Tim: >> Skype's a lousy idea, for various reasons, and that's just one of them. Rick Stevens: > A blanket statement bound to generate flames if I ever saw one. I might > as well start the flame fest. > > I disagree, Tim. Skype is a good idea. There are bits that could be > done better, but parts of the service require quite a bit of capital > investment and there has to be a way to fund that. Subscriptions is > one way. I don't care if they run a service that people can pay for. What I do care about is a lockin/lockout system. Skype only talks to Skype. The same problem with various other VOIP systems; the proprietary ones only talk to their own. I've used a few VOIP systems that gave you no way to even dial anyone outside of their own system. Sure you can pay extra to get a PSTN number, but the other side might have to do the same thing, too. And just having one side *have* to do that, never mind both, obviates the purpose of using VOIP, in the first place. Which leaves you in the position that's stuffed us all around for a decade with instant messaging: Having to run multiple clients, or one multi-client (which never quite does the job well), because some of your contacts are on Yahoo, some on MSN, others on ICQ, etc., and you're unable to convince them all to switch to the same one. Many of them blissfully ignorant about what's wrong about that, and many of them don't give a damn. And good luck with the audio configuration issues of trying to get multiple VOIP systems working side by side. Skype tries to force everyone onto their system. And their system has plenty of other unsavoury aspects to it. The more anyone reverse engineers their closed system, the more disagreeable things are found out about it. Heck, even using some of these VOIP systems you find they suck at audio quality, so not wanting to use a particular client for non-technical reasons, is also a part of the equation. Taking the converse: We've got a standard email system that works no matter what client you use, and you don't have to use the same one as the opposite end of your conversation. Likewise with HTTP, FTP, and other protocols (such as a few VOIP ones). And there's nothing stopping any enterprising business from making money by producing a super dooper client that people might prefer over one of the free ones, yet still uses standard protocols. Skype doesn't have to be a bastard, they do it deliberately. For a change I'm with Kevin on this one. Though it's not the same as his issues with hardware. Anyone can produce and disseminate alternative software. Hardware can only be produced by manufacturers. Kowtowing to Skype is the thin end of the wedge, you might as well go the whole way, and use a completely proprietary system behind it (Windows, etc.), too, if you think it's easier to just go with the flow. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.24-78.2.53.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
