Dear Skype/Microsoft: Problems with Linux client - <AUTHOR> http://nickforall.nl/skype/ <comment><USER3> 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" ;-)

<comment><USER4> _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.. :)

<comment><USER5> > 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.

<comment><USER6> > 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?

<comment><USER5> > 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.

<comment><USER7> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 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/)

<comment><USER9> 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.

<comment><USER10> >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.

<comment><USER11> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 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.

<comment><USER13> 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

<comment><USER14> > 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

<comment><USER15> >> 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

<comment><USER16> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 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...

<comment><USER18> In the end to the end user "linux sucks" because skype sucks on linux.

<comment><USER19> 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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> 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.

<comment><USER21> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> 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.

<comment><USER23> > 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.

<comment><USER24> Ring.CX sounds like it would be a sex-chat phone line, ... Shouldn't matter but it does, it's the GIMP effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> 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!

<comment><USER26> 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?

<comment><USER27> 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.

<comment><USER28> >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.

<comment><USER27> 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.

<comment><USER28> >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.

<comment><USER27> 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"...

<comment><USER28> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> 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.

<comment><USER30> I use tox[1] with my family and some friends.

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

<comment><USER31> 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 :-(

<comment><USER32> [https://tox.chat/clients.html](https://tox.chat/clients.html)

<comment><USER30> and much more details [https://wiki.tox.chat/clients#features](https://wiki.tox.chat/clients#features)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> 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.

<comment><USER34> 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.

<comment><USER35> 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)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> 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.

<comment><USER37> > 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 - <USER2> minute until it updates with the latest messages.

<comment><USER36> 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...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> 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.

</comment><comment><USER38> 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.

<comment><USER39> Absolutely!

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

<comment><USER40> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 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.

<comment><USER11> > _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.

<comment><USER42> > 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.

<comment><USER41> 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.

<comment><USER42> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> 46 active contacts and 12 blocked account in my Skype 184.108.40.206 (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.

<comment><USER44> 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!

<comment><USER43> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> 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.

<comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER47> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> 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?

<comment><USER49> Google Hangouts is a great alternative. It only needs a browser, too.

<comment><USER48> ...and a Google account - which not everyone has / wants.

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

<comment><USER50> 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).

<comment><USER51> It depends on the video driver.

<comment><USER50> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> 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.

<comment><USER53> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> 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.

<comment><USER55> Doesn't work for me on Linux (I can't make calls).

<comment><USER54> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> 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)

<comment><USER57> Cool, but the power of Skype isn't the VOIP part, it's that others use it want to call you.

<comment><USER56> 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.

<comment><USER58> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> 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.

<comment><USER33> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> 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.

</comment><comment><USER48> > 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.

<comment><USER61> join existing calls, not initiate new ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> It's not just the Linux client. The Windows client has terrible usability issues too.

<comment><USER63> 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...

<comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER63> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> > _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.

</comment><comment><USER65> 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/)

</comment><comment><USER66> Meet Jitsi...

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

It's a nice FOSS alternative for group calling.

<comment><USER67> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> The Linux client is pretty disappointing, to be honest. The only reason I keep using Skype is because of friends using it.

<comment><USER69> 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.

<comment><USER68> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> 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?

<comment><USER71> 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?

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> 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.

</comment><comment><USER73> 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.

</comment><comment><USER74> Why people use Skype is beyond me.

<comment><USER75> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> 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/)

</comment><comment><USER77> 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.

</comment><comment><USER78> 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.

<comment><USER79> I like the 90s UI :/

Better than all this modern crap

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> 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.

</comment><comment><USER81> And this is a surprise?

<comment><USER82> Of course it is. Did you already forget that Microsoft <3's Linux? That the world has completely changed since Nadella joined Microsoft?

<comment><USER83> _Embraces_ Linux.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> 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?!

</comment><comment><USER85> 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?

<comment><USER64> "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).

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> 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.

</comment><comment><USER87> 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.

</comment><comment><USER88> 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.

<comment><USER89> Have you tried appear.in ? It doesn't require an account and it allows screensharing also.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> 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.

</comment><comment><USER91> Great! I hope this way less and less people will expect me to use skype.

</comment><comment><USER92> Good. The sooner Skype ends, the better.

</comment><comment><USER93> 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?

</comment><comment> 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.

</comment><comment> 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.

</comment><comment><USER94> 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...

</comment><comment><USER95> 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

</comment><comment><USER96> 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).

</comment><comment><USER97> 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.

</comment><comment><USER98> 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.

</comment><comment><USER99> 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.

</comment><comment><USER100> 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.

</comment><comment><USER101> The reality is that, Skype is a kind of software that is better to use Windows version + WINE than native Linux version.

<comment><USER102> And even then, the Windows version is shit too so we should just be switching to a different service.

<comment><USER101> Sounds good and I would love to do that. But there is no real alternative of Skype right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> 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/)

</comment><comment><USER104> 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.

</comment><comment><USER105> 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?

</comment><comment><USER106> It's time to simply abandon this sucker. It won't be easy, but I hope better alternative will emerge.

</comment><comment><USER107> 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_.

<comment><USER108> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> 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...

</comment><comment><USER110> 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.

</comment><comment><USER111> 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.

<comment><USER112> 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.

<comment><USER111> I don't think I can do this without source access to skype, unless I'm missing something?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> 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.

</comment><comment><USER114> 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.

<comment><USER115> 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.

<comment><USER114> That's the thing. VoIP -> VoIP is perfect. They really need to choose better PSTNs in that case.

<comment><USER115> 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.

<comment><USER114> Interestingly enough it's been mostly lineline numbers that I've had problems calling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> Thank you very much for sharing, we're overwhelmed by all the tweets.

</comment><comment><USER117> 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.

<comment><USER118> Wanna code an alternative then

<comment><USER8> 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)

<comment><USER118> 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.

<comment><USER8> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER119> 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.

</comment><comment><USER120> 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

</comment><comment><USER121> 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)

<comment><USER109> 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).

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> 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...

<comment><USER123> [https://zoom.us](https://zoom.us) is not bad, from my experience

</comment></comment><comment><USER124> I've been complaining since Nov last year without any result. It's terrible and I really hope Skype will do something about it.

</comment><comment><USER125> 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.

</comment><comment><USER126> How well does video chatting work within the browser nowadays? If it works well, then I would say Skype's days are numbered.

</comment><comment><USER127> Not sure if they fixed it in the meantime, but it work for me right now with client version 126.96.36.199.

</comment><comment><USER128> MacOS is also a competidor and I don't have any issues with it neither Skype has stopped updating the app.

</comment><comment><USER129> I guess the userbase is not worth investing. (As a Windows phone user, this is something I hear quite often)

</comment><comment><USER130> I'm glad it still works.

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

</comment><comment><USER131> > Skype keeps ignoring people who complain or are having issues with Linux > client

All 234 of them!

<comment><USER132> All 234 of them... who are left?

</comment></comment><comment><USER133> Don't complain. Ditch it.

</comment><comment><USER108> 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...

<comment><USER18> How do they get $ with killing a product? Currently they are placing freaking annoying ads in Skype for freeloaders.

<comment><USER108> 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).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER134> At this point isnt't like asking Microsoft to port over Word to Linux?

</comment><comment><USER135> Skype is getting pretty bad on windows too. Try it on a PlayStation vita.

</comment><comment><USER136> The only good communications program MS has ever produced is Comic Chat.

</comment><comment><USER120> Skype was a grate sofware, now it is just a sad and buggy software

</comment><comment><USER96> I took a call on it an hour ago, seems to be working fine ?

</comment><comment><USER137> Skype always crashes when you log of a windows machine.

</comment><comment><USER138> If you are using for work, I would recommend HipChat !

</comment><comment><USER139> Cant wait for the various tox clients to stabilize.

</comment><comment><USER140> I'm a Linux user and I don't sign that.

</comment><comment><USER141> Facebook for work will be #1 in a few years

</comment><comment><USER142> Obviously... It's Microsoft...

</comment><comment><USER143> OK, Google Voice it is, then.

</comment><comment><USER144> Time to switch to Tox-im!

</comment><comment><USER145> ignore skype and use ekiga.

</comment><comment><USER146> How many Linux issues are required before people stop using Linux?

<comment><USER147> How many angry customers are required before companies start supporting Linux?</comment></comment>


Google plays ball with carriers to kill tethering apps - <AUTHOR> http://thisismynext.com/2011/05/02/verizons-removal-tethering-apps-android-market-shame-fcc-violation/

<comment><USER2> The Galaxy S goes beyond tethering and has a Mobile AP feature which just turns the phone into a wifi access point that runs NAT in front of the 3g modem.

People I know who still have 'unlimited' data plans have used this for weeks to provide internet to their whole household in the absence of working cable.

