Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 19:54 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
We waited a little while with this news, because we wanted official confirmation from Skype before jumping on the internet bandwagon. It's official now, so here we go: Skype has announced that it will release its Linux client as open source. A little late, but welcome nonetheless.
Thread beginning with comment 392763
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-05
Skype is not even throwing us a bone here. It's more like a few tiny scraps of left over meat.
Ooh, an open source UI. Whoop-dee-doo! So Skype outsources the development of the GUI to the community of FOSS developers.
Meanwhile, they have no intention of freeing the protocols. One has to wonder what the ultra secret sauce is. If the protocol is specified, would it be too easy to set up competing VoIP to land line services with the Skype protocol? This is where Skype pulls their money from. Are they so insecure over the quality of their own offering, that they hide behind lock-in to sustain their business?
It feels like a marketing stunt. Look, we have some Open Sauce too!
Meanwhile they are keeping the walls intact, afraid they lose the only real value in Skype, the huge mass of locked in Windows users who use Skype for VoIP. Windows is where Skype began and here they gobbled up a large group of users, who are used to dealing with closed programs over which they never have control.
Let's be honest, would Skype be a necessary evil on Linux and Mac, if Windows users were predominantly using an XMPP client with libjingle? There are better options out there, but they are only useful if you can use them to contact the persons you want to communicate with.
Ooh, an open source UI. Whoop-dee-doo! So Skype outsources the development of the GUI to the community of FOSS developers.
Meanwhile, they have no intention of freeing the protocols. One has to wonder what the ultra secret sauce is. If the protocol is specified, would it be too easy to set up competing VoIP to land line services with the Skype protocol? This is where Skype pulls their money from. Are they so insecure over the quality of their own offering, that they hide behind lock-in to sustain their business?
It feels like a marketing stunt. Look, we have some Open Sauce too!
Meanwhile they are keeping the walls intact, afraid they lose the only real value in Skype, the huge mass of locked in Windows users who use Skype for VoIP. Windows is where Skype began and here they gobbled up a large group of users, who are used to dealing with closed programs over which they never have control.
Let's be honest, would Skype be a necessary evil on Linux and Mac, if Windows users were predominantly using an XMPP client with libjingle? There are better options out there, but they are only useful if you can use them to contact the persons you want to communicate with.
Before criticizing go to google and search for skype + joltid and educate yourself
If you have found a way to open source the intellectual property of others please do share!
Member since:2005-07-06
Before criticizing go to google and search for skype + joltid and educate yourself
I know about the stupid fact that Ebay bought a brainless chicken. I don't care if Ebay or Joltid owns the guts. The guts are rotten when it comes to Linux support. Skype barely works.
Skype is a horrid piece of software that should have died in favor of open technologies ages ago. The only reason it still exists is the inertia in the userbase.
About going to Google... I'd love to, but too many people keep insisting I waste my time on Skype.
Member since:2009-03-13
Really, is it really that surprising?
Business works by maximizing the possible income and keeping the technology secret is one way to do this.
You really can't blame them if there is no real Skype competition and helping the competition would not be wise from their standpoint.
And if Skype is supposedly crap, why haven't anyone made a competing product to this time? I still can't do voice/video calls with my PSI. It's XMPP that's useless for business needs, the only thing it does well is text messages which have been working perfectly fine with IRC *decades* ago.
Member since:2008-07-15
Meanwhile, they have no intention of freeing the protocols. One has to wonder what the ultra secret sauce is. If the protocol is specified, would it be too easy to set up competing VoIP to land line services with the Skype protocol? This is where Skype pulls their money from. Are they so insecure over the quality of their own offering, that they hide behind lock-in to sustain their business?
It feels like a marketing stunt. Look, we have some Open Sauce too!
Meanwhile they are keeping the walls intact, afraid they lose the only real value in Skype, the huge mass of locked in Windows users who use Skype for VoIP. Windows is where Skype began and here they gobbled up a large group of users, who are used to dealing with closed programs over which they never have control.
Let's be honest, would Skype be a necessary evil on Linux and Mac, if Windows users were predominantly using an XMPP client with libjingle? There are better options out there, but they are only useful if you can use them to contact the persons you want to communicate with.
It feels like a marketing stunt. Look, we have some Open Sauce too!
Meanwhile they are keeping the walls intact, afraid they lose the only real value in Skype, the huge mass of locked in Windows users who use Skype for VoIP. Windows is where Skype began and here they gobbled up a large group of users, who are used to dealing with closed programs over which they never have control.
