Fuck you too skype

[Ben L.]

Don't see it? Here it is, cropped, bright pink, and in giant Comic Sans.

By the way, my current system uptime is 7.3 days. Skype's CPU time is 4.3 days. I have a single core processor.

Gentlemen, I believe we've found a program with higher resource usage than Community Server.

[atipico]

I feel retarded for not knowing exactly what CPU time means and how it works regarding processes, threads, multitasking, running software and stuff. I blame the fact it doesn't show up in the default columns of Windows Taskbar, I've dropped CS university and I'm too lazy to google it right now.

I have skype minimized in my taskbar (WinVista) for a few days and the CPU time is 25min here. Maybe Skype for Linux is TRWTF.

[blakeyrat]

@Ben L. said:

I have a single core processor.

^- the real WTF

[Speakerphone_Dude]

@blakeyrat said:

@Ben L. said:

I have a single core processor.

^- the real WTF

Multi-core processors are not a silver bullet. Says the Universal Truth: "Two processing cores sharing the same system bus and memory bandwidth limits the real-world performance advantage. If a single core is close to being memory-bandwidth limited, going to dual-core might only give 30% to 70% improvement."

[Cassidy]

@atipico said:

Maybe Skype for Linux is TRWTF

 

That's not too far from the truth.

I  have v4.2 running on this Win7 laptop and it works fine, once I'd become accustomed to its different behaviour from earlier ones (such as requiring a minimum width).

When installed under Ubuntu, it displayed many annoying characteristics - one of which was not preserving group chats. I had to wait for someone to type a text message before the group would become apparent.

Someone mentioned this also holds in newer versions of skype. Fearful of upgrading, can anyone confirm this?

 

[dhromed]

@Speakerphone Dude said:

Multi-core processors are not a silver bullet. Says the Universal Truth: "Two processing cores sharing the same system bus and memory bandwidth limits the real-world performance advantage. If a single core is close to being memory-bandwidth limited, going to dual-core might only give 30% to 70% improvement."

 

Great. Now what have you, personally, actually measured?

[pbean]

@Cassidy said:

@atipico said:

Maybe Skype for Linux is TRWTF

 

That's not too far from the truth.

I  have v4.2 running on this Win7 laptop and it works fine, once I'd become accustomed to its different behaviour from earlier ones (such as requiring a minimum width).

When installed under Ubuntu, it displayed many annoying characteristics - one of which was not preserving group chats. I had to wait for someone to type a text message before the group would become apparent.

Someone mentioned this also holds in newer versions of skype. Fearful of upgrading, can anyone confirm this?

 

 

I'm using 2.x and I'm already fearful of upgrading. Have heard the worst things about 4.x for Linux. But yes, the group chat thing is annoying as hell. I use a lot of group chats and if I forget to bookmark them, I have to wait or ask someone to please say something useless to have it pop up.

 

[TGV]

@Speakerphone Dude said:

Multi-core processors are not a silver bullet.

 

Damn, that explains it. I tried to kill a werewolf with a multicore processor the other day. I fired shitloads (imperial!) of Intel Xeons, Core2Duos, and even a batch of i7s at the bastard, but he just kept coming.

[Guest]

@TGV said:

@Speakerphone Dude said:

Multi-core processors are not a silver bullet.

 

Damn, that explains it. I tried to kill a werewolf with a multicore processor the other day. I fired shitloads (imperial!) of Intel Xeons, Core2Duos, and even a batch of i7s at the bastard, but he just kept coming.

And a single core isn't a chainsaw or shotgun, judging by the amount of zombies on Ben L.'s 'puter.

 

[Guest]

@Speakerphone Dude said:

@blakeyrat said:

@Ben L. said:

I have a single core processor.

^- the real WTF

Multi-core processors are not a silver bullet. Says the Universal Truth: "Two processing cores sharing the same system bus and memory bandwidth limits the real-world performance advantage. If a single core is close to being memory-bandwidth limited, going to dual-core might only give 30% to 70% improvement."

Right.  Because 70% isn't much of an improvement.

 

[Obfuscator]

Are you not behind NAT? Because if not, Skype might have "upgraded" you to a Supernode, routing a whole lot of traffic through your machine. Not exactly what you expect and very sneaky, but it's what makes Skype an effective p2p system. Worked some with Skype, and it really is a master of disguise. Punches holes in firewalls like a nail gun, poses as all possible kinds of network traffic and is equipped with loads of stealth features, like Obfuscated executables and anti-debugging measures (deterring SoftICE and the likes).

If you wonder why Skype sold for so much, it's not because they invented p2p video, it because they are getting through anything on the internet and protect their IP like paranoid conspiracy theorists.

So Skype is indeed f*ing you over, it's not just some badly written run-of-the-mill app.

[Speakerphone_Dude]

@dhromed said:

@Speakerphone Dude said:

Multi-core processors are not a silver bullet. Says the Universal Truth: "Two processing cores sharing the same system bus and memory bandwidth limits the real-world performance advantage. If a single core is close to being memory-bandwidth limited, going to dual-core might only give 30% to 70% improvement."

 

Great. Now what have you, personally, actually measured?

No. I totally trust Wikipedia, for the reasons given by Michael Scott.

[blakeyrat]

It's not even that, it's where do you even fucking GET a single core CPU in this day and age? My fucking cellphone has multi-core. My goddamned Vita has multi-core. EVERYTHING HAS MULTI-CORE. The only thing in my house that can reasonably be called a computer and has only one CPU core is my Kindle.