I assume this feature is removed in the US carrier-modified firmware builds?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I did that on Verizon one time when our DSL went out for a few days. I got a bill for $700 in overages. Sprint is better, it's about $30/mo. for unlimited (yes, actually unlimited) tethering.

<comment><USER4> Last I checked Sprint 3G had a 5GB/m limit while 4G is actually unlimited.

<comment><USER3> Nope, Verizon has a 5 GB limit, but I've had Sprint tethering for 6 months and they've never charged me an overage. But I'm not in a 4G market, maybe the rules are different there?

<comment><USER4> Looks like the 5GB cap is for data only devices.

> 3G: 5GB while on network and 300 MB while off network.

[http://shop2.sprint.com/en/solutions/mobile_broadband/mobile...](http://shop2.sprint.com/en/solutions/mobile_broadband/mobile_broadband_4G.shtml)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't that new; PDANet has been blocked on AT&T in this manner for at least a year (from my experience having tried to download it when I first got an N1). Searching for it in the Market yielded nothing when an AT&T SIM was in the phone.

On my N1 the easy solution to the block was just to power down the phone, pull the SIM, then access the market over wifi. All those carrier blocked apps suddenly reappeared. I don't know if carrier locked phones still "remember" their carrier when you pull the SIM, though, and in any case I guess you're stuck with sideloading on those non-LTE Verizon devices where there's no SIM to remove.

<comment><USER6> Another possible work-around is Amazon's App store. That's where I purchased EasyTeather Pro. Are the carriers/Google going to force all App stores to bend to their whims?

<comment><USER5> AT&T's app sideloading ban makes Amazon's app store moot at present, and it certainly puts AT&T in a bargaining position to request Amazon implement these carrier specific blocks too if Amazon wants access to all these AT&T devices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Tethering is built into Android from Version 2.3 (or even 2.3), no marketplace apps needed.

Anyway, I don't understand what Google is supposed to do if carriers choose to disable it. Maybe customers should be looking into other carriers if they don't like the way their carriers conduct business.

<comment><USER8> It was there in "stock" 2.2 as well, on the Nexus One --- but disabled in almost all carrier builds.

And Google does have some leverage, if they choose to use it, in the Market compatibility requirements --- there are minimum requirements for both hardware and software if you want to get the Market, or Google's other proprietary apps. (Which, say, the Nook Color flunks --- no camera.) It might be a bridge too far for some of the carriers, but from the outside, it's not obvious that they're trying.

(And looking for other carriers is not a hugely practical option in an environment where there are basically four, and the one with the most generally consumer-friendly policies, T-mobile, is up for buyout by the one with the least, AT&T, which is the only one to ban sideloading altogether.)

<comment><USER7> Not sure if access to the market is much of a leverage. I think most players in the mobile game seek to establish their own markets anyway. The phone makers certainly do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why do carriers care if I'm accessing my paid-for data via the phone's interface or a tethered computer? It makes no sense to me.

<comment><USER10> The real reason is that for years they have overcharged corporate customers for tethering plans and they don't want to lose that revenue. Same reason why sms is so expensive per GB, basically because they can.

<comment><USER11> Actually while SMS messages are overcharged for, especially messages that pass between international boundaries, on pre 3G networks they are far more of a burden on the network than you would imagine which means the networks have a vested interesting in keeps the numbers being sent down a little. See [http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/10/sms_denialofse...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/10/sms_denialofser_1.html) for some details on a theoretical DoS attack based on this limitation. While I believe this has been addressed with newer transmission protocols like UMTS there are still a lot of phones out there using the 2G infrastructure either because the phone is old or because they are being used in an area that has no good 3G availability.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for the details but I think it backs up my contention, as the networks are all upgraded the companies are trying to maintain the old sms prices without technical justification.

<comment><USER11> I'm not disagreeing with you as such (SMS pricing is definitely OTT, especially cross-border given that the transmission between countries and providers is not limited by the 2G per-cell control channel bandwidth), but they currently have account for the fact that a chunk of their subscribers will be sending via the older (limited throughput) method rather than the newer one(s). My phone is capable of everything that is commonly "out there", but right now it is playing at being a 2G handset as the 3G signal is lousy out here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why is this even a surprise? Why is everyone saying it's an open vs close issue? The TOS clearly states that apps that utilize high bandwidth is a violation. Google hasn't enforced this strongly but it is against their TOS. It's the same as in Google banning porn-related material. This is not anything special.

Of course Gruber jumps on the course saying it's against their open nature, but please, at least most users (besides some AT&T handsets) can still go and just install the app from a website.

<comment><AUTHOR> Which TOS are you referring to? The Android Marketplace TOS? Could you please point to the section of the TOS that mentions this? I find it very strange that the marketplace would be concerned about an application's bandwidth usage.

<comment><USER12> (f) is deemed by Google to have a virus or is deemed to be malware, spyware or have an adverse impact on Google's or an Authorized Carrier's network;

Using the network's bandwidth to tether (since you didn't pay extra for it or is not authorized to) is deemed as having an adverse impact on the carrier's network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> With any luck, Google has negotiated for something in return that will benefit end-users. Namely, that these carriers (ahem... Verizon) will agree to always offer the latest pure Google experience device.

Most likely, Google has negotiated something that advances better/broader net access over the long-term - as this would also align with their own business interests. It's difficult to believe that threats alone could have forced Google's hand.

As far as tethering goes, this seems to be exactly what the spectrum auction reserve price was designed to protect. Second, tethering apps can still be installed, just not via market. While this may be a minor inconvenience, I'm not all that concerned. Big picture/long-term, ubiquitous network access will be critical enough to the global economy, individual health and national security that it will no longer make sense to keep in the hands of private corporate interests within the current regulatory structure.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm not sure this matters much. To use one of these apps you have to root your phone. Anyone who knows to do that knows you can sideload apks.

Average consumers, who don't have the slightest clue what rooting is or why they'd want to do it, just use the tethering app installed by the carrier, or nothing at all.

<comment><USER15> this isnt exactly true. I just purchased the Optimus V for use on virgin mobile and all I need to download from the market was an app called quick settings. I was than able to tether w/o even needing to be rooted

<comment><USER14> How is that possible? Was it USB tethering or something?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> <http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1416#c150> states that Bluetooth PAN is in Honeycomb.

Since Android 2.2 I've been able to use my Google Nexus One as a WiFi hotspot so that my laptops can use it's data connection.

</comment><comment> texas-saluki I think it is one thing for AT&T to not want to allow these apps but when Google blocks them based that I am on one network vs another is a problem.

In my case I have a N1 so not an issue as of now, but in the future rooting is the way to go...unless it is eliminated from the ASOP code.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is actually really old news. This story on it is from 2 years ago: [http://androidcommunity.com/android-tethering-apps-pulled- fr...](http://androidcommunity.com/android-tethering-apps-pulled-from- market-20090331/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Isn't bidding without intention to actually complete the deal market abuse? It certainly is in financial markets. As in, jail time.

<comment><USER19> I don't think there is any evidence that Google would not have paid up if they had won with their low bid, they just had no intention of winning the auction. They were confidant someone would pay more. Is that illegal in financial markets?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can someone explain why the carriers even care? Bandwidth is bandwidth; isn't it?

<comment><USER21> Price discrimination. Some people are willing to pay more while others aren't. If you can find a way to charge extra to those that will pay more, or less to those that can't afford it at the higher price, without letting people jump between tariffs to make a mockery of your scheme then you can increase your total profit _and_ better serve your customer base. You can use the same system to more efficiently gouge a captive audience as well though.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> is there a source for the claim?

<comment><USER23> I don't know where it's coming from, but I can no longer get the market to install a couple tethering apps that I once could (US, Verizon, original Droid).

I'm rooted, so it doesn't matter, but this is definitely happening.

<comment><USER24> In fact, something most forget about android, you don't even need to be rooted to still install the applications, just download them from the companies website and you can install on your own. Unless you're on AT&T, who disabled that choice on their phones.

<comment><USER23> That's true, but this article is specifically about the Android market limiting access, and I was reporting my experience with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The carries hold all the cards really, and their power is only to get bigger and more consolidated.

</comment><comment><USER26> Looks like Google is becoming more and more closed as the day goes on. Where is your open-source god now?

<comment><USER27> > Where is your open-source god now?

OT, but that raises an interesting question. Could you have an open source god? What would a religion be like if its holy texts were a wiki, that any believer could edit?

<comment><USER28> Lots of forks, as in Protestant churches (<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Gereformeerd.svg> really starts to look like a history of Unix)

Of these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite_Church_in_the_Netherl...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite_Church_in_the_Netherlands) probably would be popular; every church member writes his own confession when joining the church.</comment></comment></comment>


Digg: Recommendation Engine rolling out this week - <AUTHOR> http://blog.digg.com/?p=127 <comment><AUTHOR> I guess nobody cares about digg any more, but imagine if they can make it work, and apply to comments too</comment>


Modulz - Create a beautiful site for your startup in minutes - <AUTHOR> http://www.modulz.co

<comment><USER2> Looks pretty cool. Hopefully works awesome too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice, it's like a cut down twitter bootstrap</comment>


Why I can't call myself a gamer anymore - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/why_i_cant_call_myself_a_gamer_anymore/

<comment><USER2> This is pretty much flamebait, but I'll chime in anyway.

