Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Communications Microsoft

Skype For Microsoft Edge Will Work From the Browser, No Plug-Ins Required 89

We mentioned a few months back Microsoft's beta of a browser-based intrerface to Skype. Now, reports Engadget, Skype will be able to work without a plug-in (as was required for the beta). However, it will work -- at least at first -- only with Microsoft's Edge browser. The latest Windows 10 Insider Preview build comes with Object RTC API. That's the element that allows real-time audio and video communication without the need for any installation not just for Skype for Web and Outlook.com, but also for other WebRTC-compatible services. To note, Chrome, Firefox and Safari all support WebRTC standards, but it's unclear if and when Skype will enable a plug-in-less experience for those browsers, as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Skype For Microsoft Edge Will Work From the Browser, No Plug-Ins Required

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20, 2015 @04:28PM (#50562727)

    Please don't run executable code inside my document viewer.

    kthxbye

    • Please don't run executable code inside my document viewer.

      kthxbye

      A built in Skype client? Sweet! Now when a vulnerability is found in this or the Object RTC API implementation, everyone using the Edge browser will be vulnerable by default, and without a way of disabling it.

      Building extra crap like this directly into the browser is a horrible idea. People were rightly upset when Firefox tried to pull that nonsense, and MS should be discouraged from going down that road as well. They should focus on building a robust plugin framework (just use Chrome's, and you'll get

      • Plugin Framework??? That is sooooooooo last millennium. We've killed off Flash, Java and the Acrobat Plugin because they were security nightmares.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dutch Gun ( 899105 )

          The entire reason we want these things as plugins is so that I don't have to have them installed if I don't use them. Turning executable code a plugin does NOT make it insecure. The only thing a plug-in does is to make that code *optional* for each user. You want a minimal default attack surface, and adding built-in extras broadens that surface unnecessarily.

          The reason Flash, Java, and Acrobat Reader plugins are insecure is because they were written long before internet security was a thing. Even today

          • by ChunderDownunder ( 709234 ) on Sunday September 20, 2015 @07:43PM (#50563681)

            Why does anyone believe that the Skype codebase won't be subject to the same sort of attacks and vulnerabilities once it becomes part of the browser?

            Because with plugins you're relying on a separate sandbox model from the rest of the browser.

            I'd sleep more soundly at night knowing that the executable code used to make video calls through webRTC was running through exactly the same sandbox as other executable code such as asm.js. or that the inbuilt pdf viewer in Firefox (dog slow that it may be) was running with the same javascript security execution model rather than relying on an external engine (and yes Mozilla do have a flash implementation that works in a similar way to PDF.js)

            There will be security holes in any implementation but there's one attack surface for the entire web platform rather than one for each browser plugin. And at the end of the day I'd rather trust Mozilla or Google to release timelier fixes for their web-browsers than rely on Microsoft's skype plugin to be updated.

            So broadly I'm in favour of cross platform technologies such as video chat 'bloating' the HTML5 spec rather than relying on proprietary browser plugins.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            This.

            Apparently Microsoft looked at the way Mozilla is handling Firefox and thought now was the time to throw their hat into the ring by including more crap into the broswer. Even though, as already pointed out, they should know better by now because of things like ActiveX.

            There really needs to be a solid basic web browser with no cruft. Perhaps allow a plugin system for features users want on a per user basis, but nothing built in. That browser should then be promoted everywhere by everyone as a good alter

    • Please don't run executable code inside my document viewer.

      Welcome to......Javascript? It's a little late for that, really.

    • >Please don't run executable code inside my document viewer.

      The mainstream web browser ceased to be a simple document viewer a long time back. The browser is an ananomoly

    • by Trogre ( 513942 )

      HTML is executable code.

    • You are out of luck. The new kids (the new generation of developers) thinks convenience is more important than security or stability.
      • by bledri ( 1283728 )

        You are out of luck. The new kids (the new generation of developers) thinks convenience is more important than security or stability.

        Same as it always was.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    But does it run Linux?

    • If you change the name of your file from "NataliePortmanNakedAndCoveredInHotGrits.mp4" to "Linux.mp4" then, yes, you can say it runs Linux.
      Hope that helps.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Tough Love ( 215404 )

        The Skype servers all run Linux. I guess Microsoft finally got burned enough times trying to make IIS do what Linux does, to stay well enough away from that. But they did reconfigure the server topology to make it easier to spy on corporate traffic for example, or anything else they feel like.

  • Since the release of Skype 7.0 (actually the preview version, 6.22), the largest thread on the the Skype community forum has been about one request - can we have our screen space back?

