Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Rolls Out New Skype for Web; Does Not Support Firefox, Safari, and Opera (venturebeat.com)
Microsoft this week revamped Skype's browser-based client with a slew of new features. From a report: The Seattle company this week announced the rollout of a major Skype for Web update, which introduces high-definition video calling, a redesigned notifications panels, a revamped media gallery, and more. It's available on any PC running Windows 10 and Mac OS X 10.12 or higher with the latest versions of Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge. The bulk of the new capabilities debuted in preview last October, but they're available widely starting this week. Skype for Web does not support Safari, Firefox, and Opera browsers, Microsoft has confirmed.
So much for open web standards, privacy, and freedom of choice and platform. The march back to the days of IE are progressing so well. I am sure Google is very pleased, indeed.
I don't know about you, but I will continue to fight it. If a site doesn't at least work on Firefox, it is BROKEN.
Good thing this supports Chrome, then.
That great ongoing support for all things open source... seems to have failed here. Firefox is the default browser in many Linux distributions.
So nice for Microsoft to think of themselves first, to the exclusion of anyone else.
And so you twits that have succumbed to the great haze of Microsoft's support of open source, know that it's only capitulation to FOSS, and not actually ascribing to the culture of the communities of FOSS.
Embrace, extend, extinguish is still their DNA. If they really wanted to make headway, they'd make Skype an API and spawn lots of products made from its bones, so as to curtail advances from Google, FB, and other international social media competition.
There are MBAs in Redmond that truly don't understand how to make dough in FOSS, understand how to bring markets to their fore through transformative yet open infrastructure. Same old song and dance.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
This article warrants reposting here:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/...
I stopped using skype since webRTC became built into browsers. no apps to install, works reliably. Works on more devices than skype.
The best part is that when you have an ad hoc group of people who suddenly need to chat you don't have any dely with people installing an application then coaxing it to work, signing up for a microsoft account etc... Installing all the other spy ware microsoft forces you to install with it.
And while not every webRTC provider is equally good, and bug free, there are some very good ones, and that's all you need. I like appear.in
The downer for me is that my employer blocks webRTC ports forcing the use of skype. ugg.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
IMHO, the two have had similar aims for decades. Lip service to FOSS, a huge competitor, hasn't done either well. MacOS has more "free" DNA than Windows (although Microsoft borrowed heavily from BSD licenses throughout their life), but yeah.
Beware the Reality Distortion Fields, folks!
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
No way. In 2031, everyone uses Timex. Computers, phones, tablets, watches, glasses.
I went to file this on webcompat.com, but it looks like it's already been filed as #27392.
View on webcompat | View on Microsoft GitHub
No one has revealed the answer to the question-- is that required API proprietary, or did Microsoft make the details available, or help port it to a neutral spot, or make it available in binary forms, etc? I don't know that answer to that. A community-focused vendor lifts the community, and yes, themselves. Red Hat is pretty good (although not perfect) at doing this for API kits.
It's a state of mind, rather than wallet. With so many interesting and potentially useful code contributions, the casual observer might conclude that they were doing it for themselves and their own benefit *strictly*. There is no evidence that other vendors were included, just that other major vendors certainly didn't announce support, and support has been provided before on each and every one of the now-excluded browser platforms.
If the required API is proprietary, that might be a reason. Opaque APIs are potentially full of bad things, can't be fixed in the open source crowd-sourced fixes, can't be seen for their backdoors, can't be understood for their (potentially excellent) code quality, etc.
They're opaque. This is one of the important basic differences between visible source and closed source, no matter the license.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Its a web app. This shouldn't happen with them.
Plus its weird that Opera isn't support since that is practically Chrome.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
Destroying the Skype platform isnt easy. MS are close to have exhausted possibilities for ruining this product which was once great..before MS bought it.. Splitting it into private and skype for business was bold, suddenly you had 2 fragments. Then they destroyed the manager so Skype for business suddenly became Skype for employees that work in a company that previously used Skype, because no sane company would implement a solution with a crippled central management. Then MS took the liberty to turn Skype into Teams..which is like replacing a Ghettoblaster with a piece of toilet paper, great for each purpose but not a replacement... So whoever came up with this broken browser solution, really had to think and innovate, to find the last ways to ruin Skype, I think people should appreciate that!
Your understanding of FOSS is typical, and it's pretty myopic. This context doesn't allow you to understand that there are motives in FOSS beyond pecuniary interest. It's not a business model. If you can wrap your head around that fact, and get it out of your wallet, you can get closer to the actual context.
What's-in-it-for-me is a natural desire. How-can-I-help is a more evolved thought process. You can make money both ways.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Is it really a web based product if you need a special API to run it.
If it is an HTML feature, that these other browsers haven't implemented yet, then that is a different issue.
The issue I have with JavaApplets, Active X, Flash, Sliverlight... is the fact these are not web apps, but executable that just happen run in your browser window.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Nah, Atari's gonna make the big comeback. By 2035 we'll all be using mutant 128-core Atari ATW transputer workstations.
How does it *NOT* support Opera? It is literally the same codebase as Chrome (both Blink/Chromium based), the same thing the new Edge is being based on. This means they're checking user agents, and denying ones they don't like. This is 2019, not 1999. STOP THIS SHIT RIGHT NOW.