

Bye Bye Skype, Top 3 Free Replacements - linuxnow
http://ostatic.com/blog/bye-bye-skype-top-3-free-replacements

======
p4bl0
I don't see why people would quit using Skype now. The fact that it has been
bought by Microsoft doesn't change that Skype is evil. It already was. It
already was a closed source software using a proprietary protocol and doing
stuff you don't know with your bandwidth.

Don't get me wrong, it's great if people switch from Skype to something free
(as in freedom), but not if it's because it has been bought by Microsoft, this
makes no sense.

~~~
steve-howard
Really? "Evil" just because it's closed-source? Regardless, I'd imagine most
Linux Skype users have at least a few Windows users on their contact lists --
and good luck getting them to switch operating systems.

~~~
shubble
This presentation: <http://goo.gl/hgkea> [pdf], shows why skype is evil.

The protocol and client are both obfuscated at cost to performance and
security. Exploits have been found repeatedly for everything from remote code
execution to using skype clients like a botnet.

Non-NAT'd nodes are forced to carry traffic for NATed nodes. Skype have the
ability to intercept your calls, but you guessed that anyway.

Also, if everyone in the world used one phone company, or bank, and that
company refused to allow other new companies to inter-operate, they would face
antitrust. Skype, and arguably facebook, control their markets. They should be
forced to allow inter-op.

~~~
mitjak
I wonder what would happen if Microsoft open sourced the protocol and parts of
the client.

~~~
ZeSmith
A PR boost for them, at least. Can't tell if it would be a good thing in the
end, though.

------
jister
I don't see any reason to replace Skype.

~~~
darklajid
I see quite a lot of good reasons for it - but the site fails to list any
decent alternatives. I don't think there are any at this point.

To give you an impression of things that might speak against using Skype (not
that I want to imply that these should matter to you. I merely want to speak
for the 'I'd like to leave (but cannot)' side):

1) It's proprietary. We cannot validate the protocol without reverse
engineering (and even then they'd be free to break/change it). The security of
Skype calls, one of the loudest arguments for using it, is dubious and it
seems to be a fact by now that governments are allowed to/capable of recoding
your calls.

2) Resource heavy: If you ever compared a Skype conference (audio only) with
any other system, the resource usage is ridiculous. Mostly CPU, but also
network wise.

3) In your face advertisements: The (unacceptable) UI constantly pops up with
'subscribe here'/'buy credits there'/'did you know all the other ways you can
hand over your money'. You can turn off most of these, but an update usually
leads to the very same thing.

4) Maybe related to the P2P architecture: The behavior is unpredictable at
times. I often see people online, they don't see me. Or vice versa. I can talk
to someone on Skype, but messages (say, a link) fail to be delivered.
Sometimes messages queue up for hours and completely lose their meaning when
they arrive at 1am, asking about having lunch.

~~~
spauka
What I have never understood about any of these arguments is the demonization
of corporations for the purposes of argument.

IF, and I stress if, there is a better option, for users then I suggest use
it. But arguments such as it was bought by Microsoft therefore it must be bad
do not make sense. To be more specific, Skype had all the valid issues it had
(such as proprietary format, advertising etc.) before it was acquired by
Microsoft. The only new factor is its acquisition.

The fact that certain companies, Microsoft, IBM etc. have an 'evil',
'corporate' air about them, whereas companies (and this is a generalization
for the sake of example) such as Google and Apple are the good guys don't make
sense. I would like to see free software promoted for its merits, and to see
bogus arguments based around who makes the product to disappear from the IT
world.

