Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

nickforall.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 483 posts

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#441

Post by StreamBright »

douche wrote: post #263
StreamBright wrote: post #60

My biggest disappointment with the business version the fact that it is impossible to turn off the pop up notification when somebody logs in or out from Skype. Before you post me URL from the support website, non of them works, everybody in the office (10+ engineers) tried to disable this but no success. The only way you block that is to put yourself into do not disturb mode, but than non of the legitimate notificati…

If that's Skype For Business, you've got somebody who set it up in a really bizarre way. It's such a clusterfuck of policies and settings that I'm not sure just where that would be set or what powershell gods you have to worship to straighten it out, but that's not the default out-of-the-box behavior. The client is trash, though. Never understood why you can't run multiple accounts, or at least multiple instances wit…

Thanks for this insight, I am going to open a ticket to the desk side support team to figure it out.

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#442

Post by douche »

matzipan wrote: post #391
untog wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the startup is sooooo slow and the UI crashes twice before I ever get the chance to give it input. Then your installation is clearly broken. No, it's not good, but let's not pretend these issues didn't exist in the "good old days".

Windows 8 came preinstalled with the computer and then just updated to Windows 10 from it. If the main upgrade method is broken, I'm not sure what to believe anymore...

If Windows 8 came preinstalled, and you didn't wipe it and install from a clean ISO yourself, then you've got more crapware installed than you can shake a stick at, with hooks riddled all through your system. Doubtless, some of that vendor-supplied junkware is incompatible with Windows 10.

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#443

Post by ars »

jvolkman wrote: post #404
junto wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. There are lots of apps that cover parts of its functionality, but not all. We keep trying to introduce new alternatives at work, but to date nothing has passed the test. Calls, group calls, chat, group chat, video, screenshare. For one communications client those are the boxes it needs to tick. Any suggestions?

Hangouts? https://apps.google.com/products/hangouts/ And if you're looking for full conference room VC, https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ Google uses Hangouts for all of these tasks internally, and in my experience it works well.

> Hangouts

I like Hangouts, but for a bunch of reasons I want a desktop program, not a web program.

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#444

Post by chc4 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #426
chc4 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tox does all of that. XMPP does all of that. WebRTC does all of that. There are tons of shitty proprietary clones of Skype that also do all of that, too. There are plenty of options, people just don't use them because all their friends are on Skype.

>Tox does all of that. Tox is getting there, but it doesn't appear to support asynchronous messaging that syncs later when some of the people in a chat are offline. If that's wrong let me know. >XMPP does all of that. That's like saying "TCP does all that". Would you like to name programs that support the full list? >WebRTC does all of that. As far as I can tell WebRTC has nothing to do with chat.

Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. That implies some company being behind the service to host that server, along with centralization and the ability of deanonymization. I'm sure there are clients that do support it, but I wouldn't want to use it. Proper Tox style would probably be to host your own bouncer server, like IRC, for that use.

I don't actually use XMPP, but a quick Google gives a list that do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messagin... for example. Would you be upset if I said "IRC does that" if you asked for messaging? Why aren't you upset that I pointed at Tox, which is also a protocol with separate implementations? Your point about TCP, while meant to be a critism, is actually spot on: It is a protocol. Anyone can implement it and talk to all other XMPP (or Tox!) clients, unlike Skype which is completely proprietary and closed ecosystem. Pointing at only one client shows favoritism and is disingenuous, since you could point out " doesn't implement !" when another client does, while if it's supported in the protocol it CAN be support by any of the clients.

You're actually right about the WebRTC point: it inherently doesn't support text, it's for p2p signaling. Most implementations do have a textbox for communication, however, and have the same benefit as Tox or XMPP: It's a protocol. Just because one site doesn't do it, doesn't mean any other site can't and inter-op with all other providers.

