
Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client - cujanovic
http://nickforall.nl/skype/
======
nakedrobot2
Skype worked far, far better 10 years ago than it does today. From all
indications I've seen, Skype is getting dramatically worse all the time. From
a personal standpoint, it crashes for me multiple times a day and I can rarely
get group calls working on the first try. Often Skype requires a force-quit
and then it crashes twice more when it is being restarted. This is on Mac and
Android.

Fun fact: I have a friend who worked for Skype in Prague. He said the codebase
is a true horror, an extreme mess, and that soon it would "reach a
singularity" :-) He also said that there are whole parts of the codebase that
he was not allowed to see, all indications pointing to stuff related to
routing the traffic through servers of "the man" ;-)

~~~
anexprogrammer
_Most things_ worked far, far better 10 years ago than today. Apparently this
is progress.

Social everything means we can't visit a website today without calls to a
billion external domains. Phones are doing the same as they're mini-tablets
that suck at actual phone calls. Operating systems have taken on mobile
centric (and the hideous flatten everything) design that is broken paradigm
for a 15" laptop or 24" desktop screen. Firefox was a stripped down, light
browser so it stayed fast - now they include more useless garbage than
Netscape Communicator ever did. All that crap should be in official plugins so
you add pocket only if you want it etc.

Nothing at all is user centric any more, it's all about how much lovely data
can be sent back to hundreds of places.

The web is a lot prettier these days to be fair, but I don't call that
progress if it's at a cost of a 1TB page load.

I could go on, but you get the idea.. :)

~~~
untog
> Most things worked far, far better 10 years ago than today. Apparently this
> is progress.

Sigh. If you wanted to look up a business on your phone you'd have to call
directory enquiries - did that "work better" than your smartphone? Did you
prefer RealPlayer over HTML video? Was WAP better than LTE? Was Windows XP the
pinnacle of OS design?

Yeah, sometimes progress is a double-edged sword that outdates some things we
used to do. Yes, it's worth the price.

~~~
stonogo
> If you wanted to look up a business on your phone you'd have to call
> directory enquiries - did that "work better" than your smartphone?

Bad example. I didn't need a smartphone for this task because there was a real
live human being, who brought to the task all of the adaptability and
intuition that modern systems lack. I didn't need Yelp, or Google Maps, or
even the entire name of the business I was looking for. "I need the number to
the printing company on the east side" was enough to get me a name, an
address, and the call routed, without paying monthly bandwidth fees or
spending seven hundred dollars on a pocket supercomputer.

Realplayer sucked but it was about a thousand times more reliable than the
current compatibility crapshoot (sans bandwidth issues).

Worth the price? Sure, but to quote Pulp Fictoin, let's not start beating each
other off just yet. There is _plenty_ of room for improvement, and we've lost
a lot of ground.

I used to be able to take a supersonic flight across the country, without
having my body inspected via millimeter-wave radar.

Has anyone set foot on the moon in your lifetime?

~~~
untog
> I didn't need a smartphone for this task because there was a real live human
> being, who brought to the task all of the adaptability and intuition that
> modern systems lack.

OK, my example was simplistic. I want to find the best chicken tacos in San
Francisco. I can't call directory enquiries for that - I have go find reviews.
_Then_ call to make a reservation at the place, _then_ find driving directions
of how to get there, somehow. In a paper road atlas? Am I having to advocate
for the benefits of the internet on Hacker News?

> Realplayer sucked but it was about a thousand times more reliable than the
> current compatibility crapshoot

Well of course it was, it only had to run on one platform. Compatibility is a
lot easier when that's the case. Today we have HD video being played on mobile
devices in your pocket. I can't remember the last time I ran into a
compatibility problem with online video.

> I used to be able to take a supersonic flight across the country, without
> having my body inspected via millimeter-wave radar.

That's a political decision, not a technical regression.

> Has anyone set foot on the moon in your lifetime?

No. Can I load, on demand, stunning satellite photography of planets orders of
magnitude further away than the moon, on my phone, on the bus to work? You
bet.

~~~
Retric
I call BS on the review side. Where is the 'best chicken tacos in San
Francisco'?

I have no idea and Yelp is not going to help. So, the fallback is I can ask
some friends for advice and directions or use some companies best of list.
But, again the internet did almost nothing in this space.

PS: I also had the internet on my phone in 2006 and yes they had maps. EX:
[http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/08/phones-music-internet-
tech-...](http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/08/phones-music-internet-tech-
cx_df_1208cellphones_slide_9.html)

------
ElijahLynn
Stop using Skype. The NSA allegedly collects all Skype traffic anyways. Do you
really want that?

"The full capture of voice traffic began in February of 2011 for “Skype in”
and “Skype out” calls—calls between a Skype user and a land line or cellphone
through a gateway to the public switched telephone network (PSTN), captured
through warranted taps into Microsoft’s gateways. But in July of 2011, the NSA
added the capability of capturing peer-to-peer Skype communications—meaning
that the NSA gained the ability to capture peer-to-peer traffic and decrypt it
using keys provided by Microsoft through the PRISM warrant request."

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/newly-
published-n...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/newly-published-
nsa-documents-show-agency-could-grab-all-skype-traffic/)

~~~
verbify
I've given up on the NSA not reading my stuff. The NSA collects pretty much
anything they can get their hands on. It's a losing battle. If there's
something I don't want the NSA to know about, I use Tails.

~~~
cookiecaper
>If there's something I don't want the NSA to know about, I use Tails.

This is a nice thought, but probably not realistic for a variety of reasons.
Perhaps most relevantly, I would expect that a large quantity of major Tor
exit nodes are tapped by the NSA.

I would also expect that most servers you talk to are either already tapped by
NSA in one way or another or can be tapped by the NSA trivially if they decide
they want to see what's happening.

~~~
bad_user
Tor is vulnerable to adversaries that monitor Tor exit nodes. But this assumes
for such adversaries to also control the destination service.

The attack is effective if the adversary is setting up its own fake websites
and then luring users in (with child porn, etc.), correlating their traffic.
But for hot services, like Gmail, even if the NSA has the potential to track
Gmail's traffic, the noise and the false positives are too great.

And for services outside of the US jurisdiction, the NSA isn't able to legally
coerce companies into giving them the keys needed for mass surveillance. Sure,
they can reach agreements with local intelligence agencies for wiretapping and
exchanging of information, but it would be an international disaster if it got
out that foreign companies were forced through legal means by an US agency to
hand over control. And this extends somewhat even to US-hosted servers of
foreign companies. Yes they have physical access to US-based servers, no, it's
not necessarily easy for them.

What this means is that the NSA is not able to control and measure many
popular Internet services. It's also all a matter of cost. Raise the cost
significantly and it will get too expensive to do mass-surveillance, even for
the NSA.

Of course, if they target _you_ directly, then all bets are off. Though in
such a case they can just wiretap your home and office and hear everything you
do or speak. But in the meantime if I use apps like Signal for communications,
or PGP for my very private email, or SSL for connecting to my web server, I
can be sure that the NSA is not tracking me because I'm not a target, I'm not
a US citizen, I'm not interesting and it's probably expensive for them to
track me through those channels.

------
rdsubhas
I've been educating as many people (especially Management and Business people)
as I can to switch over from Skype to any other alternative (like Hangouts).
Because Skype is:

* A memory hog

* A bandwidth hog (its really inefficient about network usage, and uses a lot of bandwidth even when idle)

* Has much lower call quality (a consequence of the above), just try having a call in Hangouts or Skype and notice that Hangouts has much lower audio lag, doesn't kick out people constantly even when screen sharing, etc

* Is now owned by Microsoft

* Never cared about privacy or security (not that Hangouts does, but Skype just sets a very very low precedent)

* Group Messaging is a mess

* Individual Messaging is a mess

The list goes on and on. Its 2016, and "Let's Skype" is not cool anymore.
There are much better options available.

~~~
anon4
Skype is shit, but Hangouts is not even a contender

* No desktop client

* Connected to your google account meaning I'll need to juggle several google accounts to keep my personal and business chats separate

Just the fact it doesn't have a native desktop client makes it unusable. I
know there are workarounds I can use like nativefier but it's still not as
smooth as a desktop app.

Running in the browser:

\- Gets grouped with my other browser windows in my taskbar, making it hard to
find

\- Notifications might or might not work, depending on firefox's whims

\- If for any reason firefox crashes all your communication crashes with it

\- Susceptible to every single browser bug that allows silent loading of
extensions that scrape all your data

~~~
TheHippo
> No desktop client

Seeing the level of shitty ported Linux programs I see this as a pro.

> Connected to your google account meaning I'll need to juggle several google
> accounts to keep my personal and business chats separate

This would be easier with Skype if you have 2 Skype accounts?

When using Chrome:

> \- Gets grouped with my other browser windows in my taskbar, making it hard
> to find

Menu -> More tools -> Add to desktop

~~~
notwhereyouare
>> Connected to your google account meaning I'll need to juggle several google
accounts to keep my personal and business chats separate >This would be easier
with Skype if you have 2 Skype accounts?

to some extent. depending on how you start a hangouts, you have no idea what
account it's going to start under. The number of times I've gotten on a work
call on my personal account because google felt it should use that one

~~~
brazzledazzle
I know each Chrome window can be logged into a different account so I wonder
if it just uses the last window (and therefore account) you interacted with.
That seems to be the case with links I click on in general. It would be nice
if they let you select a "default" account or prompted you for google-specific
links.

------
haddr
Skype on Linux is far inferior recently. Mostly due to the fact that the Linux
version has been somehow abandoned. It haven't received updates since at least
1 year. For example, one recent change is that when someone sends a picture,
on Linux you are sent a link to it, where you have to go to the Skype website
and login in order to view it (and login each time you open a link). Sometimes
it's a resized version of the picture which makes things worse. Another thing
is the screen sharing. On Linux you can't share screen with more that 1
person, making it useless for telcos at work. And there is much more...

~~~
txdv
In the end to the end user "linux sucks" because skype sucks on linux.

~~~
asddubs
most of the people I know, regardless of what platform they use seem to think
that skype sucks. especially if they tried to use it on their mobile phones.
We all put up with it because there are no real competitors, and the open
source alternatives are all pretty lacking as well

------
cm3
For an excellent and disruption-free experience I use Mumble and if I have to
WebRTC, but the browser experience isn't as stable, performant and reliable.
Nothing beats Mumble if video isn't a requirement. You can join free Mumble
servers, host your own or rent a server. It's open source, so you're not at
the whim of a company and integration with your operating system is much
better.

update 1:
[https://wiki.mumble.info/wiki/Features](https://wiki.mumble.info/wiki/Features)
It has encryption which cannot be disabled and the advanced audio features
make it well suited for reliable and pleasant day to day use. It's low-latency
and instead of a centrally managed contact database like most commercial
services have Mumble uses certificates for authentication and identification
of your friends across servers.

update 2: There are alternative server implementations, one in C and another
one in Go, meant to run on OpenWRT in terms of hardware requirements.

~~~
arca_vorago
I run mumble as well, it really is awesome as long as you dont need video,
like you said. I constantly tell people about it, because I refuse to use a
non foss app for communication on my pc. (Ventrillo, teamspeak, etc)

I have poked around with Jitsi but its setup is too complicated for normal
users.

------
apatters
If the claim that the Linux client is no longer able to join calls is true, I
think the Skype team really needs to respond.

Microsoft has been doing all sorts of cool things lately and it's odd that the
Skype team hasn't been a part of this movement toward a modern, multi-platform
world.

In my little corner of that world as the owner of an agency which spends money
on Skype credit every day and uses Skype for a healthy part of our business
communications, if Linux users start having trouble connecting to calls we are
done with Skype immediately. There are enough alternatives out there nowadays
that we will drop this tool.

~~~
phillc73
> If the claim that the Linux client is no longer able to join calls is true,
> I think the Skype team really needs to respond.

I made a call this morning (6 hours ago) and it worked[0] at that time.

I'm not on the same machine right now, but it is a Debian 8 64-bit build. Just
installing Skype was a total pain.

If there was a viable alternative that had all the services Skype offers
(Skype-Out and local numbers as well as the usual video/voice calling) I'd
switch to it. However, I also need to convince my 70 year old Mum, on the
other side of the world, who still uses Windows XP, because she's "used to
it", and doesn't own a smartphone to switch too.

I've just seen ring.cx mentioned above and might investigate further.

[0] Worked: The person on the other end could hear and see me.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Ring.CX sounds like it would be a sex-chat phone line, ... Shouldn't matter
but it does, it's the GIMP effect.

------
pentae
What I don’t understand is - Why is there not a serious competitor to Skype?

If there was a cross-platform Skype clone that worked on OSX, Linux, Windows,
iOS and Android that was stable and secure - the whole world would jump onto
it. All it has to do is not be a bloated piece of crap like Skype.

Instead, everything else out there is fragmented.

We’re all waiting, get on it already!

~~~
junto
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?

~~~
chc4
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.

~~~
Dylan16807
>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.

~~~
chc4
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients#XMPP-
related_features) 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 "<x> doesn't
implement <y>!" 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.

~~~
Dylan16807
>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 mobile<->mobile 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.

~~~
chc4
I don't actually have any idea about how group chats are implemented in Tox,
but I don't see why you can't send messages to the people in the group to
redistribute when people get back. It sounds like it might have history
consistency issues, but maybe they already do that.

I assumed you were talking about one-on-one message relaying, which is
probably what most people would care about. That can't really be solved, since
one of the goals of Tox is also to prevent 3rd parties from being able to tell
who you are talking to. Can't do that if you have to broadcast to users "send
this message to <x> when they get back"...

~~~
Dylan16807
From what I could see group chats don't have it yet. And note that I said
multiple clients, not multiple users. If you or your chat partner have their
desktop turned on it should be able to take messages and forward them to your
cell phone.

------
SunShiranui
Skype has been getting worse and worse over the years. Personally I've
switched to Telegram for chats, and I'll be looking for alternatives as far as
voice calls are concerned.

~~~
akerro
I use tox[1] with my family and some friends.

[https://tox.chat/](https://tox.chat/)

~~~
StavrosK
Does that have a native app for the desktop? I'm tired of everything using
Electron and requiring hundreds of megabytes of RAM for simple stuff :-(

~~~
lawl
[https://tox.chat/clients.html](https://tox.chat/clients.html)

~~~
akerro
and much more details
[https://wiki.tox.chat/clients#features](https://wiki.tox.chat/clients#features)

------
mrmondo
I'm surprised people still even use Skype, I went really down hill around 5 or
so years ago. It's slow, bulky, closed source and it has been disclosed by
Edward Snowden and Wikileaks to have ties directly into the prism program with
the NSA.

~~~
kohanz
My thoughts exactly. There have been better alternatives out there for a few
years now. Whenever a client or customer requests a Skype call these days,
there are always a few raised eyebrows.

~~~
alkonaut
I'd replace it in a heartbeat if something ticked all the boxes.

\- good persistent group chat \- good voice quality \- single contact list &
app for voice+text chat \- free (beer)

------
i336_
While I'm unsure about the inability to join calls, I can at least agree that
the Linux client is terrible.

I finally caved a few months ago, got an account, and started using it ("oh
wow it handles 's/woops/fixed/', that's awesome")... until the client began
freezing, chewing 100% CPU for as long as I patiently left it running, and not
getting itself sorted out. Removing ~/.Skype (XDG, anybody?) and re-signing in
worked... for about 3 minutes, at which point my profile data re-synced, and
the client began choking again.

Last I tried the Web-integrated version (Skype icon, top-right of outlook.com
et. al., takes a minute to become clickable) I couldn't even type "/me ..." \-
the line would send verbatim. At that point I gave up completely.

I used to use IRC but I find it too Spartan nowadays, but on the other hand I
don't want to have to remember what chat tab is in what window, and I can't
handle the idea of running 15 isolated instances of Webkit for all the
separate chat systems out there, so that kills websites and most current
"desktop" chat clients.

I don't use the Internet to communicate much, somewhat ironically. Everything
drives me to distraction.

Notes:

\- XDG: TL;DR = says stuff should be in ~/.config, ~/.cache, etc.
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/XDG_Base_Directory_supp...](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/XDG_Base_Directory_support)

\- I cannot help but admire the reverse-engineering going on at
[https://github.com/EionRobb/skype4pidgin/tree/master/skypewe...](https://github.com/EionRobb/skype4pidgin/tree/master/skypeweb#skypeweb-
plugin-for-pidgin) to make the outlook/skype web integration programmatically
consumable. I have no idea how it works but the commits are very recent, which
is a big positive sign.

~~~
lucaspiller
> until the client began freezing, chewing 100% CPU for as long as I patiently
> left it running, and not getting itself sorted out.

The same happens for me on iOS and OS X quite often. I disabled mobile data
and push notifcations on iOS as it sucked up tonnes of data (I've seen
30MB/day even when I haven't opened the app), and repeated or delayed
notifications. Whenever I open a conversation I have to leave it 30s - 1
minute until it updates with the latest messages.

~~~
i336_
ooh wow.

I have to admit, searching for "skype 100% cpu" or similar shows lots of
people having this problem on Windows and OS X, so I wonder if I'm not just
seeing disasterousness in a shared part of the codebase.

I never even touched the mobile app though; 30MB/day is _insane_. Wow...

------
lawl
I use web.skype.com these days. I don't want that piece of crapware installed
on my box, as I don't trust it.

The web client works well enough for chat so I can talk to my friends who
don't want to move away from it.

It does however not support calls since for some reason it needs a browser
plugin for that. WebRTC would clearly be too easy. So I just link people a
Firefox Hello link whenever they want to use voice.

------
_druu
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.

~~~
mvonthron
Absolutely!

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

~~~
ars
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.

------
balabaster
There are viable alternatives to Skype.

I've been using Slack ([https://slack.com/](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 channels)

\- Voice/Video via numerous integrations including Bluejeans, Appear.in,
Skype, Hangouts, you name it.

\- ChatOps via services like IFTT & Zapier or even your own custom bridge into
your network.

\- Get notifications right in Slack from your source control, build servers,
JIRA, Confluence and any number of other services via webhook integrations.

\- A billion other wicked cool integrations
([https://slack.com/apps](https://slack.com/apps)) that allow you to do just
about anything, including the eternally useless, often inappropriate and
highly amusing Giphy.

\- It's free(ish)... the featureset is restricted on the free account, but
even with the free account it has enough to be seriously useful to even
loosely defined teams of adhoc members. For enterprise requirements there is a
small per user/per month charge which unlocks a wealth of enterprise ready
features.

\- It's archivable & searchable

Highly recommended and well worth a look for small and large teams alike.

It's more targeted at teams, but for circles of friends, it works nicely too.
Because of the way it's structured, it works more like a web based, centrally
hosted IRC server than Skype, as such it doesn't really have the same network
effect, but it's so much more flexible than Skype in every other respect.

~~~
bad_user
> _It 's free(ish)_

The free tier has a very limited history, which defeats the point of using
Slack, since you lose your history. And there's really no point in using Slack
if you don't have a history you can rely on, might as well use IRC.

And once you start paying, $7-$15 per user/month is not what I'd call cheap.
It's cheap compared to a salary, but such costs pile up.

> _Voice /Video via numerous integrations including Bluejeans, Appear.in,
> Skype, Hangouts, you name it._

Which is another way of saying that it doesn't solve the problems that Skype
does, so it's not an alternative.

~~~
kuschku
> might as well use IRC.

Worse: For IRC you can use quassel (self-hosted) or IRCCloud (4$/month).

So with IRC you get more, but even cheaper.

~~~
balabaster
The problem with IRC is that the plugins aren't as discoverable and more of a
pain in the neck to integrate.

When you're not in channel on IRC, you don't have access to anything that was
said prior to joining the channel which means you don't even have any
immediate history, or context to a conversation that is ongoing when you join.
At least with Slack you have 10,000 messages of history, which is at least
enough to give you the context of the discussion.

Also while probably irrelevant on a technical level, it's just not as pretty
and user friendly as Slack.

~~~
kuschku
All these issues you mentioned are solved by using IRCCloud or Quassel – I
currently have a backlog for the channels I’m in via Quassel back to 2014 –
available in the app, over the webapp, via the program on Windows, Mac and
Linux.

The only issue with IRC is discoverability.

------
mcs_
46 active contacts and 12 blocked account in my Skype 4.3.0.37 (2014 Skype
and/or Microsoft Patents Pending)

Family: Wife (mac), Mom(ubuntu) and Sister(win) All - Family = work or
business (i can safely say that 90% are OS from MS).

Do I want all those contacts in my slack ? No i don't.

Do I want to change to another _very powerful_ chat system? Well, sometimes
connect sqlite3 to find a conversation is not really what i want to do but the
problem is to use chat system as storage for important communication so, No I
don't what another shitty chat system.

My "rest folder" contains current work, future work, very good and bad work
experiences from the past and maybe unplanned new jobs.

People are still there in green every morning cause they may want support or
want to give jobs and after they pay they tends to use less email and more
(shitty) chat systems.

In my case skype is only for work and i don't what to confuse the clear skype
sound in my phone with something else that the work. Remove those contacts
today means lose money tomorrow, i cannot remove that program and it is
immediately installed after vim and git.

So after declaring to be a slave of skype like many others, I don't ask
microsoft to change it, to fix it, to improve it or do it more cool or modern.
I ask for my freedom: We need public, usable and having a sane license API to
build something _better_ around it and remove that green icon from the status
bar or my GNU/Linux Mint.

~~~
oddvar
What if there was a free, interoperable protocol that could connect anything
to anything?

That's what we are trying to achieve with Matrix
([https://matrix.org](https://matrix.org)) - making apps connect either
natively or via gateways/bridges.

We already have bridges to IRC, Slack, and libpurple! Ideally we would connect
all services to each other, but obvs we can only do so for those who offer an
API.

In Matrix, you can set up a WebRTC call with any Matrix-user, and the user can
take the call in whatever Matrix-client he wants. We already have open source
clients for web, iOS and Android!

~~~
mcs_
thanks for the reply.

will look at that but still, in this moment and with the current api of skype,
an instance of it must run in background somewhere.

------
StreamBright
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 notifications are displayed either. Skype
for business is a perfect distraction tool without providing any quality or
functionality that other software already have. I just do not understand that
in 2016 MS is at this level when it comes to user experience after being in
the user facing software business over 40 years.

~~~
douche
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 without massive hoop-jumping. Aside
from some reskins, it's the same as the Lync 2013 client, and that wasn't much
of a change on the 2010, or even 2007 client.

~~~
Can_Not
As a Linux guy, I tried to setup Office365 OneDrive for the technologically
illiterate side of the office, because they get 1TB. Set it up on a 7
computer, an 8.1, and a 10. Used the registry key to activate business
accounts mode. Made an Office356 Group to have a shared directory. Looked at
every alt menu and right click menu for shared directory options. Nobody could
see anybody else's content no matter what I did. Then I spent 10 minutes
setting up a NAS on a random PC and mounting it on all the other computers,
used OneDrive on that PC and was good to go. I think I'll never use one drive,
I've never had a sharing issue with any other cloud drive provider.

------
edent
This is very disappointing. Skype has been one of those "just works" solutions
for calling distant family members - even if they're running underpowered
hardware.

I currently use [https://tel.red/](https://tel.red/) to connect to Lync /
"Skype for Business" on Linux. I wonder if that's a possible solution?

~~~
_yy
Google Hangouts is a great alternative. It only needs a browser, too.

~~~
edent
...and a Google account - which not everyone has / wants.

Also, from my experiences, it needs a more powerful computer to run smoothly.