No company is less evil than any other, and whether products should be used or
not should not depend on who owns them, but how the products operate.

~~~
bad_user

        No company is less evil than any other
    

This isn't an argument that I get.

"Evilness" is not judged only by potential, but also by reputation based on
previous history. Clearly companies are in the business of making money, so at
some point they may break rules in order to make money, but so do individuals
when placed in positions of power.

And no baby is more evil than any other baby, but grownups are very different
in that regard, that's why people rely so much on reputation when discussing a
person's ethics and trustworthiness, since it's the only metric that counts.

Clearly you can compare the evilness of any 2 companies by looking at their
past history, just as we do with individual human beings.

    
    
        whether products should be used or not 
        should not depend on who owns them
    

This argument only holds if after the purchase you OWN said product. But this
is not the case with proprietary software, and even less so with web-based
services. In such instances you're actually leasing the product and you're
depending on the company's good will for continued maintenance and improvement
of said product. And because switching products goes from easy to next to
impossible, with lock-in effects and all that, the relationship that a company
establishes with you after becoming a customer is very important, as you
depend on that relationship.

And when building relationships in general, you also have to take into account
how that company or person is treating other customers.

Not that open-source products are any better (I'm referring to those who's
main sponsor retains copyrights for all contributions), as there have been
instances where communities haven't read the "fine print", with the main
sponsors later turning around and screwing with said communities. See
Sun/Oracle and their schizophrenic involvement in projects such as Mysql and
Java.

This is the main reason why companies are acting the way they do, constantly
screwing their customers, because customers take it as a fact of life that
such companies can screw with them.

Imagine if your neighbor took a piss in your roses every Friday, and you found
out about it. Would you still lent him your lawn mower next time he asks? Why
would you allow companies to constantly piss on your lawn, instead of voting
with your wallet and taking your business to some other company that cares
more about you?

I mean, capitalism itself only works efficiently if you are voting with your
wallet.

------
maqr
I'll be trying to get my contacts to use Google Talk. It has all the features
of Skype, including video conferencing, for free.

~~~
trezor
I know absolutely nobody who uses Google Talk. Posting on Facebook "Does
anyone here really use Google Talk?" there was a roaring silence in response.

I can't for the life of me see why you would go from a minor evil service like
Skype/MSN/whatever with a variety of clients to choose from to a monsterous
big-brother service like Google Talk.

Aren't we giving Google enough power and dominance as it is?

Edit: To comment on the actual article, it seems to be a mix of supposedly
fashionate "Microsoft sucks" attitude, standard "Microsoft is evil" paranoia
and some legitimate concerns about future support for non-Microsoft platforms.

IMO the only one worthy of discussion would be the last one.

~~~
mitjak
Perhaps you're not popular enough on Facebook?

But more seriously, me and most of my contacts have switched to Google Talk as
the Windows Live client is very bloated these days and GTalk generally
connects faster and is always there as part of Gmail when you log in on any
platform on any computer (eg friend's computer, library etc).

~~~
trezor
Interesting perspective. I consider it UI noise/bloat and it has always
annoyed me ever since it was pushed into the gmail UI. When I'm in my mail-
client I want to do email and that's it, etc etc.

I thought starting to aggressively add non-core features was one of the key
things which made people hate Yahoo and Hotmail? So how is Google doing with
gmail these days:

    
    
        - Talk. I'm Google Bob. Do you want to chat with this contact?
        - Buzz. Yeah how about that?
        - Whoah! Wait NO we will not let you download this calendar invitation for
          Outlook. Please sign up for Google Calendar or forget about ever responding!
          Teehee
        - OH HEY PLEASE USE CHROME
        - Dude! Dude! I'm Google Voice and you should seriously use me to call!!
        - Oh wait, you're from outside the US? Sorry you cant!!
          I'll just leave the voice UI all here for you though. lol.
    

IMO it's getting pretty nasty.

Not saying you are wrong, but I never really though about it that way. I value
purity and Gmail is getting messy. If Google Talk had been an actual stand-
alone application and not ... crummed in stuff I didn't ask for, now _then_
maybe I would use it. Then it wouldn't be invasive UI noise in my _mail app_.

------
Argorak
Hm, 3 Options, of which one only supports Linux (Empathy) and one only
supports Windows & Linux (Ekiga). Only Linphone seems to have platform support
that comes close to Skype. So, cut it down to one.

Personally, I think Linphone looks kind of dated and their site is full of
google adwords. I would hesitate to send a link out to anyone.

~~~
p4bl0
Linphone is "just" a SIP client. Your contacts can use it if they want and you
can use another SIP client. Just like Google Talk use XMPP and people can use
any client to connect to their GTalk account and then talk with anyone using
Jabber/XMPP (even not Google Talk).

That's why open protocols are good. Because they're open.

