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

Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#171

Post by alkonaut »

FabHK wrote: post #164
alkonaut wrote: post #42

It sucks - but as is always the case with free vs nonfree software - there are few alternatives. Among the few alternatives available are Google (hangouts) and Facebook. Stallman waves his hand and mentions Jitsi and Mumble which aren't comparable in features to Skype (Chat + Voice + video + desktop sharing on all platforms including mobile). Jitsi does look promising but not quite complete. A chat/voice app is like…

> Among the few alternatives available are Google (hangouts) and Facebook. I wouldn't want my communication go via exactly those two firms that suck all the data they can out of everything they can get hold of. I'd consider Signal, Wire, and possibly Telegram more suitable alternatives (all free, and at least as polished as Skype, which isn't saying much... :-)

Thanks, will check those out (those all look more promising feature/polish than the RMS ones tbh). Reading reviews and comparisons it seems they are all still a bit rough or lacking some feature compared to Skype, but geting there. Even if none is a viable option now, one can at least hope one will be one soon.

Switching an organization from Skype I get one chance. It can't have one missing feature or 90% the audio quality or reliability of Skype, the alternative has to beat Skype if I'm to convince anyone to switch. I need to wait until then actually do.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#172

Post by snvzz »

Veratyr wrote: post #35
snvzz wrote: post #16

This is true of all IM that isn't based on open protocols and has mandatory end-to-end encryption. Which is why I use tox [0]. [0] https://tox.chat/

I prefer Matrix[0] since it has some nice features (encryption, message history, multiple devices, audio, video, files), supports most major platforms, can be self hosted and importantly, supports push notifications so your battery isn't destroyed like it is with Antox. [0]: http://matrix.org

But alas, it sucks (no support at all!) at ipv6 (e.g.: On a ds-lite scenario), it is federated instead of decentralized, and its end-to-end encryption is optional.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#173

Post by Veratyr »

snvzz wrote: post #172
Veratyr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer Matrix[0] since it has some nice features (encryption, message history, multiple devices, audio, video, files), supports most major platforms, can be self hosted and importantly, supports push notifications so your battery isn't destroyed like it is with Antox. [0]: http://matrix.org

But alas, it sucks (no support at all!) at ipv6 (e.g.: On a ds-lite scenario), it is federated instead of decentralized, and its end-to-end encryption is optional.

IPv6 is indeed bad but:

- "federated instead of decentralized": I believe Matrix's federation implementation qualifies as decentralised. There's some centralisation (homeservers) but not much.

- "its end-to-end encryption is optional": I don't really see this as a problem. If you want it, you have it. If you don't, you don't. Sometimes end-to-end encryption isn't desirable, in a business environment where you need communications to be auditable for example.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#174

Post by jen729w »

briandear wrote: post #49
jen729w wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't disagree that he sounds, in general, like a bit of a douche, you can hardly say that this rider makes him an asshole. He lays out, reasonably, the conditions under which he will speak. He asks for tea, and Pepsi, not Coke. Seems utterly reasonable to me.

So if Coca Cola is the only thing available, he will just refuse. I personally prefer Coke, but I'm not going to walk off stage if I am offered Pepsi. A bit rock-starish if you ask me.

I can't believe there's anywhere he'd speak where Pepsi isn't available. Just go and buy some from the store.

His objection to Coke is a moral one, not one based on taste.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#175

Post by snvzz »

Veratyr wrote: post #173
snvzz wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But alas, it sucks (no support at all!) at ipv6 (e.g.: On a ds-lite scenario), it is federated instead of decentralized, and its end-to-end encryption is optional.

IPv6 is indeed bad but: - "federated instead of decentralized": I believe Matrix's federation implementation qualifies as decentralised. There's some centralisation (homeservers) but not much. - "its end-to-end encryption is optional": I don't really see this as a problem. If you want it, you have it. If you don't, you don't. Sometimes end-to-end encryption isn't desirable, in a business environment where you need co…

> IPv6 is indeed bad

It's terrible, and the reason I don't use matrix. While behind ds-lite, the only option I'd have is to run my node on an untrusted location (eg: a rented server).

> "its end-to-end encryption is optional": I don't really see this as a problem. If you want it, you have it. If you don't, you don't. Sometimes end-to-end encryption isn't desirable, in a business environment where you need communications to be auditable for example.

Sure, but in a post-snowden climate, I can't recommend a solution where end-to-end is optional to anybody. The problem is that when it is optional, people will readily downgrade to point-per-point encryption when they experience any issues. It's terrible to give less tech-literate people the option of insecure communication.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#176

Post by lightedman »

Qwertious wrote: post #112
lightedman wrote: post #19

Reason to use skype: So your dead account doesn't get immediately compromised and you screw your friends over in the process as your account starts sending out malware-infested links. glares at the seven or so users in his blocked list, users that jumped ship to Telegram and left their Skype accounts open to exploitation

Sounds like you should delete your account when you go inactive, and sounds like you should GTFO if their security is that terrible.

Not much else has quality video chat at high resolutions/ Hangouts likes to drop out. It's one of the reasons Google Helpouts failed so hard, Hangouts utterly sucked as the video chat intermediary.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#177

Post by laumars »

inian wrote: post #78
laumars wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman is an advocate of copyleft, which that condition falls in line with. It's similar to the GPL license that has to be shipped verbatim with GPL code and places restrictions on how the project can be distributed (eg source must be available upon request). What you're asking to do is akin to copyfree (eg BSD) which is a different type of "free".

From what I see, copyleft strictly allows for modification too, as long as the derived work also is licensed under the same terms. His clause prevents any modification.

He allows free copying with conditions. Those conditions don't see harsh given most sites don't even permit what RMS has allowed - even modifications aside.

It really sounds more like you have an axe to grind with RMS himself rather than with the terms of his website.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#178

Post by rawfan »

driverdan wrote: post #119
RansomTime wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discord might be an alternative for team/friend based conversations. They have group calling (don't need to share a server) now. Problem is that it's marketed towards gamers and so might not be fit for purpose for business purposes

Mumble is a better choice since it's open source.

We've been using Mumble for bigger conferences for almost two years now because we couldn't find a better alternative.

We tried Skype which is almost completely broken (used to work fine).

We tried multiple WebRTC solutions like appear.in which only work fine up to three people.

We tried Google hangouts, which worked fine but we didn't like the quality.

Mumble worked fine, but only if people use push-to-talk. Otherwise you get horrible noise. Every scratching goes over the line.

Skype Business supposedly works very well. We don't use it because we don't support Microsoft breaking the regular Skype.

We currently use the audio conferencing feature of (paid) slack. It works extremely well and has great noise reduction.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#179

Post by rawfan »

george_ciobanu wrote: post #130
tscs37 wrote: post #110

For once I agree with RS; I haven't used Skype in ages, particularly because it's just crappy software. Honestly, I'd view Skype as malware at this point, the number of exploits is too damn high and it barely integrates with anything ever. It's the kind of integration you'd normally see from a cheap car purchase where the Entertainment System is a iPhone 2 taped to the seats and the trunk smells like dead raccoon.

I agree it needs improvement and we should have alternatives but it's the best in terms of video and audio quality/compression. The UX can be improved.

Skype Business maybe. Regular Skype is crap. We're currently using slack for our team which works great. Privately I user FaceTime and appear.in but that's not good for group calls.

Re: Reasons not to use Skype (2012)

#180

Post by usernam »

alkonaut wrote: post #170
usernam wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But did you _actually_ try the alternatives? I've been using mumble for more than a decade now, and I've pushing it into 3 working places as a substitute to skype, asterix and lync (the microsoft voip solution). It's not really oriented for 1-1 conversation, which is odd to use at first, but once people start to use channels and the built-in chat you hardly go back. The latency and voice quality is stunning, even acr…

Nope - didn't try them after reading the spec list to see if they check the boxes. They didn't as far as I could see, or they made terrible marketing! The problem with replacing Skype within an organization is that it can't just be better at some things, it needs to at least do all the things. We also already use other software for desktop sharing, and dont call to phones, so that's handled - but the biggest hurdle w…

I understand your position, but I cannot see things change in your favor anytime soon. This leaves you only to web-based solutions, and most of those will invariably suck for a long time to come (if not forever).
Post reply on HN