I'm all for every sexual orientation, but if someone makes a tame joke about transgenders, who the f * * k cares? We make jokes about straight people all the time. My friends who are gay make jokes about gay people. Stop treating everything like its holy ground, and learn to laugh at a joke, whether or not it targets your minority or majority class. Do you really want to live in a perfectly politically correct world where nobody can make a joke about anything because they might offend somebody? As George Carlin said:

"I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."

That said, dissociating yourself with gamers because many of them have a juvenile sense of humor is kind of silly. It is like saying "I am going to stop calling myself a movie watcher because half of all movie watchers like straight male-oriented action movies."

Edit: Uh oh, hit the beehive. To clarify, there is a very clear difference between hatred and joking, most people can make the distinction. I understand the trauma that a lot of orientations go through (I have watched my friend's parents disown him for being gay and read the countless stories of people being murdered for being whatever orientation). Nonetheless, I do not believe at all in censorship and I never will. I do believe in being polite and respecting others. Humor is a way of bridging gaps, hatred or making fun of somebody cruelly is a different beast.

<comment><USER3> > Stop treating everything like its holy ground, and learn to laugh at a joke, > whether or not it targets your minority or majority class.

The main reason people get upset about transphobic jokes isn't that they don't have a sense of humor. It's because trans people are disproportionately targeted by violence because of their orientation. People get beat up, people get killed.

This is pretty serious, and a lot of people think part of the problem is a cultural sense that demeaning trans people is ok. You can call them "it", or a "thing".

These people aren't going to be mad if you make a joke around your trans friends. But they see it as a problem when a whole generation of 12-13 year olds are being culturally conditioned to treat trans people as lesser, as an other, etc.

Not to mention the effect this culture has on young trans kids. They already have a much much higher risk of suicide than the average person. Change has to start somewhere.

<comment><USER4> Having grown up as a gay teenager in the 90s, I don't really remember having had my bones broken by any jokes people made about me. I did get my ass kicked pretty good a few times, but in those cases, it wasn't words doing the damage.

Conflating jokes with beatings, and assuming that incidence of one has an effect on incidence of the other, does no good for anyone subject to either -- I also don't remember, in any of the cases where people beat the shit out of me, wishing someone would step in to stop them making _jokes_ about me.

I'm also curious: What about kids who get beat up, not because they're gay or trans or what-have-you, but just because they're nerds? I was one of those, too, as it happens, and that bought me more beatings than being gay ever did. Those beatings are of less concern, in the realm of social justice, than the ones I got for being gay. Why? Certainly the latter didn't hurt worse than the former, nor did it particularly matter to _me_ which was which.

Based on that experience, it seems to me less reasonable to consider that the reasons behind any given beating are the problem, than that the _beatings_ are the problem; worrying specifically about gay kids getting beaten, or trans kids getting beaten, or what-have-you, seems roughly as risible as worrying specifically about guns being used to kill people, rather than about people killing each other.

<comment><USER5> > Having grown up as a gay teenager in the 90s, I don't really remember having > had my bones broken by any jokes people made about me. I did get my ass > kicked pretty good a few times, but in those cases, it wasn't words doing > the damage.

Do you not think that words contributed to the atmosphere of oppression that made it easier for others to stand by and do nothing or think you deserved it somehow? Or that it doesn't have the effect of tearing someone down mentally? If someone is hurt by the things someone says, is it the victim's fault for letting it get to them?

Why can't people just be nice to each other? Why can't we just start from that? Why can't we as a society frown on that sort of bullying behavior instead of insisting that it's the victims who should take two "life experience" pills and get over it?

<comment><USER4> You seem to be missing my point entirely. Of course hearing nasty jokes about me hurt! How could it be otherwise? But if the problem is that I'm being beaten for the same reason that people are making nasty jokes about me, I don't see how spending effort on stopping people making the jokes does more to solve the problem than would spending the same effort on stopping people doing the beating.

> Why can't people just be nice to each other?

Because human nature frequently requires otherwise.

> Why can't we just start from that?

Because it doesn't work; see above for why.

> Why can't we as a society frown on that sort of bullying behavior instead of > insisting that it's the victims who should take two "life experience" pills > and get over it?

