Talk:Skype/Archive 2

message: Propose adding the following in the summary:
Beware of fraudulent sites with "Skype" in the name phishing for your credit card details to pay for "membership". Only use the official http://www.skype.com
71.115.84.119 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not part of Wikipedia's job to give readers warnings or advice. The normal mode of an encyclopedia article is to describe knowledge about a subject. If phishing is a well-documented problem for Skype accounts, then we can document that, but not in a prescriptive tone. — Matt Crypto 14:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you need to find a reliable source for the above. If phising is a well-document problem, then we could fit it into the "Security" section somewhere. We should not name individual alleged phishing sites. — Matt Crypto 14:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BEWARE PHISHING

message: Hello to the editorial team at Wikipedia!  I recently wrote a page that explores the latest developments with Skype Phones, and I was wondering how I might be able to have it included as a resource for the users of Wikipedia?  I didn't want my entry to be perceived as spam...  Any advice?
216.171.96.94 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skype Phone Resources 

message: I came to this page looking for an article to understand what Skype is. Instead, it has become a rant on the security flaws of Skype, not an objective, encyclopedic dissertation on the features, benefits, and differentiators of Skype. This is easily the least objective, most poorly balanced wikipedia page I've ever seen.
It may be important for some readers to understand the [in]security of Skype, so it is definitely appropriate to spend a portion of the article on this. However, when I read the article, the security concerns seem to make up nearly 80% of the article, which hardly seems appropriate, especially for someone who is just looking to make VOIP calls with Grandma. 
Security concerns should be a footnote, not the majority of the article. I'd like to see this article significantly edited for content, reigning in the focus so that it becomes an objective analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.7.104.10 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even NSA? ;-) But yeah, the section on security is indeed overblown; perhaps we can split the detail out into a sub-article as per Wikipedia:Summary style? — Matt Crypto 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skype  - OK guys, we get it, it's not for NASA. 

message: I just notice that this article's software infobox has labeled Skype as a web browser. I think you guys should change that and add a new software genre to the list consider VoIP is starting to gain steam. --Anonymous Cow 17:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skype = Web Browser? 

message: I first heard about skype in relation to controversy concerning regular telecommunication corporations being annoyed that their turf was being cut. And pressure being put on lawmakers to  pass laws either banning skype (extreme) or taxing it (still not nice).--ZayZayEM 09:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: How is such a lengthy repository of competition relevant to the article? Surely a list of VoIP article would serve this purpose better. --IceflamePhoenix 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, also see the discussion about the redundant list at the bottom. Anybody with the energy to do it should go ahead and replace the list as suggested. Greenman 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to follow on with that criticism, this article is way too critical of the application itself, the majority of the 'System & Software' section has in-built criticisms, but then there's a whole other criticism section below the features of the program itself. Any suggestions? --IceflamePhoenix 15:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition/Alternatives 

message: At least at the moment, why do we care about the iLBC CODEC?  and why is FREE capitalised? and why is the skype journal a 'feature' of the codec.  and why is the iLBC CODEC more important than the other codecs used by skype? --Haggis
:I also wonder about this.  It isn't even clear from the article that Skype uses iLBC.  If nobody updates this, I'll probably remove the section. (Spam, anyone?) — The Storm Surfer 21:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed — Digitalhen 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  iLBC CODEC 

message: I'm disappointed that the ad-hoc pronunciation of Skype has been removed (i.e. it rhymes with ripe). I always thought this was useful (previously I thought you said Sky-pee). I understand the pronunciation guidelines say you shouldn't add ad-hoc guides, but it does say:
:Ad-hoc pronunciation guides are discouraged. Forms such as "pro-NUN-see-AY-shun" can be read in different ways by people who speak different international variants of English, or whose first language isn't English. However it may be helpful to add comments such as "rhymes with..." or "stress on the first syllable".
Can we have it back please? --Jamesedmo 15:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Unlike other applications, Skype polls the hard disk several times per minute. This can be verified either by observing the HDD led or by using a file access monitor such as Filemon. Although those accesses are small, extremely fast and safe in the short term, they can be extremely harmful in the long term. In particular the continuous access pattern does not allow the disk to enter sleep or idle modes while Skype is active, even when offline. This can severely reduce the lifespan of the HDD when Skype is running for a long time. Stronger HDD caching does not seem to improve the situation.
:This is the sort of thing that needs a citation, ortherwise it violates Wikipedia:No original research Borisblue 21:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference? 

message: How, pray, do Skype know the residency of their customers. Do yopu mean to sayu that skypein is restricted to those with bank accounts in those particular countries? SqueakBox 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residence restrictions 

message: Could someone who knows how please fix the version numbers? --Gary King 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software version? 

message: The article says "The proprietary session establishment protocol is efficient and prevents both man-in-the-middle and replay attacks.". Has this been independently verified somehow, or is it just something the Skype Group says? If the latter is true, the article should state that the "Skype Group claims...". The current wording presents it as a known fact. -- Grahn 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really know this? 

