×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

207 comments

Interoperability (4, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871348)

Doesn't the DMCA have exceptions for interoperability purposes? Surely these would come into play for a communications tool...

Re:Interoperability (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871396)

and that technicality will keep it tied up in courts for years. And by then, your software will have stagnated and died.

Re:Interoperability (5, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871506)

That's why you use philosophical groups like the EFF, with sane business practices. Like, even if you are fighting for your beliefs, a civil rights victory is not enough: make those bastards pay the ENTIRE cost of your legal fees. The EFF operates on a philosophical basis where they would like to take on cases such as this, but in order to survive they must be selective; however, if they do take on a case, it is well and proper that they not only set society straight on the issue, but also demand compensation for their time and resources from those who are abusive and guilty of using the legal system as a high entry barrier battleground that they can gain an automatic victory in by virtue of being bigger, rather than correct.

Re:Interoperability (3, Interesting)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871638)

Skype is not an US company. It is based in Luxembourg and has most of its team based in Estonia. DMCA doesn't apply here because it's an US law - point many people on slashdot like to bring up in defense of TPB etc.

And note that Microsoft STILL DOES NOT OWN SKYPE. The trade has been approved, but it still works a independent company. And they have a history of going against reverse engineer, and Microsoft cannot legally interfere with their business before they actually own the company.

Re:Interoperability (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871820)

And note that Microsoft STILL DOES NOT OWN SKYPE.

YES [microsoft.com] IT [microsoft.com] DOES [skype.com].

Stupid lameness filter won't let me yell back at people who yelled first.

Re:Interoperability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871998)

Microsoft is still an Irish company

Re:Interoperability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872204)

Skype is not a US company. It is based in Luxembourg and has most of its team based in Estonia. DMCA doesn't apply here because it's a US law - point many people on slashdot like to bring up in defense of TPB etc.

And note that Microsoft STILL DOES NOT OWN SKYPE. The trade has been approved, but it still works as an independent company. And they have a history of going against reverse engineer, and Microsoft cannot legally interfere with their business before they actually own the company.

Sorry, but your post drove me crazy... Please learn when to use AN versus A.

Re:Interoperability (1, Informative)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872294)

Wrong. Since the "u" is pronounced like "you" you use "A"...ala "a user" "a unified field theory". You use "An" in the case of the short sound e.g. "an umbrella" or "an understanding"

Re:Interoperability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872436)

The comment to which you replied was correct. The other AC had "fixed it for SharkLaser".

Re:Interoperability (1, Informative)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872396)

The third correction is justified, the first two were correct as written by the OP.

Re:Interoperability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872534)

wow

Re:Interoperability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872376)

>and Microsoft cannot legally interfere with their business before they actually own the company

Microsoft can say "Jump, or the deal is off the table" to Skype management, and Skype management will say "How high?".

Microsoft has something more powerful than laws; Microsoft has money.

Re:Interoperability (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872130)

While others has benefited from your software and the genie is out of the box.

Just spread the knowledge and how-to into several different countries and the job to put the genie back is ending up being futile.

Re:Interoperability (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871720)

as long as the DMCA does not fund the litigation required to actually be able to use this exception. it is a pretty useless exception.

Re:Interoperability (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871956)

I don't know what's going in Europe but in the US this should be a non-story. US courts have routinely struck down reverse engineering suits. Its completely legal to do.

Re:Interoperability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872398)

Do you mean like this software reverse engineerer [theage.com.au] who was extradited from Australia and jailed in the US for it?

Re:Interoperability (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872582)

Really? You're going to pretend that a member of a warez group who cracks software is the same as somebody who reverse engineers a communications protocol for interoperability?

Is this new? (3, Interesting)

magsol (1406749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871362)

Has this kind of crackdown on those who would reverse-engineer Skype's protocols always been around? Or has it only been elevated to prominence with the acquisition of Skype by Microsoft?

tl;dr can we hate on Microsoft?

Re:Is this new? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871608)

This is Slashdot, nobody's going to care about facts when hating Microsoft. Go right ahead!

Re:Is this new? (1, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871890)

And likewise, every time we mention the sun we should go outside and check out that it's roughly spherical, you can never be sure.

Re:Is this new? (2)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872340)

Listening to some FOSS SIP developers I've been under the impression that Skype has always been difficult to deal with but you do it because everyone want to talk to someone on Skype..

