no skype any more for 32 bit systems and 32 bit Linux!

[oui]

answer for theVenerable and other

I thought I'd give Puppy another go due to it's portability.
Unfortunately it's very complicated in installing software.
First thing I tried was to install Skype.
There is no simple click to install feature (why not? This is 2019 and we aren't all computer nerds).
I tried to follow the Skype install tutorial, but after saving the Skype files to root, and typing in the terminal command: tar xjvf skype_static-*.tar.bz2 it says it cant open as there is no such file,
Maybe I typed the command wrong? I don't think so, but since the terminal doesn't even have a copy and paste feature, it's hard to know.

Question is, can I just click to install app?, or shall I just go back to Ubuntu which works surprisingly well on USB and has a lot of GUI these days? - pretty much the only Linux I can bother using.

Thanks

no problem with skype messenger or skype phone (but effective, on my PC, problems with the use of the video telefony!)

but

1 I have a 64 bit computer

and

2 if skype, I always use a 64 bit Puppy!

(there is no skype any more for 32 bit systems, not only for Puppy's but for all Linux versions!)

[oui]

Maybe you can use skype on the web instead of installing it?

https://web.skype.com/

but (s)he needs Google Chrome to do that and it is rarely the in Puppy pre installed browser!

pls see: Google Chrome 64-bit PET & SFS packages

[rockedge]

well there is a way.......to trick Microstuff and modify Skype version 4.3.0 for 32 bit to think it is a newer version.....funny thing Skype 4.3.0 32 bit version still works.......

Code: Select all

#sed -i 's/4\.3\.0\.37/8\.3\.0\.37/' /usr/share/skype/skype

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 837#983837

[Mike Walsh]

@ oui:-

OscarTalks' Iron 69 is available for 32-bit Puppies. web.skype.com works fine on there.....

https://yadi.sk/d/_S5b4g7tpcyZn

Iron is a perfect 'clone' of Chrome, and lets you do everything, just as you would in Chrome.


Mike.

[rockedge]

Great idea Mike!!

I forgot all about that!

[oui]

ok!

I did also get following mini msg:

With the latest Chrome based Slimjet (32b), I'm able to reach web.skype.com.

all is possible as far as Google can organize some exceptions for Google users only and users from chrome are some kind also Google user else if they did refuse to adhere to Google in other situations (but it is probably rare: For smart phone user is the adhesion to Google some kind of MUSS)!

my difficulty were concerning links above:

the Puppy thread for Google chrome 64 bit is easy to find, but for 32 bit, hm ...

(note: I am not Google user . I did register for smart phone, ok, but I have no smart phone, only a phone "phone" but no internet connection . I don't want to mark my position/localization on a black board (I don't know if I can really avoid it effectively but I do what I can to make it more difficult for the GAFA's...)

[Mike Walsh]

@ oui:-

I've tried to explain this elsewhere on the Forum in recent days. I do NOT know how much clearer I can make this:-

GOOGLE DO NOT RELEASE A 32-BIT LINUX BUILD ANY MORE. THEY BUILD 32-BIT FOR WINDOWS & MACS.....BUT NOT FOR LINUX. CHROME ON LINUX IS 64-BIT ONLY, AND HAS BEEN FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 3 YEARS.

In fact, to make it easier to 'see' what I'm talking about, here's an 'infographic' I've put together to show the current situation with these Chromium-based browsers. Hope it clarifies matters:-





So; what I (and others) are trying to tell you is this:- If you like Chrome, and nowadays want to run it in 32-bit Linux, you'll get the exact same experience if you use SlimJet, Iron or Chromium itself.

Please don't confuse these two. Chromium is NOT Chrome.....but if Chromium didn't exist, then neither would Chrome itself.

Anyway, I don't know where you get the idea that the Skype web client is only accessible through Chrome. It's accessible through Firefox Quantum, just as easily...

EDIT:- My mistake; I apologize. You appear to be correct; Firefox won't show web.skype.com. Well, that's a fairly recent development; I'm guessing it probably coincided with MyCrudSoft's decision to adopt the Chromium code-base for Edge. Naturally, they want to make sure that their subsidiary (Skype) works properly with their 'flagship' browser (Edge).

One wonders how long it will be before they craftily sneak in a snippet of code to prevent anyone using Skype on the web unless they're in Edge already.

I wouldn't put anything past them. At all.


Mike.

[Makoto]

Try having Firefox spoof Chrome's useragent string, and see if web.skype.com allows it.

I don't have Firefox installed at the moment, and have Skype setup over on XenialPup 64, but I tried adding a useragent override to PaleMoon (add general.useragent.override.skype.com in about:config, with the string value "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36").
I then visited web.skype.com, and the login page shows. (Without it, I get the 'browser not supported' message.) I don't know how well it works from there, though.

[wiak]

You appear to be correct; Firefox won't show web.skype.com. Well, that's a fairly recent development; I'm guessing it probably coincided with MyCrudSoft's decision to adopt the Chromium code-base for Edge. Naturally, they want to make sure that their subsidiary (Skype) works properly with their 'flagship' browser (Edge).

That is really bad of Microsoft. Very restrictive. Shocking really.

[Mike Walsh]

Try having Firefox spoof Chrome's useragent string, and see if web.skype.com allows it.

I don't have Firefox installed at the moment, and have Skype setup over on XenialPup 64, but I tried adding a useragent override to PaleMoon (add general.useragent.override.skype.com in about:config, with the string value "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36").
I then visited web.skype.com, and the login page shows. (Without it, I get the 'browser not supported' message.) I don't know how well it works from there, though.

That, my friend, works a treat. And web.skype.com comes up, and signs in again, like it used to a while back. All is fully functional, too (it should be, it's all generated via the website.....it's just MyCrudSoft playing silly buggers again, as usual).

I don't use it often, but it's good to know I can use it in any browser now; no having to be in a specific Pup, or using a particular browser, just in case. (Especially since the desktop client is nothing more than the web-client running inside a wrapper; this is why Skype looks identical these days, regardless of where you run it from..) Working nicely in both Fred's Quantum-portable, and my own FF60esr-portable.

I've only had to set this up once in each browser, since one 'common' install of each 'portable' is shared, from a remote partition, between all my Pups....

(Also working in watchdog's SSE-only build of Palemoon 27.9.4 w/glibc 2.19 'tweak'. I'm switching to this in all my Pups, even though the big Compaq desktop has SSE3s, for the simple reason that it's lighter on CPU resources. Think about it; it's only using a fraction of the instruction set.....and the CPU definitely runs cooler (and faster) while I'm using this.)

Cheers, Makoto!


Mike.

[Mike Walsh]

@ All:-

More interesting reading on this issue of the 'user-agent-string' for Firefox in this article over at ArsTechnica:-

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/03 ... noculture/

It seems to suggest that MyCrudSoft's decision to adopt the Chromium code-base may very well push Chrome itself into a near-total market monopoly position, in very much the same way that Internet Exploder achieved during the late 90's and early 2000s.

Not a very savoury thought, eh? Despite having been a 'Chrome man' from the very first release back in Autumn 2008, I'm very much a supporter of the concept of Puppians having maximum choice in all things. I use Mozilla-based browsers on the old Dell lappie, even though Chrome will (slowly!) run on there; Palemoon especially, since it's nice & lightweight, and very responsive on an elderly P4 CPU.

This is a situation that will bear watching over the coming months, I think.


Mike.

[rockedge]

Chrome is garbage
The preview builds of Skype work directly
on Bionic64, one click install when using .Deb
I can repost the link if needed

[linuxcbon]

You don't need chrome or anything.
Just download and install this https://go.skype.com/skypeforlinux-64.deb
in bionicpup64 it works.

[rockedge]

that works also but this version was giving me a double Skype icon in the tray
these preview (insider) builds fix it and work great on Bionic64 as well as Xenial64

https://repo.skype.com/deb/pool/main/s/skypeforlinux/

I am using version -> skypeforlinux_8.42.76.54_amd64.deb

[Mike Walsh]

Chrome is garbage

Um; well, each to their own, of course. I won't be drawn into a 'which browser is better' type of thing, because browsers are such an extemely personal choice.

------------------------

Like every Windows user, I'd been stuck with Internet Exploder for years. I switched to Firefox as soon as was practical - the first few builds had, um, problems, for sure...... but IE was such a piece of junk that anything at all was an improvement. For a few years I was a diehard FF user, and would defend it to the death, if needs be. Then; ah, hell.....I don't know what happened, but FF went through a prolonged spell where it just crashed all the time, at the slightest excuse.

During that nightmare period, the first 'beta' previews of Chrome became available. I signed up as a tester, and pretty much fell in love with it at first use. Fast, responsive.....and nothing seemed to faze it. I've been a Chrome 'fanboi' ever since. Oh, sure, Chrome too has had its crap spells; at times I nearly gave up on it. But in recent years it's just gone from strength to strength.

I've partly come back to the FF fold with the release of Quantum. At long last, FF could compete with Chrome on almost equal terms. Quantum is what FF should have been years ago, and no doubt could have been, if only it weren't for all the extended periods of back-stabbing & infighting going on between the Mozilla devs.

I've reached the stage where I no longer give a rat's arse which one I fire up; there's that little to distinguish them any more. They're both as good as each other; both are fast & responsive (they've both pretty much solved their 'memory hog' issues).....and both do everything I ask of a browser, with very little drama.

------------------------------

As for the 'M$ using Chromium as a base for Edge' thing, well, anything has to be an improvement. I don't know what it is with Microsoft, but they've never appeared to be on more than the vaguest 'nodding acquaintance' with the whole concept of what a web browser is supposed to do.

I hope, for their sake, that M$ don't try their old tactic of 'Embrace, extend, extinguish' with the likes of Google, 'cos I know damn well who'll come out of that one with a bloody nose. Google have more money than God, and the kind of influence in the tech community that M$ can only dream of. Redmond has built its walled garden for the M$ community, but I sometimes wonder if any of them seem to really comprehend what's actually going on in the world outside...


Mike.

[kuman11]

Have they changed the logo to Skype for the Elite!?