Let's be honest, would Skype be a necessary evil on Linux and Mac, if Windows users were predominantly using an XMPP client with libjingle? There are better options out there, but they are only useful if you can use them to contact the persons you want to communicate with.
Perhaps the question we all should be asking is this: There are several open protocols such as SIP that can do the exact same thing Skype can do, and many SIP to PSTN servers out there. They're all missing something though, competitive prices for their service. Skype has several subscription plans you can choose from, can anyone name a SIP server that doesn't simply have per-minute charges and has something an average customer might actually want? If someone such as Gizmo took it this step further, since they already have their own client that most non-geeks will use and us geeks can use whatever SIP client we prefer anyway, and offered decent rate plans (e.g. $3/month for unlimited service in the US/Europe/name continent or country here), we might have something other than Skype that is open. It's not Skype's fault they can't open source their protocol as there is work from other parties involved, and it's also not their fault that no one else has set up a competitive alternative. If we want something more open, I know I do, then we need to create it and I do not mean the communication protocols or audio/video codecs.
Edited 2009-11-04 14:43 UTC
Member since:2007-11-04
"Meanwhile, they have no intention of freeing the protocols. One has to wonder what the ultra secret sauce is. If the protocol is specified, would it be too easy to set up competing VoIP to land line services with the Skype protocol? This is where Skype pulls their money from. Are they so insecure over the quality of their own offering, that they hide behind lock-in to sustain their business?
It feels like a marketing stunt. Look, we have some Open Sauce too!
Meanwhile they are keeping the walls intact, afraid they lose the only real value in Skype, the huge mass of locked in Windows users who use Skype for VoIP. Windows is where Skype began and here they gobbled up a large group of users, who are used to dealing with closed programs over which they never have control.
Let's be honest, would Skype be a necessary evil on Linux and Mac, if Windows users were predominantly using an XMPP client with libjingle? There are better options out there, but they are only useful if you can use them to contact the persons you want to communicate with.
It feels like a marketing stunt. Look, we have some Open Sauce too!
Meanwhile they are keeping the walls intact, afraid they lose the only real value in Skype, the huge mass of locked in Windows users who use Skype for VoIP. Windows is where Skype began and here they gobbled up a large group of users, who are used to dealing with closed programs over which they never have control.
Let's be honest, would Skype be a necessary evil on Linux and Mac, if Windows users were predominantly using an XMPP client with libjingle? There are better options out there, but they are only useful if you can use them to contact the persons you want to communicate with.
Perhaps the question we all should be asking is this: There are several open protocols such as SIP that can do the exact same thing Skype can do, and many SIP to PSTN servers out there. They're all missing something though, competitive prices for their service. Skype has several subscription plans you can choose from, can anyone name a SIP server that doesn't simply have per-minute charges and has something an average customer might actually want? If someone such as Gizmo took it this step further, since they already have their own client that most non-geeks will use and us geeks can use whatever SIP client we prefer anyway, and offered decent rate plans (e.g. $3/month for unlimited service in the US/Europe/name continent or country here), we might have something other than Skype that is open. It's not Skype's fault they can't open source their protocol as there is work from other parties involved, and it's also not their fault that no one else has set up a competitive alternative. If we want something more open, I know I do, then we need to create it and I do not mean the communication protocols or audio/video codecs. "
I don't think skype is any cheaper than most SIP providers. I just had a look on their website and the pricing doesn't look really exceptional. The reason why skype is so dominant is momentum. Initially they were the first ones who brought out a client which easily worked through firewalls etc. and which was doing a big marketing push. So everybody went to skype, and now nobody wants to try something else. It's the same with all the messengers.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Skype is not even throwing us a bone here. It's more like a few tiny scraps of left over meat.
Ooh, an open source UI. Whoop-dee-doo! So Skype outsources the development of the GUI to the community of FOSS developers.
Meanwhile, they have no intention of freeing the protocols. One has to wonder what the ultra secret sauce is. If the protocol is specified, would it be too easy to set up competing VoIP to land line services with the Skype protocol? This is where Skype pulls their money from. Are they so insecure over the quality of their own offering, that they hide behind lock-in to sustain their business?
It feels like a marketing stunt. Look, we have some Open Sauce too!
Meanwhile they are keeping the walls intact, afraid they lose the only real value in Skype, the huge mass of locked in Windows users who use Skype for VoIP. Windows is where Skype began and here they gobbled up a large group of users, who are used to dealing with closed programs over which they never have control.
Let's be honest, would Skype be a necessary evil on Linux and Mac, if Windows users were predominantly using an XMPP client with libjingle? There are better options out there, but they are only useful if you can use them to contact the persons you want to communicate with.