>Skype was flawed from the outset, being non-transparent (about how the network is set up, turning machines into supernodes withtout permission, and the encryption they use). It's all closed. Why? You can't verify it's well-designed.
Perhaps relevant for a FOSS zealot (and I really don't mean that in a derogatory way here, there's a time and a place), but the average user doesn't care about the infrastructure - they want it to work and work well. And Skype pretty much always has, at least in my experience.
I'm definitely not a FOSS zealot. However I might be a zealot for simplicity, lucidity, keeping code small, unclever and boring, making compilation quick and easy, not tolerating many of the annoyances so many folks routinely accept. I do not like "black boxes". Even if they work.
re: Skype I simply see no reason that something so essential, and so simple, as a P2P application (note the P2P application does not have to be tied to the VOIP application, or whatever applications you want to run over the P2P connection) needs to be a proprietary product.
It does need to work and work well. The P2P element does that. It will consistently work. It's the audio/video element that is difficult to get right across all connections in all environments.
Perhaps that's why you read some people saying Skype works great for them and other saying it doesn't work so great. Consider that in every case, the connection gets set up just fine. People can connect very easily. P2P is the easy part. It's the audio/video quality that varies. Because everyone's bandwidth situation is different.
Unfortunately there's a lot of chatter about NAT, IPv6, crytography, and other non-issues, which distracts people from focusing the real issue: codecs; making the audio/video element work smoothly over a variety of bandwidth scenarios. That's what everyone wants: clear sound and video.
If you do not fear the command line and want to see a proof of concept of how easy P2P is to set up, leave some way for me to contact you.
