Beta
×

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!

Skype 4.0 For Linux Now Available

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the free-and-open-calls dept.

Software 196

An anonymous reader writes "Anyone who uses Skype on Linux will be happy to hear that a new version has been made available today, bringing with it a host of essential updates and new features. Skype 4.0, codenamed "Four Rooms for Improvement," is long overdue, and Marco Cimmino makes a point of thanking Linux users for their patience on the Skype blog. The main improvements Skype is delivering include much improved audio call quality, better video support, and improved chat synchronization. For video specifically, Skype has spent time implementing support for a much wider range of webcams, so if your camera didn't work before today you might be surprised to find it does in Skype 4.0. Visually, Skype has received a new Conversations View, which brings all chats into a single, unified window (you can revert to the old view if you prefer). There's also a new Call View, presence and emoticons have been redesigned, and you can now store and view numbers within each Skype profile."

cancel ×

196 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just in time for the Ads (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329503)

Just in time for the Ads

Re:Just in time for the Ads (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329815)

Aren't the ads only there if you want to call for free?

Re:Just in time for the Ads (2, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330649)

Yes, but that doesn't matter to the sort of people who have turned hatred of a particular company into a sort of religion.

Re:Just in time for the Ads (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331081)

People who have turned hatred of a particular company into a sort of religion.

The foundations of most religions are based on common sense. Some of their beliefs and activities seem ridiculous now because they're responding to events or conditions that ended centuries or millennia ago.

For many contributors here, our distaste for matters Microsoft are based on things that happened during our lifetimes, and are often still happening.

Re:Just in time for the Ads (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331653)

It's just software, calm it down.

Re:Just in time for the Ads (0)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331691)

And these are just words on a screen. How could they have any power to offend?

Re:Just in time for the Ads (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331949)

It's irrelevant who made the software. It's my computer, my screen, and I shouldn't have to see ads on it anywhere, ever. The concept itself of being advertised to without my consent is obscene. And I don't consider just the act of choosing to use Skype as giving my consent. I can run any program on my computer however I choose, and forcing ads on me violates my right to do that.

I'm hoping someone figures out a way to hack them out, or block them.

Re:Just in time for the Ads (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330773)

Heh yeah, they'll be rolling in hundreds of click-throughs!

Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329507)

Years and years waiting for a decent version of skype for linux drove me to other solutions.
I no longer use skype for anything.

Still I'm utterly astounded that it took Microsoft ownership [seattlepi.com] to finally pry a halfway decent and up to date version from the developers. I presume all the wiretap hooks are now in place, now that all the calls are routed thru Microsoft's [arstechnica.com] servers, and the CLEA people are happy?

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329549)

Turns out Microsoft is really interested in your conversation with your grandma.
Hope she doesn't give out any of her secret recipes over a skype conversation!

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (5, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331395)

Turns out Microsoft is really interested in your conversation with your grandma.

Possibly not. But they would be interested in cooperating with governments for this sort of behaviour.

In 2001, the Australian government refused permission for the Norwegian ship MV Tampa to enter Australian waters because it was carrying 400 refugees who had been rescued from a sinking boat. Prime Minister John Howard sent Australian special forces to board the ship and prevent the refugees from being disembarked.

This created a major controversy in the run up to a general election.

Years later, the inspector general of Intelligence and Security found that in addition to the "extensive-and legal-surveillance of communications" to and from the Tampa, the government used illegal phone taps to monitor the communications between the lawyer for the shipping line and his clients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329579)

Years and years waiting for a decent version of skype for linux drove me to other solutions.
I no longer use skype for anything.

Still I'm utterly astounded that it took Microsoft ownership [seattlepi.com] to finally pry a halfway decent and up to date version from the developers. I presume all the wiretap hooks are now in place, now that all the calls are routed thru Microsoft's [arstechnica.com] servers, and the CLEA people are happy?

Contrary to the ridiculously high opinion you have of yourself, Microsoft does not give a fuck about you Skyping with grandparents in Florida.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329847)

However, it is entirely possible that their house counsel takes a slightly different view of their obligations under CALEA than some Swede with an LLC in Luxembourg and a p2p network...

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329639)

Indeed. Why skype when SIP supports video?

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329693)

Honest question: What's the SIP solution for receiving calls on my PC/Cellphone in America that were placed to a foreign telephone number by people in that foreign country?

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329741)

A local SIP/POTS gateway?

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329747)

Not sure of a SIP one, but there is the XMPP route of google voice.

Too late, but hey, thanks for trying GV. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329803)

Honest question: What's the SIP solution for receiving calls on my PC/Cellphone in America that were placed to a foreign telephone number by people in that foreign country?

An Obi100/110 in the foreign country, and an Obiapp running on the cell phone [obihai.com]

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying GV. (3, Informative)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330007)

Ok, but I don't need an external device or a foreign landline to do this with skype...

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying GV. (5, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330235)

You don't need an external device or a foreign landline to do it with pure SIP either...

For example, say you're in the US, but you want calls to a Canadian number to be routed to your PC/cellphone/landline/whatever. You'd pay $1/mth to a company like voip.ms for a DID (Direct Inward Dialing, basically a phone number), and set it up to forward calls to either an existing telephone number (cell, landline, etc) or some SIP software client. You'd pay something like a cent a minute.

The same principal applies overseas; get a DID with a company, set it up to forward to a US phone number or SIP address.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying GV. (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330389)

Thanks, this is helpful.

Re:Too late... [ DID tel.no's for Au$5 / year ] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331165)

Aussie company - MyNetFone.com.au rents DID numbers (in AU & NZ, etc.) for ~ Au$ 5 / year.

I guess they look after Aussies a bit, but might rent one to those -outside- AU, FAIK, if you access their site via: http://mynetfone.com.au/whirlpool [mynetfone.com.au] -and- choose a "WhirlpoolSaver" account (NIL cost / month; and you can rent a DID at the above price [in AU]).

Let us know if DID numbers can also be rented from them from -outside- AU. We've never needed to try that.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying GV. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330309)

Foreign land-line? Skype or any other solution is going to have two endpoints. The "foreign" endpoint in the case of Skype is going to be either a computer, or a Skype ATA. The cell phone end is going to be running Skype. The solution I showed you achieves the same thing minus the proprietary part. Saying you don't need an external device or "foreign land-line" is being disingenuous.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (3, Interesting)

guisar (69737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330149)

Well under Linux many solutions such as Ekiga can accomplish this either entirely under SIP or with a bridge to other systems like XMPP. If you'd like a less technical solution, you just open an account with a provider (I use sipgate and voipcheap but there are thousands of others: http://www.moreofit.com/similar-to/www.sipgate.co.uk/Top_10_Sites_Like_Sipgate/?&page=2 [moreofit.com] ), configure your client (I use the one built into Android and Yate) and go! Obviously you can't call a phonenumber with video call but SIP has an email like "address" or you can directly call international and national phone lines for voice com. I regularly talk to mobile users in Ghana from the US for around 7 - 15cents/ minute. In the US and to many european countries the calls to landlines are free and to mobiles are virtually free. All SIP to SIP calls are free with my providers.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331749)

So my grandma uses that too, right?

The point of widespread communication systems is that you can get in touch with people.

The answer to "why skype [on Linux]?" is "because it works". How is the increased number of choices bad? It's almost infinitely more likely that someone will be reachable via Skype than via something that really doesn't have traction beyond geeks using Linux and OSS exclusively. Part of the whole battle to make Linux much more accessible to the general public is having software that people want to use. Up-to-date Skype on Linux is a win/win for all concerned; both from Microsoft's end (more users make the service as a whole more valuable) and for users (since the software is available) and since it removes one more hurdle to Linux adoption for the general public ("I might try it out, but can I run [$piece of common software] on it?").

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329857)

Still I'm utterly astounded that it took Microsoft ownership to finally pry a halfway decent and up to date version from the developers.

I think it is interesting how Microsoft didn't get a mention at all in the summary or the article considering that the story is about them release software for Linux. And yet prior to Microsoft aquiring Skype they were directly blamed for Skype dropping other clients [slashdot.org] . It seems we only want to mention Microsoft when bad things are happening, even if it has nothing to do with them.

That said, it is interesting that the Skype website wasn't immediately rebranded with Microsoft logos. It seems MS are underplaying their ownership of this cross platform service. Perhaps they did some market research and found that their name would make users on non-Windows platforms aprehensive. You only need to look at the predictions of doom and gloom in the various Skype stories here on /. to appreciate that.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330049)

Microsoft and Linux go together like gasoline and chocolate. No way am I installing their ware on my stuff.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (4, Interesting)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330253)

Best avoid the Linux kernel, then; there's Microsoft code in it.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330335)

I compile my own kernel you insensitive clod!

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330731)

Are you sure that's necessary.

You can probably just get away with avoiding the relevant Microsoft-centric kernel modules. It's not their so-called contributions are very wide in scope.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (3, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330637)

Microsoft and Linux go together like gasoline and chocolate. No way am I installing their ware on my stuff.

I think that this was probably meant as a to reply to this post [slashdot.org] rather than mine.

But seriously, if you really want to avoid Microsoft software (and let's face it, we all know your feelings on that subject) then it is even more important to mention the name of the company in the summary. And even if you do not want to use the software yourself, you can at least become better informed as to what modern Microsoft practices are like so that you don't continue to make the assumption (which was not unreasonable at the time) that Microsoft would drop Linux support for Skype [slashdot.org] .

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (5, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330753)

Modern Microsoft practices?

You mean like subverting standards bodies, patent trolling over vfat, and pushing ARM vendors to lock their bootloaders so Linux can't even start?

Those modern Microsoft practices?

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331873)

Com one, it was over four years ago when they bribed ISO delegates to pass OOXML as an international standard. They're totally over it by now!

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331203)

Words mean things. An expectation is not quite an assumption. The meaning of these two words is close but not quite the same.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331539)

What is the difference between the words that would impact my original post?

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331793)

You're putting words in my mouth.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (2)

humanrev (2606607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330479)

Interesting yes, but not totally surprising. For all the legitimately intelligent people here, a lot of them (as well as the rest I suppose) are total hypocrites. There's a reason Slashdot is laughed at by other tech sites.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330719)

My suspicion would be that Microsoft doesn't much care about what Slashdoters think about Skype(though they do run an awful lot of banner ads here, so maybe we should feel valued...); but that they(likely correctly) wanted to maintain a marketing separation between 'Skype', which has a very strong brand as a cheap-n-consumery chat setup with some low cost and reasonably functional POTS add-ons and whatever iteration of 'Live Communications Server' or 'Microsoft Voice Foundation for SharePoint Server' or similar product will end up incorporating the core technology in Active Directory-integrated and definitely not cheap-n-consumery form.

The matter isn't quite as urgent(because there isn't an obvious strong contender in danger of eating Skype's lunch); but Microsoft's stance on email has been fairly similar: 'Hotmail' did, eventually become 'Windows Live Mail'(some of the time); but you never, ever see any marketing link between 'Exchange' or 'Outlook' and 'Hotmail' or 'Windows Live Mail'(they even killed 'Outlook Express' as the name for their free-and-lousy consumer mail client).

It remains to be seen how much their competitors will allow them to continue doing this; but it looks to me like Microsoft has a distinct aversion to drawing too-close a tie between 'consumer' and 'enterprise' products.

I'd like to give Asterix a try. Have any tips? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330263)

I finally have static IP 12 MB/sec cable into my place.

I figure I'll have to keep paying for my Skype Online Number as long as I want that same number, but if I get an Asterix number somehow, then put that number on my website, give it out to all of my friends and clients, eventually I can let my Skype Online Number expire.

But I don't have the first clue about Asterix. I could use some hand-holding if you have some for me. I'm quite an experience Linux sysadmin and developer.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (2)

Edwin_OS (2427140) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330459)

What worth Skype alternatives have you found?

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330661)

That is cute. Too late for skype. The overwhelmingly dominant force in video chat/conferencing.

The wiretap part is just idiotic. Yes skype should have hooks for wiretaps under court orders.

Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (5, Interesting)

Trogre (513942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330811)

As another person dissatisfied with Skype, could you please take a bit of time to describe what other solutions you are using?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks.

64 bit? (4, Insightful)

metageek (466836) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329553)

The most important question is whether they made a native 64 bit version? [for those of us who don't want to pollute our machines with 32-bit compatibility libraries]

Re:64 bit? (1)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329559)

Yes they did, though I haven't tried it yet.

Re:64 bit? (2)

metageek (466836) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329587)

Great!