~~~
Argorak
I am fully aware of that. Still, this post markets them as "skype
alternatives". I think the biggest problem of selling those 'open protocols'
to people is that there is no consistent base client as in 'lets all switch to
skype (client, protocol, server, whatever)'. I work in a company where we use
all major OSes. If I came up with "hey lets switch to client A for Linux
users, client B for windows users and client X for OS X", people would stone
me. They want one thing: one software to rule it all.

~~~
p4bl0
... and in the darkness bind them. ;-p

~~~
Argorak
Well, if there was a free alternative that would provide all that, at least we
would be bound to RMS. (Royal Majesty Sauron?)

I would much prefer that to the secretive doings of Microskype, but you have
to sell your alternatives and not underestimate network effects, especially in
the network market.

------
Wickk
It's great that there's replacements. But let's be serious, I'm not going to
be able to convince my friends/family who by and large is not going to care
about any changes that MS brings to Skype.

Alternative VOIP programs are not in anyway new, the same issue of getting
people to actually use these programs is still prevalent.

------
AndrewWarner
Don't underestimate the blanket coverage that Skype achieved.

I do interviews with people all over the world who have Skype already
installed on their computers.

If I shifted to a different program -- even if it was better -- I'd have to
spend time helping instal the new app before we could start our conversation.

------
StavrosK
The fact of the matter is, however, that if Skype could be replaced, it would.

~~~
josefresco
Is that sort of like the: "If you invented Facebook you would have invented
Facebook?" argument?

~~~
StavrosK
Yep, sounds like it. Skype doesn't need any more reasons to go away, it's
horrible and unmaintained on most platforms (it crashes every 5-10 lines of
chatting on all ny Linux computers, for instance), there's just no better
competitor so far.

Here's hoping for Viber, I guess...

------
51Cards
In most cases there are alternatives to every social platform, and frequently
better ones than the popular 'standard'... but if there is no one there you
want to talk to, it's not too useful.

------
adamzochowski
I use Skype to simplify international calling. I have a phone number in Poland
(bought through Skype). People in Poland dial that number, and Skype routes it
to a number of my choosing. I have numbers in countries that my family lives
in. For them it is a local call, and it always gets directly to me.

Neither of the three shown alternatives provide this feature.

------
joshaidan
Although not cross-platform, FaceTime has one killer feature: it passes the
mom test. Skype has passed it too, but not with as many flying colours as
FaceTime.

Mom push button, mom video chatting with grand kids. No intervention from
grand kids required.

------
kmccarth
Here are some just for the mac:
[http://bostinnovation.com/2011/03/21/top-3-skype-
alternative...](http://bostinnovation.com/2011/03/21/top-3-skype-alternatives-
to-consider/)

------
Estragon
Are there any replacements which plug me into Australia's landline phone
system for $12/month? Because that is Skype's primary utility, for me.

~~~
bxr
You might be able to find a SIP provider that is cheaper, I used to use one
here in the states that was about $5/month.

------
timedoctor
Skype IS Free, and a replacement would need significant improvements not just
to be a bit less expensive to make calls.

~~~
Aramgutang
Looks like the author meant free as in freedom, not beer.

~~~
sigzero
Everyone that I know that uses Skype couldn't care about the difference.

~~~
FrojoS
How many of those people do you want to video chat with regulary?

~~~
eropple
Most of them, because I actually work with them.

It may come as a shock to some people, but the overwhelming majority of people
--even in the tech would--literally could not care less if their VOIP client
is FSF-approved and based on open standards. "Does it work?" is a much more
powerful consideration.

~~~
bxr
>It may come as a shock to some people...

Outside of your strawmen, I don't think you're shocking anybody.

~~~
eropple
I dunno, the concept seems rather foreign to the person I replied to.

In the general case, for the overwhelming majority of people, things that work
are more important than things that are ideologically pure.

------
rootnt
which one is the best replacement for skype? i've used ekiga and it's pretty
good but dont know others. i want to introduce it to some noobs