I'm arguing that it's precisely that behavior on which the utopians should focus, instead of generating a lot of hot air on the subject of harsh language.

And it's pretty rich, I think, for you to be suggesting to me that I'm blaming the victim. I've _been_ that victim, thank you very much, and it is in precisely that experience that my arguments on this subject find their motivation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _As Parkin points out, the term "gamer" is idiotic. We don't call movie fans "moviers" or literature enthusiasts "bookers."_

There are various terms for both. Bookworms, cinephiles, movie buffs, bibliophiles.

Maybe if it's a "branding" problem, of sorts, using other words would work, like ludophile, but it doesn't avoid the fact there are cores of enthusiasts for most (all?) media.

<comment><USER7> Ludophile I would think of as a (pretentious) board gamer rather than videogamer.

<comment><USER6> This ties into the "branding" thing. That's what the term could instantly make you think of, but really it has no specific connotation. (A bit like how to some it seems "gamer" gives off a certain vibe, when no such vibe is intrinsic to it.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Perhaps the author would also like to stop calling themselves a person. I mean, there's no reason to half-ass this sort of thing. Many evil deeds have been committed by people, each calling themselves a person.

Failing that, perhaps the author would like to stop pigeon-holing the entirety of gaming for every single misstep committed by someone that happens to play games or that takes place in a gaming context.

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord It's funny the author mentions "transphobia", given the existence of many postmodern feminists who are openly against transsexuals.

But ignoring that, the problem is that this article adds baggage to the term "gamer" when there isn't any. A gamer is a person who has a passion for playing games (usually video games). That's it.

Might as well stop calling ourselves programmers, because after all, programmer culture is horribly misogynistic and oppressive.

<comment><USER9> > It's funny the author mentions "transphobia", given the existence of many > postmodern feminists who are openly against transsexuals.

Also known as the "fuck you, I got mine" variant of feminism.

<comment> vezzy-fnord One that is nonetheless relatively popular. For all intents and purposes, they aren't any different from the other postmodern feminists which pervade contemporary feminist discourse on the web, in all other aspects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is stupid. The article claims the term gamer itself isn't appropriate but the examples it provides are wrong. People who enjoy films may often be called film buffs or even more generically movie goers. People who enjoy reading may be referred to as book worms. Deciding to reject them doesn't really mean anything. The term gamer is not the problem.

If this article was more about rejecting sexist and racist language and behavior in gaming I'd agree with it. However I think these problems are more a factor of age and maturity than anything else. Play in a gaming community where the average age is 20+ and you'll find a more tolerable environment.

</comment><comment><USER11> I want to see someone write an article entitled "Why I can't call myself a journalist anymore" and then blame Salon for articles like this.

</comment><comment><USER12> This piece is less about gamers and more about the failures of online 'communities.'

The interesting thing about the Internet is how utterly unaccountable people want to be for what they say. Just _try_ mentioning that people should be held responsible for things they say. Anytime you even suggest the state of online discourse is abysmal, there are five people who show up to tell you that it's perfectly fine, and the problem lies with you for noticing it.

It's like there's a culture of acquiescing to perceived social norms (in this case, mediocrity), lest you speak up and be expelled.

<comment><USER13> > Just try mentioning that people should be held responsible for things they > say.

I have the right to free speech. If I say I think trans is a psychological condition treated by therapy instead of surgery or whatever politically incorrect thing might be the enemy of popular thought today, I shouldn't be put up in some discrimination court because someone was offended by my views. I also should have the right to publish my thoughts anonymously.

Long story short, political correctness is just censorship. While I certainly don't like hateful on-line communities, I think your suggestion to make people "accountable" for speech is only something that can lead to real human rights violations instead of perceived slights from overly touchy people.

Try criticizing Islam in the middle-east. There's accountable speech there. Why are westerners obsessed with bringing these horrific limitations on speech to the west? Free speech transcends being offended.

<comment><USER12> This is less about free speech and more about setting zero tolerance for outright hate speech. Accountability here is being banned from games/discussions. This doesn't apply to society in the large.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd prefer to take the term back than to give it up, personally. Gaming culture used to be better than this, and if we can kick the fratcore back to the fringes whence they came, it can be better again.

<comment><USER4> Consoles aren't going anywhere, though, and their low barrier to entry means they're going to have a larger share than PC gaming for as long as they're around.