Weird times, though: this puts me in a position of wanting to thank Microsoft...

Re:64 bit? (1)

metageek (466836) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329663)

Are you sure?
I've downloaded both the static and dynamic versions and they are only 32-bit... where did you find information about a 64-bit version?

Re:64 bit? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329761)

The poster is probably just confused by the fact that there are 64 bit packages available, with 32 bit binaries inside.

Re:64 bit? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330745)

I've downloaded both the static and dynamic versions

Where did you find a static version of 4.0?

Re:64 bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329665)

hmm...

32 & 64bit versions for Ubuntu 10.04, and Debian 6.0
only 32bit for Fedora 16 and OpenSUSE 12.1

Re:64 bit? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329719)

Not native 64-bit. The "64-bit" releases use the distros respective 32-bit multilib libraries.

Re:64 bit? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329731)

No, the "64bit" version is still 32 bit:

$ dpkg-deb -I skype-ubuntu_4.0.0.7-1_amd64.deb
  new debian package, version 2.0.
  size 29342422 bytes: control archive= 4552 bytes.
            32 bytes, 1 lines conffiles
          904 bytes, 21 lines control
        9835 bytes, 137 lines md5sums
  Package: skype
  Version: 4.0.0.7-1
  Section: non-free/net
  Priority: extra
  Architecture: amd64
  Depends: lib32stdc++6 (>= 4.1.1-21), lib32asound2 (>> 1.0.14), ia32-libs, libc6-i386 (>= 2.7-1), lib32gcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1-21+ia32.libs.1.19)
  Conflicts: skype-mid, skype-common
  Replaces: skype-mid, skype-common
  Installed-Size: 34742
  Maintainer: Skype Technologies
  Description: Skype
    .
    Skype is software that enables the world's conversations.
    Millions of individuals and businesses use Skype to make free video and voice calls,
    send instant messages and share files with other Skype users.
    Everyday, people also use Skype to make low-cost calls to landlines and mobiles.
    .
    * Make free Skype-to-Skype calls to anyone else, anywhere in the world.
    * Call to landlines and mobiles at great rates.
    * Group chat with up to 200 people or conference call with up to 25 others.
    * Free to download.

Re:64 bit? (1)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329867)

Well bugger. I stand corrected.

Re:64 bit? (4, Informative)

Ingenium13 (162116) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330793)

Exactly. The 64-bit version won't even install on my 64-bit version of Ubuntu 12.04. It complains of dependency errors with ia32-llbs and how it can't install it or ia32-libs-multiarch. That said, the 32-bit version installs and runs just fine. It also finally fixes the nasty bug of using 100% CPU while on a video call.

Re:64 bit? (1)

diego.viola (1104521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331803)

$ readelf -a $(which skype) reports ELF32 on archlinux.

http://sprunge.us/RTJa

Re:64 bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330067)

Pollute? Pollute??

What the hell is wrong with you? Jesus, you're elitist.

Re:64 bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330683)

Ideally you want to use 64bit software for various reasons but I agree with the "pollute" portion, that is just plain elitist and equal parts stupid.

My god, a few pennies of hard drive space and twenty cents of ram will be necessary.

Re:64 bit? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331329)

It's no more dumb than the fact the Skype devs apparently can't figure out how to compile using 64-bit libs.

Even the cheapest machines come with 4GB of RAM nowadays, so the time to go 64-bit is now.

qqqq (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329667)

Waiting for a lot of "OMG MICROSOFT MADE SOMETHING GOOD FOR LINUX!!! IT'S A CONSPIRACY" or "FUCK THIS I'M NOT INSTALLING IT IT CONTAINS HUGE ADVERTISEMENTS" (though it doesn't)

Re:qqqq (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330477)

My thoughts exactly.

Oh Linux... (0)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329673)

For video specifically, Skype has spent time implementing support for a much wider range of webcams, so if your camera didn't work before today you might be surprised to find it does in Skype 4.0. And if not, Skype is providing all the API hooks you need to roll your own drivers. "Most people won't even have to recompile the kernel more than once," said Cimmino proudly.

Re:Oh Linux... (4, Insightful)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329755)

I don't get this part. Skype should only interface with libv4l, an the kernel handles the drivers. We've had support for pretty much every webcam out there since 2.6.27, so what has Skype improved?