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#445

Post by ars »

i336_ wrote: post #208
masklinn wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> XDG: TL;DR = says stuff should be in ~/.config, ~/.cache, etc. XDGBDS is such an unstandard even xdg-utils doesn't care for it. And Skype predates XDGBDS (let alone whatever the current version of XDGBDS is this week). Also you're wrong, XDG doesn't say stuff should be in specific directories, it defines envvars specifying directories with various defaults, defaults which are at best only correct on Linux distros w…

> XDGBDS is such an unstandard even xdg-utils doesn't care for it. :o, TIL > And Skype predates XDGBDS (let alone whatever the current version of XDGBDS is this week). Of course, but that's no real excuse for it not to get with the times. > Also you're wrong, XDG doesn't say stuff should be in specific directories, it defines envvars specifying directories with various defaults, you are of course right; I overly-cond…

> Of course, but that's no real excuse for it not to get with the times.

It is a very good excuse: Backwards compatibility with older installations.

I suppose it could have two search paths, but why add complexity?

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#446

Post by ars »

mvonthron wrote: post #127
_druu wrote: post #115

Would've retweeted if it wasn't for the #thanksBill hashtag... I haven't been on Windoze since I don't know how long. And the Mac Client is superb. Linux client, absolute desaster, indeed. But still, this has absolutely nothing to do with Bill.

Absolutely! And to be honest, the Linux client disgrace predates Microsoft take over.

No it does not. I used skype for work for hours a day, until Microsoft bought them. They put out a terrible Linux version which was so bad I had to downgrade.

I then refused to upgrade until I got daily notifications that my old version would be disabled from connecting.

I upgraded, as forced, and that was the last time I was able to make calls or do screen sharing.

Chat still works.

It worked before Microsoft, it did not work after Microsoft.

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#447

Post by fredrik-j »

matzipan wrote: post #386
bobmno wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History. MS past is plenty reason to avoid skype.

Why? Management changes, engineers change, everything changes. Saying "No" just because it's Microsoft is incredibly short-sighted. And even if it were so: the product as it is today was mostly developed while it wasn't even under Microsoft.

No, it isn't short-sighted. On the contrary it is a matter of letting Microsoft earn their trust again at a reasonable pace after almost two decades of systematic abuse. The Halloween documents where published 1998 and it is only the last year or so since they've begun dipping their toes in open source waters. They've thoroughly earned their shame.

Besides, even if everyone at Microsoft has changed attitude that's no excuse. Microsoft has had five years since the acquisition of Skype in 2011. Isn't it, by now, time to stop blaming their predecessors and own up to the current state of affairs?

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#448

Post by Dylan16807 »

chc4 wrote: post #444
Dylan16807 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Tox does all of that. Tox is getting there, but it doesn't appear to support asynchronous messaging that syncs later when some of the people in a chat are offline. If that's wrong let me know. >XMPP does all of that. That's like saying "TCP does all that". Would you like to name programs that support the full list? >WebRTC does all of that. As far as I can tell WebRTC has nothing to do with chat.

Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. That implies some company being behind the service to host that server, along with centralization and the ability of deanonymization. I'm sure there are clients that do support it, but I wouldn't want to use it. Proper Tox style would probably be to host your own bouncer server, like IRC, for that use. I don't actually…

>Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline.

You can get 90% of the benefit by having other clients in the chat act as relays for that chat. No centralization required. You'd only need a bouncer for specific situations, like mobilemobile chat with all desktop clients shut off.

>Would you be upset if I said "IRC does that" if you asked for messaging?

If I asked for just messaging, I would accept "IRC". But if I ask for video chat, and a tiny fraction of IRC clients did video chat, I would not accept "IRC" as an answer. If you want to name a protocol, the implementations need to have widespread support for the entire list of features. Theoretical support is not good enough. I agree that universal support is unnecessary, but widespread support is a must.

It looks like "XMPP+Jingle" is a pretty good answer, but I'd have to look into it more.

Re: Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client

#450

Post by [deleted] »

balabaster wrote: post #275

There are viable alternatives to Skype. I've been using Slack ( https://slack.com/ ) for a while too... it does everything useful that you could ask of a chat application and works very much like IRC worked back in the day. Everything it doesn't do natively, there's an integration for, just like with IRC bots. You can do: - Private chat with one or more parties - Open Group chat via channels (both private and public…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN