Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Microsoft Using Linux To Optimize Skype Traffic

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the strange-bedfellows dept.

Microsoft 396

An anonymous reader writes "A security researcher believes that Microsoft has overhauled Skype, with thousands of Linux boxes serving as the 'supernodes' that route calls between users of the voice-over-IP service. Kostya Kortchinsky of Immunity Security 'discovered the Linux supernodes using a Skype probing technique he and colleague Fabrice Desclaux first demonstrated in 2006,' according to Ars Technica. The drastic infrastructure change doesn't affect the peer-to-peer nature of the calls between Skype users."

cancel ×

396 comments

Eh? This is how Skype works? (3, Informative)

CriticalAnalysis (2631225) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884693)

Skype creators are same that designed Kazaa. This is how the P2P structure of Skype works and is widely known. What is the point of this story?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (5, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884737)

To gloat over the irony of Microsoft using cheap UNIX boxes for P2P infrastructure. Even in 2012, Microsoft is still the bogeyman here.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (5, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884801)

Well, very appropriate considering Microsoft's position on Linux and Free Software was that they were a "cancer" (their words, not mine). So maybe giving them a ribbing at this news isn't unjustified.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (5, Informative)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884951)

Words uttered in 2001. Words which more than anything exhibit Ballmer's (mis)understanding of how GPL and other open source licenses work, and also how cancer in general works.
Like the AC said, even in 2012 MS is still the bogeyman.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885159)

MS is pretty irrelevant these days outside of the enterprise desktop arena. I don't get the continual obsession with them around these parts. People still living in the 1990s, I guess.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885201)

Ballmer made the comment and he is the current CEO of Microsoft. He never recanted what he said and MS has been on a continuous campaign of attacking Linux ever since. Furthermore, "Overly Critical Guy" made the bogeyman comment, not an AC. Hmm...

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (1, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885007)

Not to come off as a defender of Microsoft, but Ballmer said that over 11 years ago, and it was in reference to the GPL's viral nature. Ribbing of Microsoft on Slashdot has to do with us-versus-them platform fanboyism more than anything.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885153)

Nah, I think it speaks to the scalability, maturity, and flexibility of Linux vs MS.
Although it should be logical to people, some seem to treat it as "fanboiism", when in fact, it celebrates one OS over the other.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (-1)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885221)

well microsoft just bought skype, it's not like they'll change all their servers in a few months just because they don't use their own products, it would have been a totally different story if microsoft used linux for something like bing

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (5, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885265)

Apparently, you either failed to read or failed to comprehend the article. In this case, Microsoft has deployed 10,000 Linux servers essentially to replace a larger number of Windows machines (the supernodes that ran on individual desktops). This is a new deployment of a new type of server (a dedicated supernode).

So this is not case of Microsoft just delaying a switchover from Linux to Windows, it represents Microsoft choosing to use Linux for a new task.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884891)

Define cheap? Did Microsoft save money by not buying Windows licenses from themselves? Price was not obviously the reason for this decision.

Idiot.

Slashdot Mandatory Notice: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884965)

ANNOUNCEMENT

A team from Burson Marsteller on behalf of Microsoft has joined the discussion, and will be moderating and directing it to ensure Microsoft's interests are well served.

They will be using a number of sockpuppets, including Bonch, Sharklaser, Overly Critical Guy, TechLA, TechNY, TechCar and many others.

Their presence in this discussion indicates:

1. Microsoft is concerned that free and undirected speech about this topic would be undesirable for them
2. All postings must be considered suspect.
3. All moderation must be considered suspect.
4. Anyone participating in this discussion tacitly agrees that reputation management and astroturf is acceptable.

Please avoid posting anything of value in this discussion. Treat all who do post with contempt and mockery.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (1)

dittbub (2425592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885147)

Yeah i don't get it. What is the author suggesting?

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885277)

To gloat over the irony of Microsoft using cheap UNIX boxes for P2P infrastructure

There's no reason to gloat - I mean, if Microsoft is so full of themselves, if that Ballmer guy is still insisting that "Linux is a cancer", then fine, let Microsoft use boxen running their own OS to power Skype.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884743)

Because they switched from client supernodes to dedicated supernodes. Those of us interested in p2p architectures are interested. Go back to drooling on yourself.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (2)

CriticalAnalysis (2631225) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884789)

They didn't switch, they merely improved the network by providing extra capability to it. Skype has been growing fast lately and they want to ensure its stability. It is still P2P, they just house dedicated nodes to support it.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (1)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885117)

The article claims that regular users can no longer be promoted to supernodes. I would call that a switch.

Re:Eh? This is how Skype works? (1)

CriticalAnalysis (2631225) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885187)

They will be if the network needs it. They haven't changed that part in the algorithm, just supplement the network with tons of powerful machines to have that role.

And... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884695)

So what? Why should the average person care? Linux is free, lightweight, and useful for this sort of thing. What's the issue? :)

Re:And... (5, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885083)

So what? Why should the average person care?

Oddly enough, they shouldn't care because hell has frozen over and Microsoft is using Linux.

They should care because Microsoft is taking steps to centralise what was a peer-to-peer telephony system. By adding supernodes that they control, they are positioning Skype to transition to a system where everybody's data goes through Microsoft servers rather than direct person to person.

They're happy to have us discussing Linux because the privacy implications are what they don't want us talking about.

Re:And... (5, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885247)

Uhhh...where have YOU been? didn't you get the memo? hell the only reason SUSE has a pulse is because MSFT has spent hundreds of millions buying SUSE Linux licenses to bundle with WinServer packages so MSFT has been making money off of Linux for years now. That of course isn't counting the tons of money they make by trolling Android OEMs for the LULZ so the only real shock is that so many of those that go nuts over FOSS hasn't figured out that MSFT is making money hand over fist off all their free work.

As far as privacy? I guess you missed the memo from the head of Google saying privacy was dead too huh? Hell the users hand all their data over to FB and Twitter and Google now anyway, so why should they give a shit about phone calls? I mean have you seen the kind of dumbshit people tweet or post to FB? You got morons bragging about crimes, smoking dope or piss faced drunk, nobody has any shame or common sense anymore, I'm starting to think the conspiracy nuts are right and there is something in the water because i don't remember people being this ignorant nor as exhibitionist when I was a kid. Frankly privacy went the way of the 8-track when all the smart phones came with cameras and upload to social media features. Unless you want to pull a Michael Jackson and run around in a mask everything you do will end up on somebody's FB page anyway, just give it up.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885257)

> they are positioning Skype to transition to a system where everybody's data goes through Microsoft servers rather than direct person to person.

Currently that is not the case as is even stated in the fricking summary which you obviously did not bother reading.

MS and Linux (1)

Ultracrepidarian (576183) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884711)

Now, isn't this ironic?

Re:MS and Linux (1, Insightful)

CriticalAnalysis (2631225) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884759)

How is it ironic? Microsoft has used Linux on some of their services for a long time. It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best. Maybe there's something to learn from that.

Re:MS and Linux (0, Redundant)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884803)

Or it shows that they are willing to take from FOSS and not give anything back, which confirms some of the things we've said all along.

One of the two.

Re:MS and Linux (-1, Offtopic)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884825)

negative one the above post. it deserves it.

Re:MS and Linux (4, Informative)

CriticalAnalysis (2631225) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884877)

What are you talking about? Microsoft has contributed tons of patches and other stuff to, for example, Linux. They have actively worked to make it more compatible with Windows.

Hell, they have an open source project hosting at CodePlex [codeplex.com] .

At least try to get your facts straight instead of the pure hate. But I saw what happened when Microsoft guys reached out and asked for comments about their open source offering on Slashdot. You can still read it too, Microsoft Wants Your Feedback On Its New Python IDE [slashdot.org] .

Re:MS and Linux (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884893)

Which is why I called for MY OWN post to be modded down. It was a factually inacurate shot. A post below enlightened me.

Re:MS and Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885063)

Or it shows that they are willing to take from FOSS and not give anything back, which confirms some of the things we've said all along.

One of the two.