Re:Oh Linux... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330741)

The world's supply of truly dreadful webcams also seems to be drying up a bit. USB Video Class came too late, and is still rather 'creatively' interpreted in some quarters; but even cheap crap and laptop-integrated webcams of the past few years commonly purport to hew to standard, and often aren't actually lying...

Re:Oh Linux... (2)

malloc (30902) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330835)

Maybe they just fixed their usage of V4L. A lot of cameras didn't work unless you did a stupid hack like :

LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib32/libv4l/v4l1compat.so skype

Re:Oh Linux... (2)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329929)

Exactly. Skype uses an interface, it shouldn't adapt to webcams -- that paart of the implementation. As far as I know, most webcams out there are also supported implementation-side. What *could* happen is a misuse of the interface by Skype. For the record, I never had issues with my 4 webcams in skype, though I really don't videochat that much.

I know people are complaining (3, Insightful)

bogie (31020) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329703)

But at least they are supporting linux with it vs not. The bottom line is when your trying to use Linux as your desktop OS and need to Skype with someone they don't want to hear "Just download X client and we'll use that instead of Skype". Maybe the people forcing you to run Skype to communicate with them should care about open standards but like most people they probably just want to use something that's familiar and easy to use.

Great news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329727)

I have been quite happy with the Skype client for Linux up to this point and I am excited to see what new improvements they have. I know a lot of people were worried MS might kill Skype on Linux, but it looks like they are going in the opposite direction. They are using Linux for super nodes and updating the Linux client. This is great!

I'll remain firmly in the past, thank you. (1)

notgm (1069012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329733)

The last time I allowed Skype to update, it broke Excel.

No thanks.

Re:I'll remain firmly in the past, thank you. (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330117)

Was that the Linux version of Excel?

Re:I'll remain firmly in the past, thank you. (1)

jampola (1994582) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331857)

C'mon, some people clearly run Excel in Wine!

Re:I'll remain firmly in the past, thank you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331899)

Ex...cel? What is this "Excel" you speak of? I know a "Calc" or two, maybe I should introduce you.

2.2 version no ads. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40329915)

Well right now I am runing version 2.2. of linux skype and it has 0 adds and a very minimalistic interface. The last version of windows skype I tried was bloated with adds and it had an auto pop up add that would sneak on you right before you hit the call phones button.
If the new skype version for linux has any adds I am not installing it. I'll wait a few months to hear if the new version is good or not.

Re:2.2 version no ads. (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329977)

Exactly. I, for one, as an occasional skype-to-skype user, very much plan to stay with my version -- It just works.

Piss poor distro support (2, Funny)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#40329999)

Ubuntu 10.04, Debian 6.0, Fedora 16, and OpenSUSE 12.1 ONLY. Are you kidding me?

Re:Piss poor distro support (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330131)

Ubuntu 10.04, Debian 6.0, Fedora 16, and OpenSUSE 12.1 ONLY. Are you kidding me?

Perhaps those are the distros they wish to "embrace, extend, and extinguish"? (/cynical)

Re:Piss poor distro support (1)

xororand (860319) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330813)

There's a generic dynamic & a generic static binary tarball.
I'm using the former in a TinyCore virtual machine.
The complete VM is about 140 megabytes and includes ALSA sound, Fluxbox, Chromium and Skype.

I can upload it as a VirtualBox appliance if anyone's interested,

Re:Piss poor distro support (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330819)

Use alien and treat it like a generic tarball if you need too.

Some people even call those "Slackware packages".

Re:Piss poor distro support (1)

iroll (717924) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330979)

Well, since Debian, Fedora, SUSE, and their derivatives probably have a >90% "market" share, I'd say it's a pretty good start.

Or was that the joke? =)

Chat window width? (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330003)

One of the STUPIDEST and most annoying things about the newer versions on Windows is that chat windows have an arbitrary fixed max width to the text, with forced linewrapping! You can fullscreen it to your widescreeny heart's content, and be greeted with nothing but giant blank white areas on either side, with just a slit of text down the middle furiously wrapping itself.

This SUCKS for pasting in source code or any other material with intentional linebreaks, and I haven't found anything to be able to allow the text to flow freely through arbitrary window widths, like old versions did. (If there is such an option, please let met know!)