message: Skyllian is a plugin for Trillian Pro that allows the controll of skype through the trillian's UI, I am not sure if a plugin should be included in the third party software, but it might be a reasonable addition. []
--Zanthra 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SkyLlian  Should it be added to the third party software? 

message: Can we change the screenshot to display the Windows version? I mean, the Windows version of Skype is the most updated one with the most current UI, as opposed to the Linux version with its slightly ugly QT interface. I changed it myself at one point, but it looks like it was reverted, which is why I'm mentioning it here. --Jeremy 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot version 

message: is it possible to dial UIFN (+800, international freephone) numbers from skype without adding credit? Plugwash 10:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anyone tried a UIFN 

message: My fiancee is serving in Iraq and I want to know if the service is available there so he can download it and call the USA.
He should definitely try. I would be very surprised if he could not get it unless his ISP prohibits the service, which is of itself unusual. So he should take his headset and try. If Skype doesn't work he should try Google Talk etc. The Skype service is certainly available throughout the developing world, SqueakBox 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Skype work in Iraq? 

message: does skype (Linux version) have spyware? Their homepage says they don't, but I've heard from many people that they do.
(Contributed by 129.132.210.85)
:There is no indication that skype contains any spyware, also the EULA seems clear to me (though IANAL). Besides, their bussiness model is based on payed calls to POTS networks, so there is no need to bundle spyware in it. I guess it could be trusted just as any other binary-only package. - JohnyDog 22:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skype & spyware 

message: I recently discovered Skype will repeatedly open "exceptions" (in Microsoft terminology) in the firewall built into Windows XP SP2. You can close these exceptions, and they will be opened again the next time you run Skype. I see no way to stop Skype from doing this.
Use TCPView to monitor unwanted Skype connections around the world.
:Skype relies on raping open internet connections to survive so this behaviour does not surprise me. Plugwash 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opens Firewall Exeptions 

message: "Since the Skype code is proprietary and closed source the security of the software can be readily established by lay-users." - This sentence has been altered a number of times, so what is correct?
* 1) Lay-users means users who are not skilled enough to evaluate deeper technical features. 2) If a software is proprietary and closed-source then no third party can do a proper evaluation (unless they reverse-engineer it). It seems that the sentence is doubly misleading! I propse to change it to: "Since the Skype code is proprietary and closed source the security of the software cannot be firmly established by independent experts; thus, its users -- experts and non-experts alike -- may base their usage of the product on merely trusting the manufacturer and behaviour of the software downloaded from sources authorised by the manufacturer.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.3.220 (talk • contribs) 23:41 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It's worse: it contains anti-debugging features used extensively. This is typically done by malware authors to prevent the good guys from seeing what the malware is up to. Use of this in a honest product should be highly discouraged. If it were too be used for hiding secret (such as secret keys) it's a design failure as it'll not work, if it used to hide true intentions than the software should be avoided at all costs. See the blackhat paper for more details. 213.118.143.101 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proprietary source 

message: Someone could place a link to this PDF: 
I think more people should be informed about the potential danger of skype. 85.71.30.103 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skype reverse-engineer 

message: The article does not state when the company was established, nor it's business model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.249.79 (talk • contribs) 12:13 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Stupid question:  do you need internet access to use skype to skype or just a modem?  I realize that you need the internet to download the software...but after that?
:You need internet access to use skype. Plugwash 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  info missing 

message: I downloaded skype but I didn't register for any paid service. If I call other peoples' landlines/mobile phones, will I get charged for the call? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.12.48 (talk • contribs) 21:14 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:First off, Wikipedia is not a Skype support board. Secondly, no, the call will just not go through. — Nathan (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the call did go through to both the cell phones and landlines. 68.36.12.48 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend just prank called me with this service and he claimed it was free as well so maybe it is. --DragonWR12LB 16:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Skype is only free in a limited way. You can either take it from someone who has used Skype since its inception or completely dismiss me as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. They do allow free calling to Canada and USA but that's it. You have to pay to call anywhere else. If you go to skype.com, you can see "Use Skype to call landlines and mobiles free in The US and Canada until the end of the year". This is a new feature they've only just added within the last few months. — Nathan (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  free? 

message: I have aggressively removed any external link that did not seem to comply with WP:WEB. Should you feel that I overdid it, please come here before you put it back in so we can figure out together, whether it is appropiate to include the link. --Ministry of Truth 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Spam 

message: If any VoIP solution is fair game in there, we should get ready to be swamped in the closed source part.
I propose we restrict it to encrypted services with some minimum level of assessment that the encryption is more than just an unsubstantiated claim.
Otherwise extremely interesting alternatives such as zfone could get drowned in the mass of spammy me-too startups of questionable relevance. --Ministry of Truth 10:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion in the "Alternatives" section 

message: Is the caller ID information always masked when a SkypeOut call is placed? Camptown 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caller ID 

message: In the alternative section, a lot of them are described as 'free' I think we should explain what type of free, as in beer, or speech is meant there - it's not always clear. Gravitor 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives 

message: I guess this article was written by skype at skype HQ. I heard someone talking about skype as the next big thing and decided to search wikipedia. I was confronted with phrases like "Skype also routes calls through other Skype peers on the network, which allows it to traverse Symmetric NATs and firewalls, unlike most other VoIP programs" and "The use of end-user bandwidth in the form of supernodes, and the closed source nature of its software..." Can't Wikipedia features be written by people who can communicate with humans?
Please edit the article then, SqueakBox 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what do you do? 

message: Skypein redirects here, but there's no discussion of it whatsoever. Can anyone fix that? Stevage 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion of SkypeIn? 

message: In the Security section, the article says "In 2004, Niklas Zennstrom, co-founder of Skype, appeared to admit in an article on The Register that the current security model used a relatively short key size".   Then article then goes on to mention 1024 bits as the key size.
1024 bits in RSA isn't short at all and is still secure.  We're nowhere near (at present) being able to crack 1024 bit RSA.  Anyone agree that this paragraph should be changed? --Tim1988 talk 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short key size? 

message: My company recently issued a memo expressing appreciation for trying to save on phone costs, while at the same time banning the product corporate-wide, due to its tendency to consume network resources prodigiously. Wahkeenah 22:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, This seems to be pretty short sighted and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the technology (not limited to skype) by the (luddite :) IT department (POV is ok in talk right? :).  1. Supernodes will use a lot of bandwidth, it is pretty simple to not become a supernode and something which is entirely in the control of IT.  2. Moving to any voip system will move voice traffic to data and therefore use a lot of data bandwidth, but the tradeoff is less PSTN traffic.  And (non video) skype should use less bandwidth than most standard voip codecs.  Rearden9 14:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our corporate network guys know what they're doing. The various concerns expressed in the article make the product even more suspect. Wahkeenah 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the various other concerns mentioned in the article may be an issue to them but the one they mentioned (bandwidth) should not be a problem in a corporate environment where few /no machines running skype should have publicly addressable IPs and the traffic which was running over skype will just get moved to a different voip or the pstn. IMHO Rearden9 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what the network director had to say. Keep in mind this was not a company rollout, it was individuals thinking it would be nifty to install this thing, and by the time over 200 of them had done it, it had caused some major network incidents: "While on the company network, Skype in its current configuration spends 75% of its time running in the background and port scanning our central firewalls looking ways to communicate with outside services." This kind of thing is the reason it was banned. Wahkeenah 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  I have not observed that kind of behaviour except when it was trying to connect a call.  When it tries to call, it tries to make lots of connections as it seeks to get out of a restrictive firewall.  It is intriguing to watch.  But on my skype in it's idle mode I only have two non localhost tcp connecitons listed and traffic is quite intermittant.  And over the last 4 hours it has sent between 66 and 84KB an hour and received about half that. I am using Net Limiter Monitor 2.0.8.1 to watch things. Rearden9 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution 

message: The linux section seems out of date. I installed Skype 1.2.0.17 from and rpm on Mandriva 2006 
My Yealink (Tesco) handset has a "driver" called SkypeMate  as a binary distribution for Fedora Core 3. The user manual 
makes it clear that the installation includes a setup of the ALSA sound system. The USB hand set is autmatically detected as /dev/dsp1. That would tend to suggeste to me that Skype on linux is fully intgrated with ALSA. Anyone know more about this? Billlion 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux/ALSA 

message: There appears to be a gap in this article. It does not describe the hardware that is required to actually talk to somebody.
After I have made a connection, what do I do, just shout at my computer :-)?
Can I plug a normal telephone into the modem port on my PC, the plugs are the same?
Seriously, a description of the hardware required, and the interface setup would be useful.
TiffaF 06:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardware (telephone handsets etc.) 

message: When reading the article, I just thought it was amusing to see a screenshot of Skype 1.0 under the "Technology" section of the article :D. — JeremyTalk 09:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: i made some calls on skype to usa and canada and it was not free
its only free from and to the usa and canada
70.20.187.231 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  free calls to usa and canada 

message: Should iChat be considered as a closed-source alternative?
It's only bundled with Macs, but it does video and audio chat.
:It's closed source, for sure, but it's an AIM client, and can talk to any AIM client. Trollderella 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  iChat 

message: Hi folks - I've removed the BT pricing bit from the criticism because I think it was misleading - sure BT do offer a 5p call for up to an hour - but only if you take the right option, and only in the evenings - a regualar daytime call would cost over 1 pound - more expensive than Skype. I left the material criticism in though because of course it's valid... Petesmiles 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about it being evenings and weekends only. In fact, it's the default BT residential tariff that charges in this way, so you don't have to choose it. I've reinserted the comment with more clarity. There are other UK operators who charge national calls at lower rates than Skype, so this example is well worth quoting. It's not some isolated case. NFH 10:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and option 3 gives you free calls up to an hour at all times (the subscription of option 3 is pretty high though). Thats a pretty hard deal to beat for heavy users. Plugwash 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BT pricing 

message: I'm using Skype (1.5.0.80) for Mac, and I'd like to be able to somehow record calls. Since this doesn't seem to be supported by the program itself, does anyone know of a way this is possible using some other internal recording software? Or do I need to move to another VoIP platform like Gizmo? Cormaggio is learning 10:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording Skype calls