<comment><USER14> I'm not so sure consoles are the problem. XBox Live gets a lot of heat, and deserves it, but most of the fratcore's market strongholds don't have their roots in consoles. FPS, MMO, and sandboxes all have famous PC roots, while technical fighters got their start in the arcades. Madden is really the only one the consoles can claim, and then only arguably: the first Madden wasn't released on consoles, but the consoles were where it really took off.

That's why I'm reluctant to point the finger at consoles. The problematic franchises and strongholds have their roots elsewhere, and continue to start in these places, only coming to consoles later. If anything, consoles' low barrier to entry makes them more a part of the solution, not the problem: simply put, we need new blood, and lots of it.

<comment><USER4> How does the fact, that console gamers on average consistently behave much worse in the manner under discussion than PC gamers do, implicate the origins of various franchises as the problem, and consoles as the solution?

<comment><USER15> counter-example: EVE Online.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This "article" is but a mere click/flamebait, the likes of Kotaku likes to post. Absolutely terrible. In fact, the whole Salon website is clickbaits and it's a shame to see this kind of stuff on the front page of HN.

There is a recent wave of so called "social justice warriors" (SJW) invading video game journalism and writing articles such as this one under the guise of "feminism" and other fringe movements because the feelings of transgender people are not respected, because it promotes "misogyny, transphobia and rape culture". Excuse me? I don't really know what kind of agenda they're trying to push other than trying to fabricate controversies where there were previously none (apart from the "video games make you violent" crowd, which everyone already dismissed).

What kind of bizarro world does the author live in - and from reading the article I assume he's a pretty casual gamer otherwise he wouldn't write such an unsavory article and call PAX the Woodstock of video games (an event that appeared in 2004) - that people call themselves gamers? No one I know calls himself a gamer and I've been playing video games since the 80's. Your identity is not driven by your hobby.

Protip: Just because your feelings were hurt, it doesn't mean you are right.

</comment><comment><USER17> _> We didn't even call video game players "gamers" until the fairly recent past. I certainly don't remember hearing the word "gamer" in the mid-'90s_

Gamer originated in the 90s, in particular round-about 1996 with Quake, but well before that too with other games. A gamer was someone who packed up their big computer and lugged around a monitor in their car to a LAN party. There were plenty of girls around too, however they were mostly girlfriends and sisters.

The strange rape-approving culture and other terms such as 'gg', came about because of two factors (I think, anyway). First, most people involved were generally high school or university students, and if you've been to a boys high school party then you shouldn't be surprised. Secondly, you generally sat around in a large hallway and the games let you use text chat. It was amusing at the time to talk congenially with your friend next to you and then send him a text message about raping because most of the people didn't even know what rape was. You generally saw complete shock if a younger player who was sending messages about rape was actually told what it was. It was probably the novelty of real time text communication. 1337 speak was also very popular around the time for the same reason - it helped to cement who was 'in the know' in the community.

Gaming itself was very much a meritocracy. People at the top of the kill board were the popular ones and people listened to them, and these people would generally travel around to other lan parties and pick up the 'rape culture' from them, and then it would spread at more lan parties when these knowledgeable players talked about it. Standard social dynamics, I guess.

<comment><USER18> > Gamer originated in the 90s, in particular round-about 1996 with Quake

This just isn't true at all. Kids who played Dungeons & Dragons and other games were "gamers" in the 80s, and probably before.

The term only entered the mainstream in the 90s when DOOM and Quake made PC gaming a mainstream activity.

<comment><USER17> I'd say the term got re-used. It felt like a different subculture to me at the time. The people involved in D&D/tabletop gaming were generally not the same people at lan parties as well. I don't think joining the current gaming culture to the D&D/tabletop culture is entirely correct...

<comment><USER18> In my case and most of the people I knew, it was the same people. It depends on your generation, I suppose. But everyone I knew who was into D&D was also into computers and computer games. I'd challenge you to find someone who was into D&D and NOT into computers and computer games.

<comment><USER17> There were a lot at the time. Computers for playing games were expensive and lan parties tended to take a whole weekend including sleeping there, while D&D was more relaxed and was just a couple hours in the evening.

I'd still say the culture was vastly different though. A few people sitting around a board rolling dice was just a completely different social interaction to a hundred people in a noisy hall. There also wasn't the same level of 'scoreboard hero' in tabletop games that arose during Doom/Quake.

I guess I'm actually talking more about 'quake culture' than gaming culture at the time, but it's actually that 'quake culture' which has gone mainstream rather than the 80s gaming culture which is still around today. Without the lan parties and quake, you wouldn't have the 'rape culture' they talk about and that's why I'm saying the two are something different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> His examples aren't problems with gamer culture, they're problems with a mass media culture that stereotypes gamers as basement-dwelling neckbeards, and has decided the best way to market to them is T&A.