If I were in tinfoil hat mode, I say Skype is just tired of spending cash on the continual arms race of changing thing just enough to keep their competitors from playing anywhere near their turf and are going to take the nuke for orbit approach.

Publishing specs... (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871430)

Come to think of it, seeing as the EU required microsoft to publish protocol specs a few years back, would they now extend this requirement to cover skype?

I certainly think they should, proprietary unpublished protocols are extremely harmful to everyone else.

Re:Publishing specs... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871500)

Are they still under those requirements in the EU? I know their US requirements have gone away.

Re:Publishing specs... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871710)

Have they gone away, or have they simply gone unenforced?

Re:Publishing specs... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871732)

The ten years of court-mandated oversight of Microsoft's U.S. operations have elapsed.

Re:Publishing specs... (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872344)

The oversight went away. Did the requirement to publish specs go as well?

Just because an ex-con has completed his term of probation doesn't mean he can just go back to dealing meth.

Re:Publishing specs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872424)

Actually with budget cuts, some parolees are being set completely free - no checkups or anything. Looks great on the budget.

Re:Publishing specs... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871620)

Come to think of it, seeing as the EU required microsoft to publish protocol specs a few years back, would they now extend this requirement to cover skype?

I certainly think they should, proprietary unpublished protocols are extremely harmful to everyone else.

Not certain, but that would mean you could go right ahead in Europe - actually, you probably could anyway as the DMCA only applies to peasant^H^H^H^H^Hople in the United States.

Microsoft (2)

Tomato42 (2416694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871472)

Oh Microsoft, it's just like you have never left.

Re:Microsoft (1)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872658)

nope, its a skype problem. Since the very first version they were very keen on keeping their stuff secret, with spyware-like techniques of detecting debuggers in memory and not starting when they are detected and such stuff, just to keep their protocol secret (some people suspect they do more than just voip, noone knows because of all the binary obfuscation in their programs)

Serve it on darknets (3, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871482)

If you're working on any kind of software that could piss off large corporations - console hacking, proprietary protocol reverse-engineering, DRM-breaking, etc - host the project on a darknet site anonymously so they can't send you takedown notices or sue you. This should be common sense by now.

Re:Serve it on darknets (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871582)

On AT&T's (or anybody else's) wire, there is no such thing as "darknet". The host will be found and taken down. The only alternative is a true P2P chat than can connect you direct to the person you wish to talk to after exchanging IP addresses.

Re:Serve it on darknets (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871660)

There is Freenet, but a project on Freenet will be inaccessible to anyone but other Freenet users. It's the hangout of the extreme paranoids. A few 'Government is coming to silence me' conspiracy theorists, quite a lot of pirates, some religious people worried the Antichrist will come after them when he takes power, some crypto-anarchists who just want to support the network (It's far less risky than running a TOR exit node) and probably a few pedophiles lurking in the shadows. It is just about untraceable though - it's take a major government operation monitoring nodes all over the world to track someone down on it. Easier to just trick them into opening a trap link.

Re:Serve it on darknets (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871756)

Please tell me how ISPs could identify the host of an .onion or .i2p site.

Re:Serve it on darknets (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871846)

If you packets don't go through their white list of 'approved' or 'authorized' sites, they will be silently dropped. And besides, there's always DPI and various other methods they are not at liberty to divulge. On their line, there is no hope, even with chaff and other distraction measures. A wireless mesh is your only insurance. Otherwise you takes yer chances.

Re:Serve it on darknets (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871934)

If you packets don't go through their white list of 'approved' or 'authorized' sites, they will be silently dropped.

This is happening right now? So basically no form of P2P communication will work then, especially not encrypted bittorrent?

And besides, there's always DPI and various other methods they are not at liberty to divulge.

Well DPI won't help since darknets use universal encryption. Do they have secret cracks for all the best encryption algorithms? Should I put on my tinfoil hat now?

Re:Serve it on darknets (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872228)

Dropping packets is much better than identifying the originator of a specific traffic.

Besides, even if they limit it to a whitelist, one can always use any user content services to pass data. As someone who uses TCP/IP over SSH over DNS regularly on very limited networks, I know that.

Re:Serve it on darknets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871614)

DMCA is US only. Reverse engineering is still legal in many countries around the world, and it's supposed to be legal in the US for interoperability.

Re:Serve it on darknets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871636)

You presume that these people can find a darknet. I doubt they would want to use Google to search for one, as that would likely send up some red flags somewhere.

Money's worth (1)

thenewt (1974712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871532)

Microsoft paid FAR too much for skype for them to stop wasting time, effort and more money on it now. Woe betide ye, FOSS clones... Time to look into this Google videoconferencing stuff.

Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871552)

Who wants to interoperate with their proprietary crap anyways.

SIP FTW.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871870)

SIP, a brilliant protocol that likes to negotiate a random port between 10000 and 20000 to open your RTP stream. Why not IAX2, which is a hundred times better and not gay as fuck like SIP to handle.

Re:Good (1)

atisss (1661313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872236)

RTP port is configurable in most implementations, however IAX2 is still in child diapers.. It works if you use example configurations, but trying something advanced might reveal problems.

Re:Good (2)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872480)

Just like SIP is, compared to Skype. You can find or get anyone you need to Skype. Not so much with SIP. And you have to understand that what people use count a lot too.

Re:Good (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872578)

RTP port is configurable in most implementations, however IAX2 is still in child diapers.. It works if you use example configurations, but trying something advanced might reveal problems.

Like what? You forgot to finish your post.

Re:Good (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872530)

IAX2 is a second-class citizen even in Asterisk, and approximately unknown outside Asterisk. Also, IAX2 as used by current Asterisk versions is quite far from the original RFC.

RIP Skype (5, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871602)

To all those people asking "Why do you hate MS so much?"
This is why.

When MS bought Skype I told people that Skype would die soon *because* MS bought it. Didn't know how or when but soon.
Now, MS will kill all the various clients that made Skype ubiquitous and useful. The new Skype will not run on as many platforms and (in true MS EEE fashion) will not work with previous versions either

Like Metalica, and Hurt Locker, Skype will now be shunned.
A new *open* protocol will take over.

Re:RIP Skype (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871686)

I've seen some people speculate that MS doesn't actually want the Skype service at all, but wants it's technology and patents to improve their XBox voice chat and to design new features for future Windows Phone versions.

Re:RIP Skype (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872352)

"It's" is a contraction of "it is". "Its" is the possessive form of the pronoun "it". For more information please consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_%28pronoun%29

Re:RIP Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872542)

If they really paid that much for software instead of the user base, then some very high up people at Microsoft have even lower confidence in Microsoft's ability to write good software than their harshest critics. I doubt it. Microsoft bought Skype to keep it from someone else or for the network effect (which Microsoft is notoriously bad at creating by themselves if they can't tie in to another product).

Re:RIP Skype (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871696)

I just hope it doesn't feature-bloat like Microsoft's other IM.

Before it used to be light and you could use it to chat. Now it takes 20-40 seconds to load, and tries to do everything and fails horribly.

With skype integrating FB already... I think we can see what direction its heading into.

Re:RIP Skype (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872184)

I just hope it doesn't feature-bloat like Microsoft's other IM.

And I want to win the lottery. I think mine is more likely than yours... Feature bloat is the middle age of software.

Skype will now be shunned (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871744)

What's Skype? Isn't that kind of like Google Voice?

I was just getting to look into Skype before M$ bought them, then I quickly thought twice once I heard of the deal. I knew that M$ would change the API to "improve" the product, and then do whatever they could to kick out other OS's from the list of supported hosts. Each, one by one, has come to pass. No surprises there, business as usual in Redmond.

Re:Skype will now be shunned (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872190)

www.skype.com

What's M$? Is it some kind of retarded as fuck way to write "MS" that idiotic children with 1337-sp34k usernames use to refer to Microsoft?

Re:Skype will now be shunned (1, Insightful)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872612)

Personally I like it when people write Microsoft as M$, it means whatever they have to say isn't worth reading.

Re:RIP Skype (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871800)

A new *open* protocol will take over.

So, moving on, are there any promising candidates in this area?

And what of the infrastructure required? Is there any, such that there has to be some business running servers for VOIP clients to work well? I'm just not that familiar with it. I know you can do client-to-client connections, but what about directory services?