~~~
dogma1138
I've run Hangouts on a 1st gen netbook (Asus EEE PC) without any performance
issues. The only times where performance could be an issue is when you are
running a video conference call which technically Skype doesn't really
supports (w/o a premium or business account).

~~~
Arnt
It depends on the video driver.

~~~
dogma1138
It depends on allot of things if you are using some fancy super duper HD
camera and hanging out with 10 other people all using the highest possible bit
rate streaming also you'll need a good computer with graphics hardware that
will support all the required features for hardware acceleration in Chrome.

Back then there was almost no video HW acceleration in hangouts anyhow (well
in Chrome) not on the silly 1st gen Atom for sure and it still worked fairly
well (at about 60% CPU usage IIRC) even with the 720p camera on the EEE PC.

And it's not that Skype would be any better in that regards Skype might have
slightly bigger selection of video codecs (Google probably had too back when
Google Talk had actually a thick client) but Hangouts is limited more or less
to video streams that Chrome can handle which usually means current web video
formats.

------
lyncisnice
Is this a surprise, really?

Lync (their custom, completely incompatibile VOIP solution sold to -- idiots,
essentially) only works half-decently on windows. There's an OSX option, but
it's just a factual checklist on the product spec, as in reality it's garbage.

The best part, is that "skype for business" actually lowers the quality of the
product even more. I had my own set of issues with Lync, but it just doubled
since we had to transition.

And that's for the "business" side.

~~~
ex3ndr
Sad thing is that skype for business/lync is bundled with office products and
when we came to some big enterprises they say "we have free lync!". Insane.

------
gravypod
I've seen my friends slowly drift away from Skype. At this point when I
install a new operating system, I just use web.skype.com to get in touch with
my friends that haven''t moved onto something else. It works the same on all
platforms, but I don't know if many people know about the web client.

It's really helpful.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Doesn't work for me on Linux (I can't make calls).

~~~
gravypod
Oh, well that might be a problem. I'm young enough that all my friends hate
the sound of each others voices. I only use the messaging platform.

------
oever
I'm a happy user of VOIP. Instead of using skype, I use SIP for which there
are many computer programs. A good convenient program is CSipSimple.

[https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=com.csipsimple](https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=com.csipsimple)

~~~
thejosh
Cool, but the power of Skype isn't the VOIP part, it's that others use it want
to call you.

~~~
oever
No, that is not the point. The post here is about Skype not working on Linux.
If Skype is the only way to reach a person, that would be a real issue.
Luckily nearly everyone still has a normal telephone number on which they can
be reached. There are many options to dial to normal telephone numbers all
over the world at very low cost. For voice communication, people should use
established, vendor-independent standards.

~~~
fenesiistvan
Actually I fully agree with you. Linux should be about open standards and
freedom. Skype breaks both. I suggest to everyone to use some VoIP app based
on open standards (SIP) and not the vendor locked Skype.

------
Zash
Skype hasn't been a pain on Linux since the Microsoft takeover. It was a huge
pain long before.

XMPP with [http://swift.im/](http://swift.im/) and
[http://conversations.im/](http://conversations.im/) is much more pleasant.

~~~
mrmondo
Swift.im looks interesting, thanks for the link. At work most of us use Adium
with our XMPP servers, those stuck on Windows have to use pidgin at present
which is truly awful so I'll take a look at this for them.

------
ecopoesis
Skype on the Mac is also terrible.

* Doesn't integrate with Keychain, so I always have to login. * When logging in, pressing TAB when in the username field submits the form rather then go to password field. * Now I've failed my login enough that I need to reset my password. And Live doesn't let me reuse an old password, guaranteeing I'll lock myself out next time. * Even better, my Xbox won't login in now, so I either have to do this stupid dance again, or just use the Playstation.

------
edent
> but starting from February 22 the Linux client is unable to join calls

Hmmm... My Linux client just made a successful voice & video call to an OSX
Skype client.

While it would be nice if Skype was properly maintained, I'm not sure quite
what the "unable to join calls" bit is all about.

~~~
throwaway2048
join existing calls, not initiate new ones.

------
spronkey
It's not just the Linux client. The Windows client has terrible usability
issues too.

~~~
me_bx
At least on that OS it can be installed in a straightforward way.

If one really wants to install skype on a 64 bits debian, they need to apply
loads of tricks (and risk to bork their system in the process).

Last time I attempted that, the package installer prompted me to first
uninstall X - the window system - (amongst a whole lot of other crucial
software) as incompatible dependencies...

~~~
anon4
That seems to be a Debian packaging issue, since all you need to run skype are
the 32-bit libs it uses. I run it on Arch with no problem.

~~~
me_bx
Yes it is, the deb package (provided by microsoft) having been created for an
older version of debian (6 or 7) but being the only available one for debian
8... dependencies don't match.

------
coldtea
> _Skype keeps ignoring people who complain or are having issues with Linux
> client_

Well, if they are too few and far between compared to Windows, OS X, iOS and
Android then it makes sense. Opportunity cost et al.

And, while it's often brought up, I think that when it comes to consumer
products (as opposed to server and dev stuff) Linux users don't really have
some kind of "extra-influence" to compensate for being a niche group.

------
binarez
Some (most?) of my contacts are not showing up online when I use the official
Skype client on Linux. I use the web client:

[https://web.skype.com/](https://web.skype.com/)

------
joeyspn
Meet Jitsi...

[https://meet.jit.si/](https://meet.jit.si/)

It's a nice FOSS alternative for group calling.

~~~
Torgo
Doesn't group calling require a bridge plugin on your XMPP server?

I set up Jitsi to do point to point (encrypted) video between two of our
offices to replace Skype, and it worked fantastic.

------
farresito
The Linux client is pretty disappointing, to be honest. The only reason I keep
using Skype is because of friends using it.