I'm quite content to keep my Skype version outdated, because we use it a lot for communicating with remote developers and this comes up a ton.

Re:Chat window width? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330619)

This SUCKS for pasting in source code or any other material with intentional linebreaks, and I haven't found anything to be able to allow the text to flow freely through arbitrary window widths, like old versions did. (If there is such an option, please let met know!)

I'm quite content to keep my Skype version outdated, because we use it a lot for communicating with remote developers and this comes up a ton.

Use Skype to tell the remote developers where your corporate IRC server is?

Seriously, I don't see why anyone would want to use Skype for internal communications in a business environment -- I get the network effect and the unneed to run a server makes it attractive for random personal communications, but it doesn't make any sense for business, especially w/r/t developers who certainly know IRC...

4.0 with new improved annoyances! (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330209)

No thanks.

So who is doing video/audio over jabber?

How about a Skype iOS App that doesn't crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330221)

While the ancient and crufty version of Skype that I run on my iPhone 4 does have a completely reproducible hard crash, I am at least able to avoid triggering it if I am careful.

But never versions of Skype have appeared in the Apple App Store a whole bunch of times since I downloaded the version I've got. Have a look at the end-user reviews; you don't need a device or iTunes, a web browser will do. Damn near every last one of them reports reproducible crashes. It's plainly apparent to me that the newer versions are far buggier than the one I've got.

Look man, Xcode and the iOS SDK is a damn dream to use. It's not like you need to hire a bunch of rocket scientists to get all the bugs out, and it's not like Skype doesn't have the cash to pay for code that wasn't written by Infinitely Many Monkeys.

In hopes of putting an end to nonsense like this, I'm working on the following technical articles. These articles would actually help every coder, not just those employed by Skype:

I'll be having quite a lot more to say about code quality, testing and debugging over the coming months. Most of it will be posted somewhere within http://www.dulcineatech.com/tips/code/

I've been posting as AC because I'm having some trouble recovering my /. password. I'm an old-time slashdot user by the name of MichaelCrawford

One hour ... (1)

Mipsman (409329) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330385)

... after installing it and I had the first crash.

They really took the consistency in the user interface a bit too far. And while I'm at it, can I have a 64-bit rpm, pretty please? With a Fedora on top? Really folks, forget about 32-bit. It's wasted time. Nobody sane is still running 32-bit software on an x86 Linux system. Oh and there are new artifacts in the video. I guess that's what's called inovation.

Re:One hour ... (1)

shibashaba (683026) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331089)

No your just insane. Plenty of people are still using 32 bit linux, and I'm sure plenty are still using it on 64-bit hardware even.

I don't even think most netbooks are fully 64 bit yet(I know my friends wasn't when he tried to install a 64bit version of windows on it, and it was just over a year old with an atom processor), which are all the rage if you pay attention to anything other than your big black rig.

Really, no one sane cares about 64 bits for what amounts to an accessory. Which is what skype pretty much is. Are you crying about your mouse not being usb 3.0? I doubt my keyboard is either, and it cost close to a hundred bucks. Hell, my monitors probably still worth more than my computer and 4 tb of storage attached to it, and it was made in 2004! Nice though, looks the same from a right angle as it does from the front. If I were to just leave a picture on it, it would look like a backlit painting, from whatever angle your at! Yes, it is a lcd and not a crt. I have upgraded some stuff in the past decade.

Of course my printer is the oldest of the bunch, it's a laser printer I got for 15 dollars. Nice just being able to print up 50 or 100 pages at a time just for the convenience of it, and not worry about the cost. The local computer store that still has plain VESA video cards on display(along with books on 2.0 linux based distros) in the back was shocked when I came looking for memory for it. I do have an inkjet for the fancy stuff, but I use it maybe once a year. Before anyone crys about the enviroment, yes I do recycle.

Yes I take it personally that people ignorantly assume everyone upgrades every two years for no real reason other than to run bloated software. Which is the great thing about linux, there's more distro's dedicated to being light weight than there are being filled with the latest eye candy. Then again, my old as dirt Pentium 4 is still well within the requirements of the most popular distros. Which should make it obvious that, most people using desktop linux are using it on older hardware.

Re:One hour ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331247)

The worst for me for now is that the call controls have a different height when you move the mouse over the window that when you don't. So the video size changes every fucking time I move my mouse over the window. I'm so tired of it bouncing already, and I've made only ONE call..
I think that I'm reverting to the old version. This one doesn't have anything really new (for me), and that bug drives me crazy. I don't like stuff moving over the screen with no reason.

Serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330423)

-ly, who cares nowadays?

User exodus from MS Skype? (1)

Xarvh (1244438) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330549)

Too late for me.
I didn't like Skype and it being bought by MS only hastened my transition to GChat.

I think many non-Windows users made a similar move, and this is why MS is hastening to show that it has no intentions of making Skype a MS-only creature.
As others have noted, MS is not keen to put its logo on Skype.

Despite being a rabid Linux fanatic, I must recognize that MS pushed the first Linux Skype update in, like, two years.
Not enough to make me go back using it, but it's not MS fault.

Still brain dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330609)

The only 64-bit versions are for Ubuntu and Debian derived distributions. Fedora (16 only) is 32-bit, as is OpenSuse, and there are no RHEL distributions for 64-bit. It's a start, but not good enough for prime time, in my opinion. I run all RHEL-derived distributions (CentOS, RHEL, Scientific Linux) on my systems. I have the 32-bit older version of Skype working - and it does both audio and video, so I'll probably stay with that until they have a real RHEL rpm file to install...

Re:Still brain dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330721)

well if youw ant to try the new version just intall the 32bit version. You will just need to install some 32bit libraries but I am sure you know how to use RPM. I have it installed on mine didn't have to do anything special since I already had the 32bit libraries installed since I installed WINE.

Too late (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330627)

For skype and other little issues, I gave up on Linux (for my home desktops) a year ago . I just couldn't take waiting for the next fix, or fighting my way to operability for a host of tiny programs. Me just wants to double click and go, I'm too busy taking care of real problems to jump through hoops to get things to "work" and still be years behind windoze.

RPM's and DEB's (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40330839)

I see RPM's and DEB's but no static nor dynamic tarballs. In the past these have been useful for installing to other distros like Arch, and cases where the packaged versions conflict with existing libraries. Are they available somewhere?

Not that I'm a big Skype user nor supporter myself, but I know I'm going to get bugged by other people about this.

Any Skype-similar, Open Source VoIP S/W? (1)

ivi (126837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331273)

So, if Skype is now such a dog (eg, due to coming ad's & its previous acquisition by Microsoft), where are all the Open Source counterparts?

Windows' ubiquity may have contributed to Linux & FreeBSD's growth...

Won't the ad's and/or Microsoft refurbishing of Skype contribute to the growth of Open Source, Skype-counterparts?

If not now / soon, when?

Re:Any Skype-similar, Open Source VoIP S/W? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331569)

skype is more than just a communications client. some of the things it does requires servers (e.g. storing voicemails, routing 'calls', negotiating pc connections on both ends so client remains 'config free') and telco connections (e.g. skype-in lines; calling to/from POTS just about everywhere) -- those things cost money. skype pays for those things through ads and by charging for some services.

an open source audio / video chat client would be just that.. the client software, with no supporting infrastructure at all. it would have pc to pc 'calling' only, and would require extra configuration to get through firewalls and routed properly by your local router... unless you expect a budget-limited open source project to fund those things for all??? didn't think so.

Install problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40330857)

I'm running Ubuntu 12.04, 64-bit. Attempting to install the 64-bit Skype package indicated it needed to download 168 additional packages. I already have Skype 2.2 installed, so I'm curious as to what it needs.... Maybe tomorrow I will feel braver and try it, but right now I'm thinking it might be best to stick with 2.2, which is working well enough for me.

New version? (1)

InspectorGadget1964 (2439148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331097)

So, Micro$oft owned Skype has released a new version for Linux..... Ho exiting! I bet is going to have those very large adds.... Is there anything else that M$ will do to get money from people that won't pay the M$ tax?

Hell Called (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331271)

WTF it frozen down here !!!!!

where's the punch line? (1)

technosaurus (1704630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331295)

Is it 1 April already?

what the heck ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40331325)

... is going on up there. it's getting a little chilly down here.

signed,
the devil.

Repository (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 2 years ago | (#40331541)

A quick Google search says there was a repo for Ubuntu at one point in time, but it looks to not exist anymore. Is there still one somewhere?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>