Re:RIP Skype (0)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872212)

SIP. There are lots of free sip servers as well. An interesting project is http://jitsi.org/ [jitsi.org] and they even have a free service at http://jitsi.org/ [jitsi.org] which shows a sense of humor. :)

Re:RIP Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872712)

Yes, SIP. Unfortunately that protocol was conceived by someone who must have been a fan of FTP, with separate control and data connections and the IP addresses and port numbers of the latter being transmitted on the former. SIP doesn't play nice with NAT or firewalls. Skype doesn't either, but then at least it works, whereas SIP is responsible for turning one-way audio and other connection problems into a VoIP stereotype.

Re:RIP Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872218)

Technically its all solvable with open protocols (see SIP, STUN, TURN, and LDAP) the problem is that tunneling servers (TURN) are required to make VoIP work ubiquitously and those need lots of bandwidth which someone is going to need to monetize.

Re:RIP Skype (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872570)

So, moving on, are there any promising candidates in this area?

SIP with ICE is certainly promising. The main remaining challenge is imitating the way Skype uses random well-connected users as proxies for those less fortunate.

Re:RIP Skype (2)

timothyf (615594) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871864)

All the various clients? Uh... what clients were there besides the official Skype client? I don't remember seeing any, and believe me, I looked.

Re:RIP Skype (1)

sremick (91371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872318)

All the various clients? Uh... what clients were there besides the official Skype client? I don't remember seeing any, and believe me, I looked.

Pidgin, Trillian, imo... you didn't look very hard.

Re:RIP Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872080)

To all those people asking "Why do you hate MS so much?"
This is why.

When MS bought Skype I told people that Skype would die soon *because* MS bought it. Didn't know how or when but soon.
Now, MS will kill all the various clients that made Skype ubiquitous and useful. The new Skype will not run on as many platforms and (in true MS EEE fashion) will not work with previous versions either

Like Metalica, and Hurt Locker, Skype will now be shunned.
A new *open* protocol will take over.

are you a monkey ? skype has always been closed source ... Bashing microsoft when it makes sense ok but here you're completely lunatic.

SKYPE as never ever been FOSS friendly

Re:RIP Skype (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872430)

Skype was closed even before Microsoft bought it. Good thing if Microsoft can accelerate the transition to alternatives.
Seriously, it's not as if Skype invented VoIP or Videochat.

I don't get it... (3, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871634)

Skype and their PR people are calling the project "malicious" and "nefarious", but it sounds like all it does is emulate Skype, so that you can send messages to Skype users while not having a proper account

They mention the possibility that it could be used for spam, but that sounds like blaming the tool. Is there some other way that this thing could be inherently "nefarious" that I'm not understanding? Because it doesn't look dangerous to me.

Unless you count the risks of an independent developer making something interoperable with, and potentially better than, the original product. We all know that's a grave and terrible danger to the safety of the free world.

Re:I don't get it... (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871830)

Could be useful for prank calls, harassment, death threats etc if it allows a user to make calls without having a Skype account at all (sounds like a serious security problem with Skype's design).

If it's just an alternative Skype client that still requires an account, then it just prevents Skype from having absolute control over which platforms can access their network, in which case, fuck them.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871952)

sounds like a serious security problem with Skype's design

^this. Microsoft threatening when they should be coding? Never.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872418)

Damn. Microsoft programmers also double as their legal staff? Here I thought they would have a staff lawyers hired specifically to handle their legal needs, such as issuing DMCA notices and suing other companies. The fact that their programmers are doing this is troubling.

Re:I don't get it... (0)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871970)

Could be useful for prank calls, harassment, death threats etc if it allows a user to make calls without having a Skype account at all

You mean like of like how payphones, prepaid cell phones, google voice, or email->SMS gateways can have have been used for years?

Re:I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872390)

Why shouldn't a new network aspire to be better than the old in that regard?

Re:I don't get it... (1)

MadTinfoilHatter (940931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871958)

Skype and their PR people are calling the project "malicious" and "nefarious", but it sounds like all it does is emulate Skype

Prosecution rests...

Know what would be hillarious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871654)

Another program replaces Skype in the market and the resale value of Skype drops to $0.50 LOLOLOL

Re:Know what would be hillarious? (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871848)

Won't happen. SIP and IAX are out there, all free and decentralized, but all the proprietary junk continues to be adopted by the technologically-challenged masses.

Hiding Something (5, Interesting)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871712)

An engineer buddy of mine was doing reverse-engineering work on the Skype protocol for a job he had a few years back, he would come to me with shock and tell me about how dumb and insecure the Skype clients are and how trivially easy it is to get any Skype client to work as an invisible proxy for you without that person's knowledge by just using the skype protocol.

