Slashdot Mirror


Skype For Linux: Dead? Or Just Resting?

New submitter somebearouthere writes: Skype for Linux was updated in 2014 to v4.3 and has since sat there without an update while its counterpart on other platforms has been receiving updates. Sometime in 2015, Microsoft quietly abandoned that version of the product, showing back to Linux users who had paid for subscriptions with the expectation that one day they too would be able to finally use group video chat, have a real 64-bit version available and get an improved UI. Skype developers have just thrown in the towel and it has left the user base frustrated. Last month many users reported that Microsoft had broken the app's ability to join calls. Two Linux enthusiasts penned the issue in a blog signed by "lots of angry Linux users." I have contacted Microsoft numerous times over the past few weeks but it remains tight-lipped on the matter. I have a feeling Microsoft isn't going to update Skype for Linux.

8 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Spype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Why would anyone who's clued in enough to use free software want to use Skype, where it's known that every conversation you have is recorded by the NSA? Skype and Linux don't really jive.

    1. Re:Spype? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's my duty to use Skype so that the NSA's servers are cluttered with my uninteresting conversations, making it harder for them to find what they want. I do it to protect you.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  2. Re:Just resting, Monthy Python style by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What, continued development for at least three years? ;-)

    And, for all their faults, Microsoft hasn't been ignoring rivals. Skype for Android is available and up to date, and if anything development improved on that after the Microsoft takeover (the first Android version was released shortly before Microsoft did) - the original was pretty awful and couldn't route calls over Wifi, for example.

    The client for GNU/Linux still works, I still use it, no it's not perfect, but I think it's a little too early to imply Microsoft is to blame for Skype's poorer showing on that platform. Microsoft does seem to be playing better with the other children of late, hopefully it'll continue to do so, and the hopeful note at the end of TFS will be well placed.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. Re:Just resting, Monthy Python style by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, don't you just hate it when somebody pays $8.5 billion for something, then refuses to give it away. No wonder everyone here thinks they're evil...

    (Note to moderators: Since the system here provides no "Irony" tag, please just ignore this comment if you don't get it. :-)

  4. Have any of you tried... by evolutionary · · Score: 5, Interesting

    https://jitsi.org/ It looks quite good. this may be a blessing. Microsoft recently put word out about "bots" guiding you on things like vacations, products and so forth. in other words, Microsoft, is using Skype to anayze your communications and push ads. Not that I'm surprised. MS has historically been friendly to Linux and only recently even remotely tried to show some level of cooperation. MS SQL Server for Linux was an interesting step, but of course they can pull the pug at any time, which given this news (okay, not news...I've been wondering about this for awhile). Of course Android is killing MS on tablets and phones. Anyway, we've been patient enough. Time to try something different. Plus, did we really want Microsoft's spyware (ahem, "enhanced features") running on our Linux workstations? This could be a blessing in disguise telling us to give up hopes on MS and embrace the superior software projects in our grasp and encourage our friends/family to do the same.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  5. Microsoft Might Have Acquired Skype For Free... by ytene · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Warning: this is tin-foil-hat logic, but stick with me on this... Microsoft made 2 massive "purchases" of non-revenue-generating technologies [Hotmail and Skype]. In the case of Hotmail, they instantly got access to all traffic [metadata and content]. In case of Skype, one of the first things they did was re-configure the software to force all communications to route through their servers. For those who don't know, the pre-Microsoft versions of Skype only needed the Skype core servers to work out if their counterparty was "on line" and to pick up their IP address. The call setup and handling was done endpoint-to-endpoint with no server interaction. Now we learn, thanks to Edward Snowden, that the "Five Eyes" agencies are sucking up all net traffic for analysis... Now, I have ***ZERO*** hard evidence, but riddle me this: why would Microsoft take a service like Skype [one with limited revenue] and buy it in the first place? Having bought it, why would they massively increase the operational costs by forcing all traffic to go through Microsoft owned servers - infrastructure they would have to pay for? Just the cost of that infrastructure would have wiped out any profits from Skype for decades in advance... Unless [tinfoil hat please] they were getting massive tax breaks or other deals from the government, to off-set against the costs... If there is any shred of fact in the complete fiction/theory I've written here, then Microsoft didn't really pay that full price for Skype: or, if they did, they had help.

    1. Re:Microsoft Might Have Acquired Skype For Free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No need for the conspiracy/tin-foil angle here, and I think you are 100% correct.

      Note that Intel from the NSA drag-net is not only used to "catch terrorists" but also for economic espionage and to enhance the USA's bargaining position. Now the true value of Skype traffic interception becomes clear: think about how many businesses, and even government workers (those who should know better) use Skype on a daily basis. For a long time it was "the way" to make calls over the internet.

      The only valid use for Skype in today's world is for calling your grandma and asking about her hemorrhoids. Personally I've switched to G+ "Hangouts" for my personal online "chats". Google is no less evil/trustworthy than Microsoft, but their software seems to work better and it's easier to coordinate with elderly family members.

      I have noticed for a while now that there is a distinct lack of easy-to-use, P2P, voice and video chat programs, with strong encryption. I guess the challenge is that barring significant input from some benevolent white-hat super-coder, it will probably never happen.

      PS: As an aside, the pre-Microsoft Skype protocol was even better than you think. The main challenge was devising a way for any one node to locate another node in an efficient, fast, distributed way. The algorithm would allow regular clients to check their net connection, and if open, would act as peer-discovery servers. The traffic burden for this was minimal, just locating peers, not routing traffic. So there was never *any* need for centralised Skype servers, or at least, they were very minimal. Remember that Skype was written by a hard-core group of Romanian programmers and they sure didn't have the server infrastructure to develop a centralised system.

  6. Re:Just resting, Monthy Python style by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mumble has already achieved an impressive level of functionality, is popular with gamers, and could use a bunch of helping hands right about now to get it the rest of the way towards truly slick. Open source => not spyware (unlike Skype).

    Setting up a Mumble (Murmur) server is dead simple.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.