</comment><comment><USER20> This really is idiotic to me. It seems increasingly popular for someone to take a minority position and then complain about how they are oppressed by the media, or game companies or whatever. The entire argument is pointless. It assumes that 'gamer culture' is somehow imposed by the industry, which is just utter bullshit. The video game industry, like virtually any other, exists to serve it's customers. The industry will do whatever it thinks it needs to do to appeal to it's customers. That's it.

</comment><comment><USER21> > As Parkin points out, the term "gamer" is idiotic. We don't call movie fans > "moviers" or literature enthusiasts "bookers."

We call people who read "readers", we call people who go to movies "movie- goers". Game isn't just a noun, it's a verb, and adding an "-r" or "-er" to the end of a verb is a common English way of turning that verb into a word that means "person who [verb]s". To suggest otherwise is idiotic.

</comment><comment><USER22> I blame consoles primarily, as it seemed the barrier for entry in the PC master race was always high enough to separate at least some of the wheat from the chaff.

It could also be rose coloured glasses, given that my last serious gaming (before coding ate up 12+ hours a day) was 5 years of Diablo II and CS:S followed by 6 years of Guildwars. I got out of all of this before COD/ BF and LOL were huge games.

I can say that I know far more brogamers rocking a PS/Xbox than PC's.

</comment><comment><USER23> My biggest issue with this article is that he isn't talking about speaking up for the acceptance of transgendered individuals. He is just stepping away from the word "gamer" and declaring himself on a moral highground

>Until then, not thinking of myself as a gamer is going to be a matter of conscious effort and avoidance of temptation, because it's just so easy to do otherwise.

This guy clearly thinks he is really brave, while not really doing much

</comment><comment><USER24> >Parkin feels that the idea of the "gaming community," and its endemic misogyny, transphobia and rape culture, all need to die, and by extension, anyone who has adopted an identity as a "gamer" needs to give it up.

Everyone I know who plays games isn't a misogynist, transphobic or makes jokes about rape.

>We don't call movie fans "moviers" or literature enthusiasts "bookers."

No we call them "Movie buffs" or "Book worms". Besides, this point really highlights an issue; shaking the word "gamer" won't change the behavior of some people in the community.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm a gamer, that means I play games.

I try not to be a jerk, but some people who play games do act like jerks. I am not going to give up my hobby or my identity because some people who have the share either act like jerks.

There is a subset of the gamer population which encourages players to act like jerks. The correct response is to build environments (games, communication channels, and communities) which inhibit and discourage negative behavior, not to abandon the field.

</comment><comment><USER26> Does it matter if you call your self gamer or not?

</comment><comment><USER18> I've been a gamer since I was a kid in the 80's. Being a "gamer" is not my identity, it's something I do. I'm also a home chef, a programmer and a husband. No one of these things identifies me entirely.

There's a lot of teenage males who play video games and consider "gamer" the entirety of their identity. This is because they haven't developed an actual personality yet. These are usually the people who are constantly slinging racial/homophobic epithets and flipping out whenever they encounter a girl online.

Their behavior does not affect how I view myself, or the hobbies I engage in. It has no bearing on whether I am a gamer or not. To say that it should or does is pretty stupid. It's like saying because Paula Deen is a racist I shouldn't identify myself as a home cook.

There are douchey people out there who engage in all hobbies. The correct response is not to pretend you don't enjoy your hobby or to damage your enjoyment of it. The correct response is to let these people know what douches they are and call them out to their face.

People like the author of this article are the problem as much as the immature, stupid kids are. Because when they encounter those kids acting awful online, they stay quiet and do nothing. You should stand up and call them out. When I run into racism in DotA 2 I tell the kids "Does being racist help cover up the fact that your parents are first cousins?" or when they engage in homophobic slurs I point out "The most homophobic people are usually the ones giving blow jobs in the airport bathroom." This usually shuts them up.

Pretending you don't play games, or stopping a hobby you enjoy is doing nothing but damaging yourself.</comment>


Apple will fight iOS bugs with first-ever iOS Public Betas - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2015/02/20/ios-9-public-beta/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+9To5Mac-MacAllDay+%289+to+5+Mac+-+Apple+Intelligence%29 <comment><USER2> Seems like a great plan, formalizing the well trodden and generally successful strategy of letting early adopters play with new tech early so that it's robust when mom and pop get their hands on it.</comment>