Is your computer from the 70s?

[blakeyrat]

@Obfuscator said:

Are you not behind NAT? Because if not, Skype might have "upgraded" you to a Supernode, routing a whole lot of traffic through your machine. Not exactly what you expect and very sneaky, but it's what makes Skype an effective p2p system.

1. It's not sneaky, they tell you it does that when you install it
   
   2) Since Microsoft bought Skype, 99% of the supernodes are located in Microsoft data centers. In fact I'm not even 100% sure Skype still assigns clients as supernodes at all, after the last outage.

@Obfuscator said:

Worked some with Skype, and it really is a master of disguise. Punches holes in firewalls like a nail gun, poses as all possible kinds of network traffic and is equipped with loads of stealth features, like Obfuscated executables and anti-debugging measures (deterring SoftICE and the likes).

If you wonder why Skype sold for so much, it's not because they invented p2p video, it because they are getting through anything on the internet and protect their IP like paranoid conspiracy theorists.

So Skype is indeed f*ing you over, it's not just some badly written run-of-the-mill app.

You're a loon. Go back to Slashdot.

[sprained]

@Speakerphone Dude said:

@blakeyrat said:

@Ben L. said:

I have a single core processor.

^- the real WTF

Multi-core processors are not a silver bullet. Says the Universal Truth: "Two processing cores sharing the same system bus and memory bandwidth limits the real-world performance advantage. If a single core is close to being memory-bandwidth limited, going to dual-core might only give 30% to 70% improvement."

 

 

IIRC Apple's argument for why the G5 chip wasn't a piece of shit* was that it has a separate bus for each core on the chip.  Is there a reason Intel et al haven't tried something similar with their multicore processors?

* this statement may not reflect the opinion of the poster

 

[DaveK1]

@Ben L. said:

Don't see it? Here it is, cropped, bright pink, and in giant Comic Sans.

By the way, my current system uptime is 7.3 days. Skype's CPU time is 4.3 days. I have a single core processor.

Gentlemen, I believe we've found a program with higher resource usage than Community Server.

Have you tried turning it off and on again killing and restarting it?  I've seen skype go into wheels-spinning-lockup mode on Windows once and that fixed it for me.

[Ben L.]

@DaveK said:

@Ben L. said:

Don't see it? Here it is, cropped, bright pink, and in giant Comic Sans.

By the way, my current system uptime is 7.3 days. Skype's CPU time is 4.3 days. I have a single core processor.

Gentlemen, I believe we've found a program with higher resource usage than Community Server.

Have you tried turning it off and on again killing and restarting it?  I've seen skype go into wheels-spinning-lockup mode on Windows once and that fixed it for me.

I sent it a SIGTERM yesterday. Today it's at 7144:34 CPU time.

[Guest]

@DaveK said:

Have you tried turning it off and on again killing and restarting it?

Everyone knows you have to turn it off, shake it a couple of times and then turn it back on.

[dhromed]

@Speakerphone Dude said:

No. I totally trust Wikipedia, for the reasons given by Michael Scott.

 

Research has shown that wikipedia articles are at least 27% more complete and accurate than paper encyclopedias.

See? I chose a random number, just like you did.

[dhromed]

@El_Heffe said:

@DaveK said:

Have you tried turning it off and on again killing and restarting it?

Everyone knows you have to turn it off, shake it a couple of times and then turn it back on.

 

You can hear the purple dildo inside.

 

[Speakerphone_Dude]

@dhromed said:

@Speakerphone Dude said:

No. I totally trust Wikipedia, for the reasons given by Michael Scott.

 

Research has shown that wikipedia articles are at least 27% more complete and accurate than paper encyclopedias.

See? I chose a random number, just like you did.

Wait - I did not choose a random number, I opted to believe the random number picked by someone else. It's called the chain of trust AND YOU BROKE IT.

[dhromed]

@Speakerphone Dude said:

It's called the chain of trust AND YOU BROKE IT.

 

you started it

[serguey123]

@blakeyrat said:

It's not even that, it's where do you even fucking GET a single core CPU in this day and age?

From Intel, apparently

For a list of all single core processors from Intel

Intel product specifications

@blakeyrat said:

Is your computer from the 70s?

Perhaps no, some of the processors here were launched this year, I think that all the recent ones (by recent I meant some were launched Q2 2012) are either for mobile platforms or embedded devices but some are still being builded and use the same modern socket so maybe there is nothing that prevents you from chucking them into your desktop.

[blakeyrat]

@serguey123 said:

@blakeyrat said:

It's not even that, it's where do you even fucking GET a single core CPU in this day and age?

From Intel, apparently

For a list of all single core processors from Intel

Intel product specifications

Thanks Professor Fact, but I don't give a shit.

[serguey123]

@blakeyrat said:

Thanks Professor Fact, but I don't give a shit.

You are welcome assistant Bitchy!, now hand me some beakers, I'm ready to do some science

[boomzilla]

@blakeyrat said:

@serguey123 said:

@blakeyrat said:

It's not even that, it's where do you even fucking GET a single core CPU in this day and age?

From Intel, apparently

For a list of all single core processors from Intel

Intel product specifications

Thanks Professor Fact, but I don't give a shit.

Of course not, after he proved you wrong and made you look like a fool.