Linux lads lambast sorry state of Skype service Linux users are piling on Microsoft after the long-neglected Skype client on the open-source OS suddenly lost the ability to join calls from other versions of the software. Since Monday, users running the latest Linux build of Skype have been unable to chat to friends who are using Skype for OS X and Windows, it appears. Fed …
While this site and many others seem to enjoy gloating over the lack of uptake on G+....it's because those of us who do use it - daily - don't make our stuff public, not being attention whores like facebook members.
Since you don't have any actual friends, you don't see anything as all the groups of friends use privacy that google provides.
(we define friends on a level of least to most: Facebook - you're kidding?, Friends - might lend you a cup of sugar or a beer, Real Friends - help you move, Life Friends - help you move the bodies)
It works better than skype for video chatting...but you do obviously have to become a member. Funny, it works on all opsys, doesn't try to sell you anything, has some featured I didn't notice last time I had skype working here (all linux, so I guess it's not worth trying again now) -
But of course, cognitive dissonance and the fear of looking as stupid as you are will keep this for those of us who don't care what the less adept - and many journalists - think.
You do realize the reason people are lamenting the lack of support for Skype on Linux is because Skype is so ubiquitous, right? So all you need to do is convince everyone you know who uses Skype (including corporate users) that they should switch to something else for YOUR convenience?
Not to mention the irony of someone dissing Facebook while being signed up to the most privacy-invading company of the Internet
To be fair, whilst Faecebook and G+ are both shitehouses, he wasn't dissing Faecebook privacy compared to google, he was talking about the way people use Faecebook.
Anyway, Skype (Skype for Business) is now in Lync, what used to be Lync video and integrated in O365 MS Cloud service.
The scenario often happens, when someone sends out lync (Skype) meeting invitations with video host, shared desktop and attachments to all the remote and WFH workers. The Linux guy has to use a Windows desktop, or use the dial-in number.
Does it connect to Skype clients? If not then Pinar Yanardag's Granny is still stuffed.
Unless he can get her converted to Linux, since Linux is now apparently easy and does everything Windows does; then they can just switch to Ekiga, or whatever passes for a Skype equivalent
@Lars
Hmmm...It says Ekiga is available for Unix Like operating systems. Does that mean Linux? If not then Pinar Yanardag himself is stuffed.
Actually I looked it up and see its available in most of the best known Linuxes so I guess everyone should be happy. As long as it works at least as good as Skype and is Granny friendly.
Seriously, is Ekiga worth a look? I've been getting a bit niggled with Skype.
Ekiga is one of many SIP clients. It is a quite nice one. Of course SIP predates skype by many years and being a standard, it is supported by lots of software and hardware. But it is slightly harder to use than skype, but on the other hand it isn't evil and proprietary.
Read the quoted tweet - Pinar's Granny *is* running Linux. She's probably writing Linux kernel device drivers in Erlang and currently using wireshark to reverse engineer the Skype protocol and implement her own updated client. You know, usual Granny stuff.
Jitsi is quite nice if you want a flexible multi protocol system, but it is complex and a hideous resource hog.
There is a quite nice free web based sip service at http://www.getonsip.com
It has a couple of nice features, a personal url that allows incoming calls without an account for the caller and also allows client programs to be set up. (Client programs can do video to each other and other sip systems, but the web interface only does audio to anything other than someone else using it.) The instructions for how to set up bria also apply to the free xlite.
There are lots of client programs. Ekiga seems to be the best simple app on linux. xlite seems to be the best free app on windows and mac. (the old version 3 is better in some ways than the current version.) For voice only on a mac, telephone is a brilliant app (Reliable versions exist for all 10.5 and above machines).
They can barely get their shit together on Windows. They had to revert back to the old desktop Skype client because they couldn't make the modern app work worth crap. What would make anyone think that they have and/or willing to put in the time to support the Linux side?
"We do understand that Linux is a competitor of Microsoft's Windows. But we do not understand why this results in a lack of support for Skype."
I'd have thought that was obvious myself. Still, Linux fans.
Intentional or not, the dropping of functionality for those users is classic MS. Lurching from one clanger to the next.
Except NetMeeting actually used SIP, as in the standard that existed long before skype barged in with their own stupid peer to peer protocol.
SIP does have the issue of not being a fan of NAT on firewalls which has become rather common for just about everyone. It is an old protocol after all. Some firewalls do manage it OK though it seems.
Linux may be a competitor but so is Android and OSX and iOS but Skype works and is given more love on those clients i believe. so is MS Office which works on all those devices but unless you have a 365 subscription and a compatible browser no MS Office for Linux either. :-(
Either we need a Skype client for Linux direct from MS or an independent one that can make and receive Skype calls.
Get rid of the walled gardens in voice comms and messaging.
A client that can do Jabber, Skype, Facetime, Whatsapp, etc all in one client would be killer. But no chance of that :-(
It isnt more bizarre than the reality they apparently already live in...
Penguinistas - Who poke out their own eye the day it sees a woman who isn't their wife. Who burn down their house because someone they dislike buys one just like it. Who stop drinking water because they learn their hated neighbour drinks it too...etc, etc...
"Penguinistas do none of those things - they just cannot be bothered with the crap the Mirosoft pushes."
So what's the problem with Skype then if Linux users don't even want it?
You yourself have claimed on these forums that Windows software in Wine runs better than in Windows. Ergo, Linux users needing Skype should just use Wine.
>Penguinisas who didn't uninstall Skype the day the Microsoft acquisition was announced? What kind of bizarre alternate reality have I fallen into?
