(Non Open Source) What s your impression concerning Skype for Linux ?

[patrick295767]

(Non Open Source Skype) What s your impression concerning Skype for Linux ?



Regards,

Patrick

[InsomniacUK]

It works, but boy is it uuuuuuugly. [/lion king]

[.t.]

I refuse to use it. The protocols and application are both closed, inhibiting use and innovation.

[Klaidas]

I refuse to use it. The protocols and application are both closed, inhibiting use and innovation.

http://www.bash.org/?65579

Ok, as for skype... Works, but... doesn't feel as good as in Windows.

[Patrick K.]

Sense when did Eyecandy be an important aspect of Linux? If it works it works, if it doesn't work it doesn't work. I would rather it be less flashy then it already is on Linux. I like my applications to be simple and straight forwarded. Skype does a pretty decent job of it. Gizmo is even more eyecandy then Skype is. However I may switch for features skype doens't have like currently Gizmo lets you put people on hold with boring music. I want to drive people nuts with that. hehehe *Evil grin*.

[PryGuy]

Just ask yourself what is better, having an application ported to Linux or not? I think it is good having any application doesn't matter if it's open source or not. It's just here and it makes it easier to switch to Linux and kiss ******* goodbye completely.

I don't use Skype personally and not going to, yet you are free to install it or not if you do not like it. Yet I do not like it's made for KDE...

[sweemeng]

i have no problem having non foss on linux. as long it is actively maintained for linux. the argument for free software among many is, it released fast, and sadly proprietary software fail in this, for linux and other non windows OS anyway.

remember flash 8 for linux, ooo wait, there is no flash 8 for linux, we have to stuck with flash 7. until flash 9 is out anyway. remember yahoo messenger for unix, yup not maintained.

with free software we can accommodate other OS and include windows, but if left to commercial world, it will based on market share.

to be honest if there is choice between free and non free software, i will choose free software, but if free version don't exist, i have no problem using it, as long it work for my OS, the price is reasonable, and not too restrictive licensing(the same reason why i don't use windows).

maybe one day some of the commercial software vendor, will use free license, then it is best to everyone.

[az]

Just ask yourself what is better, having an application ported to Linux or not? I think it is good having any application doesn't matter if it's open source or not.

But one of the strengths of Ubuntu is that it is free-libre software. You are not running a black box that can spy on you, you have access to the source code and the right to look at it, change it and redistribute those changes if you want.

Now this may not appeal to everyone, but software freedom is nothing to shake a stick at.

It's just here and it makes it easier to switch to Linux and kiss ******* goodbye completely.

If Ubuntu was proprietary, why switch to it? How would it be different from windows?

I don't use Skype personally and not going to, yet you are free to install it or not if you do not like it. Yet I do not like it's made for KDE...

It is not made for KDE, it just uses the QT libraries. However, you are right - if it was open source, there could be a skype client written using any toolkit.

[PryGuy]

If Ubuntu was proprietary, why switch to it? How would it be different from windows?

We are talking about Skype not Ubuntu. Why isn't it possible to run the proprietary Skype under the open source Ubuntu?

[patrick295767]

We are talking about Skype not Ubuntu. Why isn't it possible to run the proprietary Skype under the open source Ubuntu?

Certainly because UBUNTU would have to pay for licence just to get the Properties of VOIP-Protocol-make-By-SKYPE