    (My take on this at great length at http://moteprime.org/article.p... [moteprime.org])

    This news gives me some hope that, with appropriate HTML and RPC chops, we will see third-parties allow users some measure of customization of the Skype UI.

  • mmm surveillance. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Last Warrior ( 105980 ) on Sunday September 20, 2015 @04:46PM (#50562835)

    I suspect well be getting the always on, talk to your web browser functionality so you dont have to click anything when you want ot make a call. You can just say "skype, call my mom" and and bing, skype will inform microsoft, the nsa, and your mom that you want to talk. And when you dont want ot talk to mom, skype will make sure any naughty keywords you use while sitting at your computer are also promptly forwarded to the NSA as well.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday September 20, 2015 @06:44PM (#50563357) Homepage

      And when you dont want ot talk to mom, skype will make sure any naughty keywords you use while sitting at your computer are also promptly forwarded to the NSA as well.

      As long as the NSA isn't forwarding the naughty keywords to my mom....

    • by geoskd ( 321194 )

      skype will make sure any naughty keywords you use while sitting at your computer are also promptly forwarded to the NSA as well.

      And your mom...

    • I thought the main purpose of Skype since MS bought it was to stay up and running all the time so that if you did start a TOR circuit it can pop it's head out the other end and wave a flag
  • When i read "Windows 10" i read "surveillance".
    When i read "Skype" i read "NSA surveillance".
    Once i was laughed at for being paranoid.
    I always knew i was Cassandra [wikipedia.org] instead.
  • by ITRambo ( 1467509 ) on Sunday September 20, 2015 @05:42PM (#50563065)
    With Windows 10 at ~9% market share of desktop OS's, Edge is currently at ~2%. Incorporating Skype isn't going to help Edge attract many more users, if any, since it still is not compatible with many websites and crashes more than other browsers. I use Edge solely to open my Outlook.com mail since the Mail app in Windows 10 won't do the job. The whole Windows 10 situation is quite fubar, it seems to me.
    • With Windows 10 at ~9% market share of desktop OS's, Edge is currently at ~2%.

      For the moment, running behind Linux desktop. Of course, completely clobbered by Linux Android.

    • In another desperate move to get people to use Edge using it was one of two official methods of watching the latest presentation of new Apple iPhones. The other one, of course, was using Apple hardware. I wonder how much Microsoft paid Apple for the privilege.
      Another thing: Microsoft, why don't you make Windows 10 so that people like it? Then maybe they'd use it willingly and you wouldn't have to resort to desperate moves such as installing malware that constantly pesters you to "upgrade" on previous versi
  • The problem here is that the browser has become two different things:

    1) A document browser.
    2) An app-runner.

    As much as I hate it, there is huge demand for an app-runner, so that use case is not going away. The mistake was to try to tie both of these things into the same web-browser framework. We could have had a document viewer separated from an app-runner, but instead we have them both mixed together, with all the complexity that entails. It's not a problem that's going away, and expect Javascript exp
    • As much as I hate it, there is huge demand for an app-runner...

      You mean a crapp-runner. Browser native apps are nearly always strangely worse than native with fewer features, more bugs, more security holes and slower response. Being able to incorporate into your browser-based workflow is a plus, but usually that is botched too so that essential browsing functionality you would expect just doesn't work. For example, you should be able to open any link in a new tab but that just doesn't work in a lot of the fancy stuff.

      Not that Microsoft is the only offender, far from it

  • At least New Microsoft has learned from the mistakes of Old Microsoft, which habitually produced services that only worked with their web browser....</sarcasm>

  • Whether a plugin is needed , or not?

    • Short version: Microsoft is going to bake in the security holes so low that it will be exploitable in epic ways.

      Just like every time Microsoft decides to embed this stuff at a level nobody else can ... and there will be much pwning.

  • I don't think I consider building the code into the MS browser as being cause to celebrate that no plugin is needed.

  • I know it's easy to simply cut and paste from the original article (heck, it's one way to get people to actually read part of the article), but why not make corrections to gross errors?

    Apple is not supporting WebRTC and has not implemented any of the features necessary for it. Not in desktop nor in mobile.

  • It looks like Microsoft Corporation just invented Firefox Hello, or Facebook Video chat.

  • Edge Enables Embrace, Extend, Extinquish

  • It still can't render basic flash in under about 15 seconds and ummm oh let me think....oh yeah! THE ADDRESS BAR IS HIDDEN! Who designed that slow, clunky, unusable pile of garbage?
  • Damn, now I have more work to do on the Pidgin plugin. Anyone know if gstreamer supports ortc yet? ;)

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!

Working...