Some of us have managers, who read Windows IT Pro and think that's gospel ... I have skype on Mac, Linux, and Windows at home and yes, the Linux version is better, it has no ads ... maybe all this is just part of the bigger plan, get ads into the Linux client .... forcing users to upgrade, however, MS in their inifinite wisdom, cut off the branch before the alternate was ready ...
Like some years ago, when all of a sudden you could no longer log on ... it was complaining about an invalid username/password .... until you downloaded the latest Skype version .... !@#$%!#%#@
Stay clear of that shit, I tell ya!
""Linux is actively being used by power users who can not or do not want to use Windows because of a lack of features, and now, those (paying) users who used Skype for both Business and Private purposes are dropped by Skype."
It seems Linux lacks a feature these so-called power users are finding they need.
Linux is missing this Microsoft propitiatory feature because Microsoft have made it that way but the Linux people only need it to talk to people running Windows and that number is diminishing so this is an issue that will become relevant and before you say "year of the Linux desktop" you should know that Google live without Windows and so do lots of governments etc and the number is growing.
Actually, I'm going to leave Windows because it has too many features - the new spyware ones.
Anyway, Linux users that talks about "lack of features" by Windows - yes, it you call Linux lack of features "features", then, yes, Linux has many more... and maybe beng a really tiny percentage of desktop users (Skype is pretty useless on servers) - because of truly lack of features for many users who aren't a linux/web developer or a sysadmin (or some uni researcher who didn't get a Mac) - explains why Microsoft is not investing much resources in the Linux Skype client - especially if an even more small percentage pays for Skype credit - Linux desktop users are not among those usually credited to be willingly to pay for software or services.
"Linux desktop users are not among those usually credited to be willingly to pay for software or services."
Rubbish. Actual evidence shows that Linux users are generally more generous when it comes to paying up; look at the Humble Bundle stats for an example.
I use Linux (and OS X and to a lesser extent, Windows) and I've paid for all of my software that requires it. I've also volunteered to donate to many distros, LibreOffice, Mozilla, OpenWRT and many, many others. Many more than once. Experience with colleagues and friends shows exactly the same pattern.
We don't use Linux because it's free as in beer, we use it because most distros are insanely well-featured out of the box and generally much more so than Windows (although the latter can be brought up to scratch after install a plethora of third-party products, many of which are FOSS). We can try anything we like with no activation hoops or license hassles to worry about. When we find something we like, we use it and donate whatever we feel it is worth to us. Simple and painless.
We also like the ability to change vendor and keep our apps and stuff if things ever go south. Not that I've had to exercise that feature often, but it's good to know it can be done.
Frankly, I've see most Linux users willingly to pay for software moving to OSX. Fairly more stable *nix-like platform, and far better software available.
Donating a few dollars to some FOSS project is very different than paying for licenses, or, like the case of Skype, buying "credits" to send SMS or call phones.
Maybe *you* don't use Linux just because it is free, but many, many others just use it because it is free and now cracking Windows is a bit more difficult than it used to be.
And if Linux would have been a viable platform, a lot of software would have been ported to it. The very fact it wasn't, it's exactly because nobody sees a market for desktop commercial software on Linux, because of the 1.4% of users, an even smaller percentage will buy it.
And if you feel your platform is so superior, stop complaining that little ugly software from Microsoft is not available, enjoy your superior software and be happy... nobody cares of the innumerable FOSS messaging apps? Ask yourself why...
>We don't use Linux because it's free as in beer, we use it because most distros are insanely well-featured out of the box and generally much more so than Windows (although the latter can be brought up to scratch after install a plethora of third-party products, many of which are FOSS). We can try anything we like with no activation hoops or license hassles to worry about. When we find something we like, we use it and donate whatever we feel it is worth to us. Simple and painless.
Spot on, we use Linux because it is like Windows Datacenter Edition, no imposed limitations (aka anti-features). Linux is an execllent desktop system, and a server system that is only beaten by FreeBSD, Windows Server (even Datacenter Edition) is not even in the same galaxy.
Windows is for n00bs ...
It's funny how Linux people have to desperately hang to things of the past... while BSODs were maybe common twenty years ago - Win95 and NT times, and even then usually because of a bad driver - it's a long time they are a rare sight - unless you use truly crappy hardware with crappy drivers - or your machine is full of malware applications each fighting to install its bad written rootkit drivers over the others.
Remember, a user application can crash but can't trigger a BSOD, only something happening in the kernel can trigger it.
For the matter, I've also seen a lot of kernel panics as well, due to crappy kernel modules...
>It's funny how Linux people have to desperately hang to things of the past... while BSODs were maybe common twenty years ago - Win95 and NT times ....
Over the course of six months, Windows 7 gave me more BSOD's than all other Windows versions I have used (starting with 3.0 ....), combined. It was complaining about power management on a HP Elitebook, and no driver update helped, upgrading the system to Linux solved the issue - I could even call the piece of shit a laptop with Linux, since I could unplug power and stilll use WIFI (In Windows, I had to REBOOT after unplugging the power cord to get WIFI to work). Awaking from sleep gave me approx 1 in 5 chance of a BSOD.
That was a HP laptop with Windows 7 as shipped by HP.
"that was a HP laptop with Windows 7 as shipped by HP."
You gave yourself the answer. All the crappy software HP installs on its systems will just degrade any system. Install from scratch without all the "utilities" and any OS - including Windows 7 - will work flawlessly.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