If they're making such a huge deal about it, you have to wonder why. They've got some problems and they'd rather have security through obscurity. *sigh*

Does the DMCA really prevent cleanroom / chinese wall reverse-engineering? Damnit politicians just have no clue...

Re:Hiding Something (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871810)

He wasn't doing "clean-room" reverse engineering, though; TFA mentions that he de-obfuscated a few different versions of the Skype binary.

Re:Hiding Something (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872498)

You can make "clean-room" reverse engineering while (somebody is) looking at the code. The only requirement is that the person writting your software dosen't touch the foreign code.

You are probably confusing it with "black box" reverse engenireeng.

Re:Hiding Something (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37872694)

You can make "clean-room" reverse engineering while (somebody is) looking at the code. The only requirement is that the person writting your software dosen't touch the foreign code.

AFAIK he was doing it all himself.

You are probably confusing it with "black box" reverse engenireeng.

Actually, I was repeating what TFA said:

For reference, it does appear that this researcher is not doing "clean-room" reverse engineering. One of the comments he writes on his blog reads, "It is because I have only de-obfuscted 3.8 and 4.1(BETA) versions of skype binary." (In response to why he isn't targeting Skype 5 support at this time.)

Moot point, because if he's one person looking at Skype's code and then writing code to interface with it using its protocols, that's not black-box or clean-room reverse engineering.

And it begins. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871718)

I ditched Skype ever since Version5 started an OS-level crashfest due to terrible video handling and essentially a "nofix" spat in my face. (not to mention that HUGE buglist)
And it has nothing to do with video chat exclusively, it has everything to do with the new terrible video canvas they are using in every single chat window by default.
I actually setup a script I could run to terminate the program instantly the moment I notice the same old glitch just seconds before it brings down the whole OS, but that only worked some of the time. So I got rid of it entirely.
Never had a program I have kept that brought down the full OS besides this and Flash. And that was an extreme corner case where I was setting Flash transparent inside a browser process. I reported it to Adobe and Mozilla, fixed in the next update, done.
They fixed it. Skype never even bothered. And I'd rather not have my OS die every time I want to chat. (which was pretty much every other day, if not every day, of the week)

Now this is another huge "fuck you" to the consumers.

Is this enough for you to want to ditch it yet?
Google+ has been a fantastic replacement so far (for me), have no complaints besides the silliness over the real names stuff, but they are dropping that now, so alls good.

Re:And it begins. (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871982)

If Skype, or even Flash, brought down your OS, you need a new OS (and more than likely a new computer). Seriously.

It's an application, and it doesn't even try to do anything fancy or to do with drivers (even the webcam interface is the most programmatically basic they can muster). It crashing your OS is your OS's fault. If you'd said "hung program" or "disk thrashing" or something else, I'd be on your side. But NOTHING should cause your machine to crash, no matter what it does with webcams, codecs and accelerated video windows.

No wonder you got a "nofix". I'd seriously go away and check your disk, RAM, OS install, OS updates and software updates.

(For the record: Skype installed for last 5 years, video chat used almost daily, updated whenever I feel but usually within a week or two of updates being released, on a 5-year old XP SP2 image. Used every day for 8 hours in work, 8 hours at home, sits in suspend overnight. Yes, I've had crashes, and yes Skype has stopped responding or crashed. But NEVER would I tolerate Skype if it did that to my machine.)

Uhm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37871832)

Skype should really go after the morons for design their UI, because it has the worst possible user interface EVER.

Soon as an alternative pops up, i'm gone. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37871868)

And I'm going to force all my friends who use skype to come with me.
Ever since Skype started emulating Facebook, I've just hated it.

Re:Soon as an alternative pops up, i'm gone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872286)

What if he refuses?

Re:Soon as an alternative pops up, i'm gone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872594)

SIP is good enough, usually better. SIP+Jabber clients are available with video and whatnot.

Re:Soon as an alternative pops up, i'm gone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872682)

Ever since Skype started emulating Facebook, I've just hated it.

You're obviously not using the 'latest' release of the Skype client for Linux based OSs

Come on Apple (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37872166)

Publish the FaceTime specifications and protocols already, as Steve said you would.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...