5 ms·

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

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.

limmeau 15y ago
The other point was using bandwidth. If you run Skype on a well-connected computer, you can't decide whether you want to become a big Skype relay node for your part of the world; Skype decides that for you.
- p4bl0 15y ago
  Yep. And that's why (with the closed protocol) Skype is forbidden on the whole French university and research network (RENATER).
p4bl0 15y ago
The word "evil" is too strong, I agree. But even if people continue to use Windows, at least they could use a software with an open protocol for their communications, not something with which you don't know what some company do with your data. Disclaimer: I'm guilty myself since I use facebook for instance.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - p4bl0 15y ago
    English is not my natural language, I didn't knew that "guilt" is such a strong word. What I meant is that I say and think that it's much better to use open protocol and free software, in particular for (possibly private) communications, but that I know that it's not easy to do so when virtually everyone is using the same "wrong" (or maybe it's another too-strong word) thing. This is why I said that I'm using facebook, to nuance my comment.
shubble 15y ago
This presentation: http://goo.gl/hgkea 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 15y ago
  I wonder what would happen if Microsoft open sourced the protocol and parts of the client.
  - ZeSmith 15y ago
    A PR boost for them, at least. Can't tell if it would be a good thing in the end, though.
- pyre 15y ago
  > Skype, and arguably facebook, control their markets. Facebook users have invested a lot of time forming their social connections, posting photos, tagging photos, etc. On the other hand, most Skype users just have a buddy list and people that they talk to. There is no 'anchor' keeping them from jumping ship to another client/protocol (or even running that client/protocol in parallel with Skype). Skype is not the anti-trust that you are looking for.

limmeau 15y ago

The other point was using bandwidth. If you run Skype on a well-connected computer, you can't decide whether you want to become a big Skype relay node for your part of the world; Skype decides that for you.

p4bl0 15y ago
Yep. And that's why (with the closed protocol) Skype is forbidden on the whole French university and research network (RENATER).

p4bl0 15y ago

The word "evil" is too strong, I agree. But even if people continue to use Windows, at least they could use a software with an open protocol for their communications, not something with which you don't know what some company do with your data. Disclaimer: I'm guilty myself since I use facebook for instance.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- p4bl0 15y ago
  English is not my natural language, I didn't knew that "guilt" is such a strong word. What I meant is that I say and think that it's much better to use open protocol and free software, in particular for (possibly private) communications, but that I know that it's not easy to do so when virtually everyone is using the same "wrong" (or maybe it's another too-strong word) thing. This is why I said that I'm using facebook, to nuance my comment.

shubble 15y ago

This presentation: http://goo.gl/hgkea 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 15y ago
I wonder what would happen if Microsoft open sourced the protocol and parts of the client.
- ZeSmith 15y ago
  A PR boost for them, at least. Can't tell if it would be a good thing in the end, though.
pyre 15y ago
> Skype, and arguably facebook, control their markets. Facebook users have invested a lot of time forming their social connections, posting photos, tagging photos, etc. On the other hand, most Skype users just have a buddy list and people that they talk to. There is no 'anchor' keeping them from jumping ship to another client/protocol (or even running that client/protocol in parallel with Skype). Skype is not the anti-trust that you are looking for.