~~~
hyperdunc
The Xbox client isn't much better. After install, it would only run for me if
I specifically did NOT accept the terms and conditions. Account management is
also dodgy as hell.

~~~
farresito
Unless they start doing something, they will lose market. Whatsapp calls has
been rising and people in the gaming world are starting to switch to better
alternatives. I don't understand why such little effort. It's not like Skype
for android is much better either. I've had trouble with it too.

------
washadjeffmad
I've never used Skype. Is there something it does better or differently than
any other VOIP/messaging client that's made their poor Linux support such a
popular issue, other than it was better before Windows bought it?

My current daily means of communication on Linux is Google Voice/Hangouts, but
I've also used others over the years, like GnomeMeeting/Ekiga, TeamViewer, and
TeamSpeak. They've all worked fairly easily and without issue. With all the
options, could someone explain why Skype matters?

~~~
biot
There is one thing that Skype is particularly good at that other
VoIP/messaging clients aren't: talking to users who have Skype accounts. Your
question is little different than suggesting there are many alternative social
networks to Facebook, so why don't people just use those instead?

------
ohitsdom
Skype on Windows is awful. Frequent crashes, shared screens drop all the time,
and very inefficient. Only reason it's not uninstalled is that we have to use
it at work.

------
theinternetman
Skype feels like it runs just as well on my brand new laptop as it used to do
on my 9 year old machine.

As in not well at all and whenever any progress has been made with computing
speed the Skype team have refactored their app to perform just as poorly on
the new hardware.

Also why is the "Skype Home" part of the app just a facebook advert? I don't
have an FB account so Skype tells me to get one every time I open it.
Seemingly FB is more important than my contacts.

------
bronlund
Why people use Skype is beyond me.

~~~
luxpir
Network effects. I've been forced to install the client (Linux) twice for
work. Worked fine for calls/chat, but I'm not keen on running it, to say the
least.

Also, there are project managers in my industry who check availability of
freelancers via Skype, rather than email. Remaining logged in keeps you
visible with them. I don't do it, and I find it a shame that this is the state
of affairs.

------
kelvin0
Under the best of circumstances, Skype on WINDOWS is at best barely functional
(I know we use it every day for remote business meetings). So I can hardly be
surprised any other OS's client is so broken ... 8.5 Billion!
[http://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-
skype-2/](http://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/)

------
matzipan
The Skype app crashes so frequently. When it finally decides to work, the
microphone doesn't work. If you feel really really brave, you can try putting
the app to background, except that might cause your video feed to not work
anymore. Remember those files somebody sent you 3 months ago? Well, you
haven't recieved them on this device yet. This is true for Windows, Linux and
Android. In an update about a month ago, Windows 10 introduced the "Messaging"
and "Video" apps. Which were both based on Skype infrastructure.
They.didn't.work. Which makes me wonder if they ever tested them before even
releasing them.

To be fair, Hangouts has gotten a bit better, but it still feels like there's
nobody actually actively working on any of the apps. Or at least, nobody who
is working on the app dogfoods it. But this app is no stranger to ignoring
your microphone, or showing you that you're still in a conversation which has
ended several hours ago.

Facebook Messenger has not disappointed me yet, which might make it the
strongest and most stable contender to date.

------
gargravarr
Not sure I understand the issue here, can someone summarise? Yes, Skype is an
utter POS on Linux (90s UI, total incompatibility with any of the fancy things
like picture sharing, inability to join group calls etc.) but the link implies
the client can no longer participate in calls. I was chatting to a friend just
yesterday via the Linux client - they called me and I accepted the call.

~~~
tomc1985
I like the 90s UI :/

Better than all this modern crap

------
snowpanda
I had to use Skype for work a lot. But things like this and the fact that I
don't trust Skype enough to install it, kept me from using it.

So at the time I bought the cheapest Android phone I could find and used it
just for Skype, it didnt even have a sim card. And I was always easy to reach
for coworkers.

Hopefully this helps someone else in the same position. Luckily I dont have to
use Skype anymore.

------
flurdy
And this is a surprise?

~~~
awalton
Of course it is. Did you already forget that Microsoft <3's Linux? That the
world has completely changed since Nadella joined Microsoft?

~~~
Piskvorrr
_Embraces_ Linux.

------
Kenji
They keep ignoring all their users, Windows too. A couple of weeks ago, they
shipped a completely broken version that would crash regularly and scramble
the message order randomly if the messages were sent within ~1 minute. Hello
QA? Where are you? Hello beta testing? You cannot ship a program this broken
to all your users?!

------
nik736
The Mac OS client is COMPLETELY BROKEN. Message orders change constantly, if
you type fast the messages are jumping up and down constantly which is
annoying since the order sometimes gets messed up.

Also the background colours of messages are bugged, sometimes my messages are
grey, instead of being blue as they should be.

What the fuck?

~~~
coldtea
"Completely broken" with all caps would mean "you can't make a call" or "calls
get cut short" \-- not "message order changes" and "sometimes the background
of my messages is a different color".

(In fact the latter points to some color-code of sorts, e.g. grey = message
hasn't been received yet, etc).

------
chtfn
I recommend trying jitsi (meet.jit.si) for conferences with features. Ring is
a new one, that looks very promising for secure multiplatform p2p one-on-one
communication. (ring.cx) On my phone, I use CsipSimple with my trusty VOIP
provider Diamondcard.us.

------
gurra
Some of my contact lists disappeared the other day. I am using Skype 4.3 on
Ubuntu 14.04. I am trying to move most of my communication to Slack, but some
clients and friends are still on Skype which makes this a pain for me.

------
buro9
I have to do a fair number of remote interviews, and Skype is the way this is
supposed to happen.

I also use Linux.

The net result is that Skype is not how this happens. I usually just offer
Google Hangouts as an alternative or phone the person.

~~~
afarrell
Have you tried appear.in ? It doesn't require an account and it allows
screensharing also.

------
ghostek
Skype for Linux was declared dead under Palmer's, resources reduced to a
minimum and new versions and features blocked. Skype CEOs and CTOs at that
time are equally responsible, made millions and disappeared. It's been an
uphill battle since, you can found some linux developers on LinkedIn and ask
them. A joke that goes around is that Skype could die soon this year unless it
turns profitable. Anyway, from a business perspective MS doesn't understand or
value Linux desktop, so nothing to be surprised here.

------
rciorba
Great! I hope this way less and less people will expect me to use skype.

