Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Skype Open-Source Update Expected Soon

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Well from what I've heard, its gonna be opensourced GUI and a closed source daemon (yes, daemon, to make the reverse-engineering harder if it makes any sense), so we won't be forced to use their ugly GUI, just the ugly daemon. Not that I use it anyway.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Fuck this shit. I'm tired of Skype being three different trees with nothing in common. We need an open-source libskype.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Anybody still using skype anyway?? That's so 200x-ish.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    43

    Default So are they going to apologize for the abuse?

    I recall way back I was trying to get help to make Skype work on Linux - one of the Fedora distros, IIRC.

    It was a really bad experience, as the distributed binaries had no alignment with the current state of Linux desktop OSes at the time - it was a choice between a non-working ALSA configuration, and a barely working OSS configuration.

    At the conclusion of that thread (at which point I had really just given up), I mentioned that it was too bad they couldn't just open source the tool, so that the user community could take some of the responsibility for compatibility issues in non-supported environments.

    Well...one of the Skype staff piped up and more or less reamed me out for even suggesting the idea. I guess he was sick of hearing about it...but he/she treated me like I was demanding they open source the software (as if I could have expected them to listen).

    I think that was the last I ever bothered with their forums. It's nice that it works relatively trouble free now, but that experience really left me with a sour feeling towards the company.

    Do I get an apology now? (yeah right)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Skype is a nuisance, certainly.

    But can anyone suggest an open-source client that allows you, as a Linux user, to communicate with Windows users, with both voice and video?

    Empathy and Pidgin still only work with Linux-to-Linux in this respect, Qutecom and Ekiga are broken on Windows, and everything else is either too obscure and old, or supports voice only.

    Seriously, if anyone can mention an open-source way of doing this, they will have my gratitude.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by synthil View Post
    Skype is a nuisance, certainly.

    But can anyone suggest an open-source client that allows you, as a Linux user, to communicate with Windows users, with both voice and video?

    Empathy and Pidgin still only work with Linux-to-Linux in this respect, Qutecom and Ekiga are broken on Windows, and everything else is either too obscure and old, or supports voice only.

    Seriously, if anyone can mention an open-source way of doing this, they will have my gratitude.
    Have you tried using Pidgin or Empathy on the Linux side with the gtalk protocol and Google Voice / Video client through Gmail or iGoogle on the Windows side? This is supposed to be supported by pidgin / empathy now, though I've never tried it myself.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostAwesomeDude View Post
    Fuck this shit. I'm tired of Skype being three different trees with nothing in common. We need an open-source libskype.
    It should be possible to reverse-engineer skype lite (version is used on j2me phones) and build Skype compatable IM library (without support for voice/video calls).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default OT: compatable?

    So, what's about this 'compatable' word I keep reading in geek forums, and only in geek forums? Is its proximity to 'computable'? Some slang term neither I nor Urban Dictionary are aware of? Are you guys playing a practical joke on me and the rest of non-native english speakers? Pseudo-technical jargon? Because I have to admit that it almost worked, forcing me to look it up several times to convince myself that, indeed, this word is like totally made up.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    So, what's about this 'compatable' word I keep reading in geek forums, and only in geek forums? Is its proximity to 'computable'? Some slang term neither I nor Urban Dictionary are aware of? Are you guys playing a practical joke on me and the rest of non-native english speakers? Pseudo-technical jargon? Because I have to admit that it almost worked, forcing me to look it up several times to convince myself that, indeed, this word is like totally made up.
    Just a misspelling of 'compatible'. People on the internet suck at spelling. It's a fact

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    18

    Default

    So, what's about this 'compatable' word I keep reading in geek forums, and only in geek forums? Is its proximity to 'computable'? Some slang term neither I nor Urban Dictionary are aware of? Are you guys playing a practical joke on me and the rest of non-native english speakers? Pseudo-technical jargon? Because I have to admit that it almost worked, forcing me to look it up several times to convince myself that, indeed, this word is like totally made up.
    Yeah, that unnecessary outburst of disgust must have wasted a good few minutes of your day. Isn't it sad how those minutes just never grow back again?

    Cheers for that Google Video plug-in suggestion, whoever gave it! I'll give it a bash.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •