its as free as skype was, and not "borged".

    At this point in time, I feel more worried about Google than Microsoft, regardless of how many cool free software products Google release,

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  97. Re:Google talk by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I'm going to miss it. Ah well.

    Just to keep things in perspective, it's not gone yet. And let's face it, Microsoft could pretty nearly freeze development for Skype on all platforms and still (for a while at least) maintain Skype's established userbase.

    No, I think GP's attitude is the same as the story's poster, i.e. now it is owned by Microsoft it has become anathema to them.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  98. Re:Google talk by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    I have the opposite experience conferencing with a business partner in Europe. Skype works fine if we do audio only, but if we throw in video it becomes unreliable. With Google Talk the video is smoother, but unfortunately we had to abandon it for a while b/c some malware interfered with his audio. I guess it ended up being a good thing, poor guy would have never guessed his computer was infected otherwise. Silly Windows users.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  99. Google Talk, Ventrilo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Talk has a video option. My old girlfriend and I used to use that all the time. Hubba, Hubba!
    There is also Ventrilo if you just want voice chat. Install the free Ventrilo Server and you can have 8 people connected and talking.

  100. How-to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very important initiative Timothy, quickly, just in 3 main points:

    1. A new F/LOSS Social participation project

    2. A group of volunteers to initialize the GPL licensed software, and the not for profit organization to keep it going on

    3. A donation (just a little one) from the worldwide users of skype/Internet, to ensure consistently a quality of service

    Thanks, I hope you will keep going on with your action
    carlo

  101. Re:Google talk by BatGnat · · Score: 1

    Your'e right, I got mixed up. Thanks

  102. Skype new owner starts to show true colors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just got the following email from Digium....

    Product notification:

    Skype for Asterisk will not be available for sale or activation after July 26, 2011.

    Skype for Asterisk was developed by Digium in cooperation with Skype. It includes proprietary software from Skype that allows Asterisk to join the Skype network as a native client. Skype has decided not to renew the agreement that permits us to package this proprietary software. Therefore Skype for Asterisk sales and activations will cease on July 26, 2011.

    This change should not affect any existing users of Skype for Asterisk. Representatives of Skype have assured us that they will continue to support and maintain the Skype for Asterisk software for a period of two years thereafter, as specified in the agreement with Digium. We expect that users of Skype for Asterisk will be able to continue using their Asterisk systems on the Skype network until at least July 26, 2013. Skype may extend this at their discretion.

    Skype for Asterisk remains for sale and activation until July 26, 2011. Please complete any purchases and activations before that date.

    Thank you for your business.

    Digium Product Management

  103. Re:Jitsi: no video conferencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We use skype at work. I'd have no luck in replacing it with jitsi as it has no video conferencing. Everyone at work loves the video, even in conferences.