------
Aoyagi
Good. The sooner Skype ends, the better.

------
ck2
Twitter is a technical support system for Skype? For anything?

What's with "ThanksBill" \- meaning Bill Gates? What has he had anything to do
with modern Microsoft for the past decade?

------
martin-adams
>> but starting from February 22 the Linux client is unable to join calls

My colleague using Ubuntu managed to join a call I made to her with no issue.
There must be more to it I guess.

------
sean-duffy
When I used to use Skype on OSX I always hated it, people talk about iTunes
being bloatware but the amount of resources Skype used was obscene. The final
straw was a bug they never fixed that would log me out of Facebook in Safari
every time I opened Skype. It was something to do with the fact that I'd
foolishly linked my Skype and Facebook accounts in the past, I'm not sure if
even to this day they ever fixed that.

------
jayarcanum
Skype on linux is akin to taking fertility drugs on birth control. It's super
dumb and always feels dirty for no reason. It installs 127 packages and then
removes only 112, leaving me saying I knew this was a mistake so that I could
waste 15 minutes with TopTal because they can't get on a hangout. Skype is
owned by the original nerd's evil empire what do you expect. Never should have
tainted my system...

------
neppo
I started using appear.in for quick video telephony.

The beauty with this one is that you don't need an account, you just send a
invitation link via slack or mail

------
stuaxo
That is really poor, I have skype credit for when I go abroad and need to call
the UK from a local number (e.g. Real good with banks or utilities).

------
rekoros
Just a note that you can use any other client supported by
[http://sameroom.io](http://sameroom.io) to connect to Skype.

[https://sameroom.io/attend](https://sameroom.io/attend) lets you auto-create
Slack channels for each incoming Skype conversation.

We have some individual use discounts - just ask in support.

------
dschiptsov
Why, it is Microsoft. Rudimentary Linux support is mere PR actions, be it for
Skype or .Net or whatever.

Their strategy, obviously, is still platform lock-in.

------
minusSeven
This is not just limited to linux. I use skype occasionally on blackberry and
their app on blackberry is despicable. They made slight bug fixes 6 months
back after some 2 years of not updating the app. Now it works but still
experience lot of crashes. They never bothered to release a native app and
people just the android ported one.

------
CSDude
Skype is far inferior to any competitor. I just send a link to people through
[https://apprtc.appspot.com/](https://apprtc.appspot.com/) to have better
video call experience. Skype does not even keep track of notifications cross
devices. It was way better in the old days.

------
vasili111
The reality is that, Skype is a kind of software that is better to use Windows
version + WINE than native Linux version.

~~~
schindlabua
And even then, the Windows version is shit too so we should just be switching
to a different service.

~~~
vasili111
Sounds good and I would love to do that. But there is no real alternative of
Skype right now.

------
sandGorgon
yes the linux client sucks... bu the OTHER linux client (i.e. Android) works
beautifully. Which is why I cant wait for things like RemixOS or Intel's
Android Linux [1]. With predictions that mobile chips will approach PS4
performance in 2017 [2], I cant help but wonder again if Valve made a colossal
mistake in not basing SteamOS on desktop android.

[1] [http://liliputing.com/2016/02/intels-android-smartphone-
prot...](http://liliputing.com/2016/02/intels-android-smartphone-prototype-is-
also-a-linux-desktop-pc.html)

[2] [http://venturebeat.com/2016/02/16/mobile-devices-will-be-
mor...](http://venturebeat.com/2016/02/16/mobile-devices-will-be-more-
powerful-than-playstation-4-xbox-one-in-2017-arm-forecasts/)

------
Gratsby
Wow. My previous job had no phones only skype and most of us just had linux on
our desktops.

There is a solution - Cisco Jabber. They have a hosted solution now. I can't
find a link currently and I haven't used it since we have it on-premise. But I
did talk with someone recently who worked on their cloud product.

------
Houshalter
Skype on Windows is also a disaster. I only use it to instant message, not
call, and it still takes multiple minutes to start up. I really want an
alternative but have been lazy about making the switch. Maybe today will be
the day I do that. Any good alternative IM clients with cross platform
support?

------
t0mislav
It's time to simply abandon this sucker. It won't be easy, but I hope better
alternative will emerge.

------
ryanlol
Does the OS X client work well for anyone else?

I keep having inability to join calls, getting stuck in calls and at worst
even having the client say I'm not in any calls and no sound coming out of my
speakers while others can still see me in the call and _hear my microphone_.

~~~
mindo
Have no issues on osx 10.11.3 / skype 7.19(407). I did noticed some chat
history missing couple times, but i can live with it.

------
lucb1e
Honestly I'm really happy they haven't updated the client. Looking at the
Windows client, I was happy they left a more serious and professional client
for the Linux users.

Of course when you can't make calls anymore, it might be time to update the
failing component...

------
odbol_
Oh come on, they ignore people who complain about the iOS client too. They
just ignore everyone and refuse to iterate or innovate. Personally, I don't
understand why people pay to use them when Google Hangouts has so many better
features and a clearer UI.

------
Sir_Substance
The deep irony of this is that I prefer the linux client to the windows one
(or did until it broke, haven't tried to make a call recently), because it is
ad free, clean and simple. I wish there was a reverse-wine I could use to run
it on windows.

~~~
wallmani
I don't think you should ever try, but you can give cygwin a shot. You can,
supposedly, get most linux packages running on Windows with Cygwin, but it
would be almost as much work as Linux From Scratch.

~~~
Sir_Substance
I don't think I can do this without source access to skype, unless I'm missing
something?

------
andrey_utkin
Sounds like great justification for my business contacts why I cannot have a
voice call in Skype with them. Could anybody please give a link to official
bugreport or serious announcement about breakage of calls?

User of XMPP (Jabber) with transport to Skype.

------
tome
The quality of outbound calls to telephones ("Skype Out" I think) has dropped
markedly recently. My respondants can't hear me about half the time. The
quality seems to come and go by the week.

