Skype 4.0 For Linux Now Available 196
An anonymous reader writes "Anyone who uses Skype on Linux will be happy to hear that a new version has been made available today, bringing with it a host of essential updates and new features. Skype 4.0, codenamed "Four Rooms for Improvement," is long overdue, and Marco Cimmino makes a point of thanking Linux users for their patience on the Skype blog. The main improvements Skype is delivering include much improved audio call quality, better video support, and improved chat synchronization. For video specifically, Skype has spent time implementing support for a much wider range of webcams, so if your camera didn't work before today you might be surprised to find it does in Skype 4.0. Visually, Skype has received a new Conversations View, which brings all chats into a single, unified window (you can revert to the old view if you prefer). There's also a new Call View, presence and emoticons have been redesigned, and you can now store and view numbers within each Skype profile."
Just in time for the Ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Just in time for the Ads
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but that doesn't matter to the sort of people who have turned hatred of a particular company into a sort of religion.
Re:Just in time for the Ads (Score:5, Insightful)
People who have turned hatred of a particular company into a sort of religion.
The foundations of most religions are based on common sense. Some of their beliefs and activities seem ridiculous now because they're responding to events or conditions that ended centuries or millennia ago.
For many contributors here, our distaste for matters Microsoft are based on things that happened during our lifetimes, and are often still happening.
Common Sense (Score:5, Funny)
The foundations of most religions are based on common sense.
Show me one religion that can be completely explained by common sense and I'll be a convert.
Re:Common Sense (Score:5, Funny)
My friend... how do you feel about pasta?
Re:Common Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The GP only claimed it could be explained by common sense at it's foundation. Practically all of them can be explained by common sense 4000 years ago !
The start of the Abrahamic religions for example may well have been something like this. There was this dude called Abraham - we know he WAS real (there is massive proof) who lived in a city called Ur. Ur's reality is beyond question - we've FOUND the place, part of the old Mesopotamian civilization - one of the first large human settlements. They were a polytheistic culture that set great store by physical symbols of idols (e.g. statue worship and the like) - this too is well verifiable fact (the archeologist found some of the idols and their religious scripture).
Abraham however wasn't satisfied with the fickle gods, they just didn't conform to his experience of the world - as a shepherd he encountered seasons and the way nature worked - regularly, and things weren't fitting.
So he moved out and began to think, clearly there was something bigger than himself out there (up to this point, science says the exact same thing)... then he made one small logical error - he turned "something bigger" into "Someone bigger".
He named that some-one El Shadai - which means "That which is" (in the modern Bible it is translated as "God".
Suddenly everything made sense- this much more powerful being controlled all the things that happened apparently randomly and senselessly yet showed clear patterns. They showed patterns because they were logical and wise, but they were unpredictable because they were the wisdom of a mind far greater than his own. Throw in a bit of the mythology from his homeland (Gilgamesh becomes Noah) and you have the book of Genesis resulting.
All very common sensible - for 6000 years ago. Not so much today.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Massive" proof of the biblical Abraham? Care to make a few citations? Enough to quality as "massive" proof would be a minimum (so I'd guess a couple of dozen of similar strength to a grave marked "The Biblical Abraham" would do it).
Also, Gilgamesh didn't become Noah. Utnapishtim eventually became Noah.
I can give a rational explanation for Islam. A man who one day started to hear voices and have visions? The same man who had headaches of increasing severity? Who eventually had intense pain in his head
Re: (Score:2)
Show me one religion that can be completely explained by common sense and I'll be a convert.
Scientology, you can even tell from the name that its based on science!
Re:Common Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Buddhism is based totally in common sense. Guatama Buddha even said not to believe something because he said it, or because it is in a holy book, but only to believe it if it is consistent with your own experience. He also said not to worry what happens after you die.
Re: (Score:3)
Heh yeah, they'll be rolling in hundreds of click-throughs!
Re: (Score:2)
Which would you rather have: skype for linux which has received precisely no updates in something like 6 years because it gives no benefit to the vendor, or an update with ads which at least ensures that it will receive future attention?
You know, if you dont like the ads you can use your own VoIP service. Ekiga is right there waiting, if you want your small userbase and your poor bandwidth usage.
You do realize that ads are responsible for the wide variety of free services we receive on the internet, right?
Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Years and years waiting for a decent version of skype for linux drove me to other solutions.
I no longer use skype for anything.
Still I'm utterly astounded that it took Microsoft ownership [seattlepi.com] to finally pry a halfway decent and up to date version from the developers. I presume all the wiretap hooks are now in place, now that all the calls are routed thru Microsoft's [arstechnica.com] servers, and the CLEA people are happy?
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Why skype when SIP supports video?
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
So my grandma uses that too, right?
The point of widespread communication systems is that you can get in touch with people.