It's so ironic how, in one breath, Slashdotters will decry the lack of "giving anything back" to open source software, and in the next breath, defend software piracy. Microsoft has the right to use cheap UNIX boxes as backend infrastructure like everyone else.

Hell, what have YOU given back to "FOSS"?

Re:MS and Linux (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884895)

It's a surprise for me because I would have expected MS to use a Windows Server box, especially given their philosophy of their employees using own product for real-world test.

Re:MS and Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884921)

How is it ironic? Microsoft has used Linux on some of their services for a long time. It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best. Maybe there's something to learn from that.

So when MS refers to Linux as a "cancer", that's not taking the hard fanatical approach? You are so quick to complement them and slam FLOSS advocates for exactly the same kind of thing. You should sit and think about your hypocracy.

Re:MS and Linux (1)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884933)

Its ironic given Microsoft's stance on Linux in the past - having gone from calling it a cancer to using it in critical infrastructure. Why you can't see that, I'm not sure - seems obvious to me.

Re:MS and Linux (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885005)

The thing is that Linux (and before that Unix) has always been a part of their infastructure. When Ballmer was being an ass, throwing chairs, and having diarrhea of the mouth with the cancer and "viral" comments, the people doing the real work on the inside had linux boxes on their network helping them get their day to day work done.

In other words, Ballmer is an idiot and Microsoft does have some good and practicle people working for them. An idiot CEO, that's not at all odd either.

Re:MS and Linux (1)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885119)

I'm not denying that they've used Linux for a long time already - not at all. The fact is that up until a year or so ago, "Microsoft" was publically and verbally belittling and demonizing Linux and open source in general. So, despite them using it in their infrastructure already, it doesn't detract from this being ironic.

Re:MS and Linux (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884949)

It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best.

Well that is not really asking much out of them:

  • For Microsoft to use Linux, they merely have to agree to the GPL -- if the use is purely internal, this basically imposes no restrictions on them.
  • For me to use MS Office, I have to agree to the EULA, which demands that I not attempt to reverse engineer the software, modify the software, use the included artwork to produce offensive documents, etc. I have no choice but to use MS Office internally, since the EULA forbids me from redistributing it, except to sell it and delete any copy that remains in my possession (or have they removed that clause?).

You see the difference here? The GPL imposes no restrictions on how software can be used, and few restrictions on how it can be copied and shared; proprietary licenses contain nothing but restrictions on use and copying. It is easy for Microsoft to use GPL software internally; it may not be easy for me to use software under a proprietary license, unless I fit the model of computer users as envisioned by the companies that made that software (which I almost never do).

Re:MS and Linux (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884971)

I'm taking away one thing from this; the linux comm technology is, perhaps not better, but more suited, to their purpose. What else should anyone take away here?

Re:MS and Linux (2)

ags1 (1883204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885049)

It just shows that Microsoft doesn't take the hard approach of FOSS fanatics but uses what suits the purpose best.

Most open source projects run on windows. Linux usually comes first, but 90% of the time there is a windows port. What % of Microsoft apps run on something other then windows? It looks to me that the "FOSS fanatics" are very good about allowing people to pick what suits them the best while Microsoft isn't.

End-to-end principle (5, Insightful)

benedictaddis (1472927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884717)

These intermediary nodes are only needed because we've broken the end-to-end principle - the idea that any Internet endpoint can talk to any other. We need to wean ourselves off NAT and start to demand native IPv6.

Re:End-to-end principle (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884741)

learn to SBC...

Re:End-to-end principle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884887)

I prefer my home network to be behind a firewall. The NAT concept isn't the issue at all really, it's the implementation of getting throughput in and out which causes the problems. It seems to me that still modern applications have a hard time coping with the random port assignment of NAT, when NAT is quite ubiquitous in our society today. NAT might be causing a lot of problems for p2p traffic, but it's usually down to bad equipment or horrible routing schemes. Some ISP's here force their customers to use the routers they send you (and admin interface, forget it, they have you log into a web page where you can turn on and off wireless, and add a DMZ to your network, that's it). You might find yourself at the end of 100/100 optical fiber connection and yet they won't give you a simple media converter so that you can use a dedicated server as router. It's horrible IMO, and the result of all these crappy down-your-throat scheme is that people end up running two routers in serial. Ofc that ruins stuff, but people don't know any better.

But yes, IPv6, you are welcome, but I still would like to be able to retain one single entry point into my home network.

Re:End-to-end principle (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885017)

There is no reason in the world not to have some kind of ip sharing when you have multple ip nodes in a private network, no matter how much ip address space you have. Giving your toaster's nic a pop on a public net just sounds too stupid for words, at least from a hardware management POV.

Re:End-to-end principle (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885273)

Obviously, you didn't RTFA, but that's the norm these days. The traffic doesn't go through the supernodes, all call traffic is p2p. The supernodes are directory servers so that clients can locate other clients.

Why So Serious? (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884755)

I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product when theirs can do the job too. Well, Linux is a better platform for embedded applications, single-purpose servers, etc. It is much more efficient because there's no GUI to drive and only the bare minimum needs to be loaded in memory. Even the kernel can be stripped down to only essential modules, and it can be tweaked for realtime applications.

Windows servers aren't designed for that. They're designed to be low maintenance multi-purpose servers which are easily configurable. Most businesses who setup windows servers aren't using them in areas where high performance is needed. They are for satellite offices, small workgroups, etc., where the server has a variety of roles. The only high performance servers I routinely see windows deployed on routinely are domain controllers and mail servers (specifically Exchange servers).

It's a sound business move.

Re:Why So Serious? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884807)

If you are too stupid to realize why it's "shocking" for MS to use Linux in a production capacity then please do the collective IQ of the universe a favor and shoot yourself now.

Re:Why So Serious? (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884823)

I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product when theirs can do the job too. Well, Linux is a better platform for embedded applications, single-purpose servers, etc. It is much more efficient because there's no GUI to drive and only the bare minimum needs to be loaded in memory. Even the kernel can be stripped down to only essential modules, and it can be tweaked for realtime applications.

Windows servers aren't designed for that.

Eat your own dog food.
If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

Re:Why So Serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884867)

Look how well that has worked for them w.r.t. HotMail.

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884899)

Tom sells lorries. Tom likes lorries. Sam wants to know why if Tom likes lorries so much he doesn't do his grocery shopping in one.

Simple enough for you to understand?

Re:Why So Serious? (2)

Imagix (695350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885019)

Except you're missing some parts. Tom builds and sells lorries. Tom likes lorries. Tom is telling everyone that his lorries are the best lorries. Tom expects everybody else to use his lorries. It costs Tom nothing to use his own lorrie. Tom does go grocery shopping in a lorrie. Why isn't Tom using one of his own lorries to do his shopping?

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

CriticalAnalysis (2631225) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884959)

Eat your own dog food.
If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

Not every product fits all use cases. For example there are times when Apache is better than nginx and times when nginx is better than Apache. You pick the best tool for the job and don't just mindlessly jabber about something that pretty much equivalents to religious blabber. This is something that Microsoft understands but seems like basement jerker FOSS fanatics cannot.

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885003)

For example there are times when Apache is better than nginx and times when nginx is better than Apache

This is something that Microsoft understands but seems like basement jerker FOSS fanatics cannot.

My irony meter just went off the chart.

Re:Why So Serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885055)

Not every product fits all use cases.

So what use case does "cancer" fit? Because that's what MS called Linux. And now they're using it. Maybe those pricks were wrong. If they weren't such obnoxious jerk offs they might even admit it.

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884991)

If Windows Server isn't secure enough or powerful enough to do the job, maybe Microsoft should revisit their design choices.

So if you're a bicycle manufacturer, you should give up and start designing cars? Microsoft's design choices have been about making a server that's easy to configure, does not require specific knowledge of the OS' inner-workings, and is intended as a "one size fits all" solution. It's like comparing a semitruck to a freight train -- yes, they both often haul the same materials but they are hardly interchangeable.

Re:Why So Serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885139)

So if you're a bicycle manufacturer, you should give up and start designing cars?

But we aren't talking about bicycles and cars here, we're talking about two operating systems that both should be able to function as Skype supernodes. The fact that an arrogant company like MS would stoop to using something they've compared to a terminal disease to run critical infrastructure for their own property speaks volumes at their hypocricy. But, hey, whatever, the next time a PHB asks my opinion for what server to use, I'll be sure to point this out.

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885163)

With Powershell its different and you can't even setup Exchange 2012 without good knowledge in it on purpose. In NT 4 land Windows Server was first introduced as a server even an idiot can setup. ActiveDirectory and infrastructure is difficult to setup for a large organization. A bad design is very hard to fix and can cause many stale active directory objects to kill all the bandwidth. Active Directory is the IE 6 of all managed directory services and sucks very hard.

Windows Server was designed starting with Windows 2000 to be the Unix and Mainframe replacement.

Re:Why So Serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885121)

They bought out a company and shock of shock they used linux. Bet the idea of 'switch to windows' went over like a lead balloon once they saw the cost.

Lets switch out everything to windows. Ok here is the HW cost (as we cant just turn off the network as is). Here is the internal cost of maintaining ~2x the servers. Oh also the guys who run our server farms we will need to retrain them (oh and we probably will have a 60-80% attrition rate on that and loose a bunch of hard learned lessons). Oh and all the extra man hours we will spend on switching it out. Oh then when we are done we have exactly what we started, with some extra capacity in severs that we have to re-image (another time cost), oh and a green set of new employees. OOOOOORRR leave as is and just add in new servers as things arise and spend it on r&d and make the service better.

I'm thinking the idea probably did come up but when it came out the other end with a several million dollar price tag to get a nice negative ROI on it, it died quick.

People like you are the reason people from pepsi and coke get fired for bringing a competitors drink to work. It is stupid and childish. MS is neither one of those. If you think so you have not been paying attention for 30 years.

Re:Why So Serious? (2)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885191)

Eat your own dog food.

Step back a minute. Just because Microsoft owns Skype does NOT mean that they think it's a great business idea to come in and tell them HOW they should accomplish something. Did it ever occur to you that they might have said, "We want Skype to be more reliable, so here's some money, dear Skype division. Now get it done."?

Re:Why So Serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884869)

I completely agree with you and, guess what? Apple (for instance) isn't using neither OS X or Apple machines in their data centers.

Re:Why So Serious? (3, Insightful)

aintnostranger (1811098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884875)

I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product

Maybe in this case people get shocked not because it's just a competing product but one that was deemed a "cancer" by MS itself? It's one thing to use a competitor product, it's another to use something you denounce as immoral.

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884903)

microsoft servers are designed to keep the IT industry employed

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885045)

Windows servers aren't designed for that. They're designed to be low maintenance multi-purpose servers which are easily configurable.

Having deployed and maintained both Windows Server and Debian Stable, I have opinions about which one is low maintenance, multi-purpose, and easy to configure. It seems Microsoft shares my opinions; at least when it comes to routing Skype traffic.

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885133)

I agree happen to agree after supporting and configuring and administering the same two platforms, but Baldy McSuitysuit has heard of Microsoft and hasn't heard of Debian because Debian doesn't actually spend money on commericals.

Of course this explains 96% of the problems in the corporate world. You also can't expect every Microsoft employee to be dumb... good ideas have to get through once in a while, even with a rotten corporate culture.

Re:Why So Serious? (1)

slew (2918) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885183)

Maybe Microsoft has learned something over time. When Microsoft first bought hotmail, all the front end servers were running on FreeBSD, and the backend servers were running Solaris. The first thing they tried to do was convert everything to Win2K to show the world it could be done. Didn't start out so great and they learned that somethings were best left alone (even though they eventually pushed them all through to show that it could be done**). Now they have another chance with another high-value web property and they decided to be learn from their own experience (since they don't have the goal to make this a showcase).

**Here's an (admittedly somewhat biased account) of what they did. http://www.securityoffice.net/mssecrets/hotmail.html [securityoffice.net]

Is Skype really better? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884771)

My calling card is only 4 cents per minute. I've been curious about skype but never saw any reason to switch?

Re:Is Skype really better? (1)

readandburn (825014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884881)

Well, if the person you're calling also has Skype installed the call is free. Calls to landlines (from the U.S. anyway) are usually between 2 cents and 3 cents per minute.

Re:Is Skype really better? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884913)

My Skype subscription is only 7GBP a month for unlimited calls. I've been curious about calling cards but never saw any reason to switch?

Re:Is Skype really better? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884967)

Calling cards are what people used before unlimited calls on cellphones became popular in the 2000s. MY cell costs 18 cents/minute so I use the 4cent/minute card instead.

Re:Is Skype really better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885189)

My grammar? I learned it in school? I didn't think I should end every sentence with a question mark?

all I care about (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884785)

is Natalie Portman and HOT GRITS.

fuck you anderson cooper

Re:all I care about (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884885)

she's too flat chested for my liking

Re:all I care about (1)

readandburn (825014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884919)

I hate to tell you this, but Anderson Cooper is a guy.

Re:all I care about (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884943)

lay off the gay porn dude

Re:all I care about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885053)

How do you know that for certain?

Re:all I care about (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885157)

who the hell is Anderson Cooper?

i think gp probably knows because of all the gay porn he's obsessed with

X [] O (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885205)

It says so in the manual for his Xbox game Anderson Cooper 360.

Re:all I care about (1)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885237)

Mod parent up, it's one of the most intelligent not-rage posts on this article

Must be.. (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884795)

Must be to avoid license fees, zing!

No surprise (2)

lnunes (1897628) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884805)

Microsoft is one of the biggest Linux contributors http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/microsoft-counted-key-linux-contributor-now-anyway-190104 [infoworld.com] . In my view they have absolutely all the right to use it, if it fits their solution.

Re:No surprise (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884835)

Well.. not be a smartass, but everyone has the right to use it. That's the point.

Re:No surprise (1)

lnunes (1897628) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884935)

Indeed, I agree completely with you. But not only the used, they also contributed back to the community. That alone sets them apart of the vast majority of the Linux users, at least symbolically.

Re:No surprise (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885027)

This is such tripe. These patches are to get it working well on their hypervisor. It's not like they were improving scheduling performance, patching security holes, or implementing drivers. They want Linux to work better running under Windows.

Re:No surprise (-1, Flamebait)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884857)

microsoft isn't a linux contributor. they have merely contributed code to make linux play nicer with their software. if they want to be considered a "key" contributor, they need to contribute to making linux a better OS on its own

Re:No surprise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885001)

Linus isn't a Linux contributor. He has merely contributed code to make Linux play nicer with what he wants to do. If he were to be considered a "key" contributor, he would need to contribute to making Linux a better OS on its own.

Re:No surprise (-1, Flamebait)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885171)

you're a fucking idiot. if you read (and comprehend) your own post you'll realize it too

Re:No surprise (1)

CriticalAnalysis (2631225) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885087)

How is that not making Linux better? Many problems in Linux come from the fact that nobody wants to support it and it doesn't work well with Windows. Microsoft has gone out and made Linux play nicer with what we have. It has greatly improved Linux.

Re:No surprise (0)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885193)

It has greatly improved Linux

no it hasn't. it has only improved linux operating as a guest on a windows vm server.

microsoft's contribution had nothing to do with linux on its own

go back to licking windows, moron

Re:No surprise (1)

lnunes (1897628) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885099)

So Microsoft is not a Linux contributor but they have merely contributed code to the Linux kernel.

Right...

And enough to appear as one of the 20 biggest contributors.

Please, forget about this "oh, they MUST make Linux better on its own" mentality. As you said, Microsoft contributed to make it play nicer to their software... So what? Put yourself in their shoes: wouldn't you want your own software to be compatible?
Hell, if they contributed to fix the software controller in their espresso machines, it would still be valid.

Re:No surprise (0)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885211)

am i a contributor to windows because i've written software for it? so what if it had nothing to do with making it a better OS and was only to serve my own interests, but you seem to be making a case for me

Re:No surprise (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885275)

enough to appear as one of the 20 biggest contributors

quantity != quality

they may have actually made linux worse/more buggy and created more work for the regular kernel contributors to integrate and debug

they've used endusers as beta testers for years, and now they're using linux kernel developers as debuggers

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884983)

In my view they have absolutely all the right to use it, if it fits their solution.