~~~
DominikR
As someone who works in the VoIP mobile client area for 7 years (though not
for Skype) I have to be fair and say that this is unlikely to be Skypes fault.

They are known to use state of the art codecs so most likely the issue lies in
the PSTN network that you are calling into.

For the out calling feature they are relying on Carriers all around the world
for the VoIP -> PSTN functionality.

It would be another thing if you said that VoIP -> VoIP quality has dropped,
here Skype has somewhat more control, although still not perfect control as
they rely on the quality of Internet connection between caller and callee.

~~~
tome
That's the thing. VoIP -> VoIP is perfect. They really need to choose better
PSTNs in that case.

~~~
DominikR
If the destination number is in the t-mobile network then they can't chose
that the call doesn't go into t-mobiles network.

They can control one part of it, the point where their VoIP is transcoded and
switched into the network, here could lie the issue. But the issue could also
come from the destination end of the network.

I generally believe that US and EU carriers are solid enough that calling
there shouldn't cause issues, but who knows whom the parent is calling.

Could be Afghanistan for all I know and I am not as confident here that there
wont be any issues that are definitely out of control for Skype.

In some cases the carrier might even wilfully degrade the quality because they
want to earn more. They earn less if Skype routes a caller from the US to
Afghanistan via IP and lets him call from a Afghan to Afghan number.

~~~
tome
Interestingly enough it's been mostly lineline numbers that I've had problems
calling.

------
nickforall
Thank you very much for sharing, we're overwhelmed by all the tweets.

------
exo762
Microsoft is doing a service to all of us by destroying Skype. Nobody should
use it anyway from the moment MS has bought it with sole purpose of handing
data over to NSA&Friends.

~~~
746F7475
Wanna code an alternative then

~~~
ElijahLynn
Other than the obvious, Hangouts, which is closed source and probably just as
vulnerable:

[https://appr.tc/](https://appr.tc/)
[https://github.com/webrtc/apprtc](https://github.com/webrtc/apprtc)

~~~
746F7475
Skype is way better than hangouts first of all.

Secondly webrtc requires you to coordinate, it's not like I can just call
someone. Just as well we could use TeamSpeak or Ventrilo or any of the old
solutions.

~~~
ElijahLynn
Yeah, definitely not the same thing. Just thought I would post it.

I much prefer Hangouts over Skype though, plus it performs very well on
Ubuntu, unlike Skype.

------
georgeek
They might be pushing users away from the Linux/Mac apps towads an online
version of skype. Which is actually the easiest way to use their service, when
you absolutely have to.

------
jaimehrubiks
Discord is the best alternative, or at least it will be. It lacks 1to1 calls
yet but they will be implemented. There are no plans for video or screen share
yet i think though

------
toxican
The longer MS ignores Skype on linux, the happier I'll be. Unlike the Windows
version, it's at least usable and a great deal more stable (in my experience,
anyway)

~~~
lucb1e
Precisely. Like Pidgin using the MSN network, it didn't have any of the
problems that Windows Live Messenger had (like shutting down when Microsoft
wished it and forcing you over to Skype - the network itself kept running just
fine for 2 years after that point).

------
gog
Anbody have expirience with alternatives that provide group voice calls and
support all platforms (win,linux,osx,ios,android)?

Group calls are the only thing I use Skype for...

~~~
TheCoreh
[https://zoom.us](https://zoom.us) is not bad, from my experience

------
svendlarssen
I've been complaining since Nov last year without any result. It's terrible
and I really hope Skype will do something about it.

------
maweki
I can no longer log in into skype for linux. Using the same username/password
on Android works fine. No use in the Linux client.

------
amelius
How well does video chatting work within the browser nowadays? If it works
well, then I would say Skype's days are numbered.

------
slizard
Not sure if they fixed it in the meantime, but it work for me right now with
client version 4.3.0.37.

------
gerardnll
MacOS is also a competidor and I don't have any issues with it neither Skype
has stopped updating the app.

------
mikescandy
I guess the userbase is not worth investing. (As a Windows phone user, this is
something I hear quite often)

------
Shorel
I'm glad it still works.

Web skype is my fail-safe, but of course it will have no audio or video.

------
_pmf_
> Skype keeps ignoring people who complain or are having issues with Linux
> client

All 234 of them!

~~~
orbitingpluto
All 234 of them... who are left?

------
shmerl
Don't complain. Ditch it.

------
mindo
I'm surprised M$ haven't killed skype like the next day they bought it as they
often do when they buy/take over companies and their products.

Skype is actually the only M$ product I use, and I would be more than happy to
move to anything else as long as there would be a good alternative to it...

~~~
txdv
How do they get $ with killing a product? Currently they are placing freaking
annoying ads in Skype for freeloaders.

~~~
mindo
I doubt ads is the main source of revenue. They do sell DIDs, VOIP calls to
landline phones and mobiles (with insane rates) so ads (only in few countries)
doesn't account for much.

M$ bought lots of companies before, that eventually came to EOL even though
they were doing pretty well before M$ bought them, it's not particularly about
the skype (even though we see it gets worse over the time).

------
cevaris
At this point isnt't like asking Microsoft to port over Word to Linux?

------
PaulHoule
Skype is getting pretty bad on windows too. Try it on a PlayStation vita.

------
moonbug
The only good communications program MS has ever produced is Comic Chat.

------
jaimehrubiks
Skype was a grate sofware, now it is just a sad and buggy software

------
stuaxo
I took a call on it an hour ago, seems to be working fine ?

------
kempe
Skype always crashes when you log of a windows machine.

------
sbose78
If you are using for work, I would recommend HipChat !

------
superskierpat
Cant wait for the various tox clients to stabilize.

------
betimsl
I'm a Linux user and I don't sign that.

------
mnml_
Facebook for work will be #1 in a few years

------
andreapaiola
Obviously... It's Microsoft...

------
ddade
OK, Google Voice it is, then.

------
Ace17
Time to switch to Tox-im!

------
aurelien
ignore skype and use ekiga.

------
rhabarba
How many Linux issues are required before people stop using Linux?

~~~
raimue
How many angry customers are required before companies start supporting Linux?