Of course they have the "right" to use it. That's the beauty of it. Everybody can use it. The interesting thing is that after calling Linux a cancer and shitting all over it for years and years they decide to use it now. Maybe if they weren't so obnoxious about Linux nobody would raise an eyebrow.

When did they not have a right? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885069)

GPL software is for everyone. The reason people are surprised when Microsoft uses GNU/Linux is that they spent years badmouthing the OS -- they said it was only suitable for hobbyists and students, they said it was cancer, they told people that it violated untold numbers of patents, etc.

embrace... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884839)

...extend, extinguish

Probably . . . (5, Funny)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884865)

They likely couldn't afford the cost of the server licenses.

Alternative article needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39884927)

Linux Users Using Microsoft Windows To Optimize Compatibility
- Posted by an Ubuntu user

AC

That's nice and all... (4, Interesting)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884931)

Good to hear that Skype will be a bit less fly-by-night and will have better call performance. But for two years now, the interface has been getting progressively worse and Skype credits have been exchanging for fewer and fewer minutes. The current version has no compact buddy list, requires a subscription for multiparty video, has giant ads on a useless "home" screen, and wants me to issue facebook updates of some shit. I have never uninstalled anything so fast in my life.

Balance the traffic all you want, Microsoft. Skype is a sinking ship if you don't make it lighter, prettier, and cheaper.

Re:That's nice and all... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885125)

requires a subscription for multiparty video

Google Hangouts. Generally provide equal or higher video resolution and audio quality and is free.

Seriously folks, Skype sucks. It has sucked for a long time. There are better solutions available. And if you care, the last time I compared prices, Google's offerings were cheaper on all but one country I checked. Not trying to be a Google cheerleadering, but seriously, you can easily do better than skype.

Hell, my brother is deployed overseas in a country I'm not supposed to name. We tried Google Hangouts for the first time two weeks ago. Keep in mind he's been raised on skype and that that was the cat's meow. After one 40-minute session between me and my two brothers, he said he'll be converting his wife next time he rotates home. Share videos? Share scribbles? Share desktop? All with hangouts. Its pretty fucking sweet - and free. And if you're wondering, the call quality, the one time he called me via Google's services was superior to skypes too.

Seriously, finding a better solution than skype isn't hard. Its right in front of your face.

This is shocking... (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39884937)

... to anyone who doesn't remember Microsoft's acquisition of BSD-based Hotmail.

They're not going to migrate to completely in-house systems overnight.

A small difference (perhaps) ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39885137)

is that M$ simply maintained and perhaps improved the BSD servers running Hotmail until the time came for them to migrate to an in-house eat-our-own-dogfood solution. But from the looks of it, it appears(tm) that M$ has installed Linux where there was none or at least only minor instances of the said viral operating system. This looks a major deployment. Again, this is the impression I got from reading TFA.

Because it's Microsoft (4, Insightful)

dan_barrett (259964) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885043)

Why is this interesting / amusing ?
Technically using Linux or some other unix as a supernode is fine, probably a better solution than Windows server - but this is Microsoft, the dominant operating system provider; very much the competitor to Linux. they *could* use a competitor's solution but traditionally Microsoft reinvents the wheel rather than do this (see Silverlight, XPS, .NET, Office Open document format, Sync framework for examples)

Choosing Linux rather than their own OS product for this task seems like bad PR especailly after publicly criticising Linux as an insecure, slow, potentially IP-violating OS platform.
You may recall they were "caught" using FreeBSD for hotmail after acquiring that service - and eventually migrated it to Windows.

I'm guessing there will soon be a "WinMin" or Windows server core based platform that hosts this instead of Linux.

Legal Implications ... (1)

memzilla (2631423) | more than 2 years ago | (#39885085)

Did Microsoft have to negotiate with itself and come to an agreement to compensate itself for infringing on it's alleged intellectual property? I could see it making a lot of money. Microsoft is a rich company. It should call up the lawyers and squeeze itself for all it's worth!
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...