The answer to "why skype [on Linux]?" is "because it works". How is the increased number of choices bad? It's almost infinitely more likely that someone will be reachable via Skype than via something that really doesn't have traction beyond geeks using Linux and OSS exclusively. Part of the whole battle to make Linux much more accessible to the general public is having software that people want to use. Up-to-date Skype on Linux is a win/win for all concerned; both from Microsoft's end (more users make the service as a whole more valuable) and for users (since the software is available) and since it removes one more hurdle to Linux adoption for the general public ("I might try it out, but can I run [$piece of common software] on it?").
Re: (Score:2)
So my grandma uses that too, right?
The point of widespread communication systems is that you can get in touch with people.
The answer to "why skype [on Linux]?" is "because it works".
"Because it works" isn't enough. There's plenty of solution that "just work", I expect more. Like reliability, the ability to use it anywhere, a standard protocol, and no "unknown stuff" going on in the background. The client reading /etc/passwd and lots of encrypted transmission even when not in use isn't an atractive feature when there's plenty of other choices that don't do obscure stuff.
How is the increased number of choices bad? It's almost infinitely more likely that someone will be reachable via Skype than via something that really doesn't have traction beyond geeks using Linux and OSS exclusively.
I know two people who use skype. I have circa 100 XMPP contacts. Mainly gmail users, but I still say people are m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Well under Linux many solutions such as Ekiga can accomplish this either entirely under SIP or with a bridge to other systems like XMPP. If you'd like a less technical solution, you just open an account with a provider (I use sipgate and voipcheap but there are thousands of others: http://www.moreofit.com/similar-to/www.sipgate.co.uk/Top_10_Sites_Like_Sipgate/?&page=2 [moreofit.com]), configure your client (I use the one built into Android and Yate) and go! Obviously you can't call a phonenumber with video call but SIP has an email like "address" or you can directly call international and national phone lines for voice com. I regularly talk to mobile users in Ghana from the US for around 7 - 15cents/ minute. In the US and to many european countries the calls to landlines are free and to mobiles are virtually free. All SIP to SIP calls are free with my providers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying GV. (Score:5, Informative)
You don't need an external device or a foreign landline to do it with pure SIP either...
For example, say you're in the US, but you want calls to a Canadian number to be routed to your PC/cellphone/landline/whatever. You'd pay $1/mth to a company like voip.ms for a DID (Direct Inward Dialing, basically a phone number), and set it up to forward calls to either an existing telephone number (cell, landline, etc) or some SIP software client. You'd pay something like a cent a minute.
The same principal applies overseas; get a DID with a company, set it up to forward to a US phone number or SIP address.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say if they let you buy them from outside of Australia (I'd probably have to order one and pay for it to find out), but voip.ms does have a few international DIDs:
http://voip.ms/intldids.php [voip.ms]
Australia is a heck of a lot more expensive with VoIP.ms ($7/mth compared to $5/yr), but the voip.ms one is unlimited while the mynetphone one is $0.10 per call, if I'm understanding right.
I'm not saying the VoIP.ms one is necessarily a better deal, only that it proves that the option is available, that there are
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Still I'm utterly astounded that it took Microsoft ownership to finally pry a halfway decent and up to date version from the developers.
I think it is interesting how Microsoft didn't get a mention at all in the summary or the article considering that the story is about them release software for Linux. And yet prior to Microsoft aquiring Skype they were directly blamed for Skype dropping other clients [slashdot.org]. It seems we only want to mention Microsoft when bad things are happening, even if it has nothing to do with them.
That said, it is interesting that the Skype website wasn't immediately rebranded with Microsoft logos. It seems MS are underplaying their ownership of this cross platform service. Perhaps they did some market research and found that their name would make users on non-Windows platforms aprehensive. You only need to look at the predictions of doom and gloom in the various Skype stories here on /. to appreciate that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Best avoid the Linux kernel, then; there's Microsoft code in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't have to - you can configure and compile your kernel with only the pieces you want, and leave the Microsoft code out if you don't want it.
If you use the Linux-Libre builds of the kernel from Gnusense (which are already packaged so they can be installed on Ubuntu-like systems) then there is nothing in there which isn't GPL'd.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft's contributions are GPL'd.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no, there isn't. It's only compiled for kernels intended to run under Microsoft virtualization. No one but Microsoft and its best friends is stupid enough to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure that's necessary.
You can probably just get away with avoiding the relevant Microsoft-centric kernel modules. It's not their so-called contributions are very wide in scope.
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft and Linux go together like gasoline and chocolate. No way am I installing their ware on my stuff.
I think that this was probably meant as a to reply to this post [slashdot.org] rather than mine.
But seriously, if you really want to avoid Microsoft software (and let's face it, we all know your feelings on that subject) then it is even more important to mention the name of the company in the summary. And even if you do not want to use the software yourself, you can at least become better informed as to what modern Microsoft practices are like so that you don't continue to make the assumption (which was not unreasonable at the time) that Microsoft would drop Linux support for Skype [slashdot.org].
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Modern Microsoft practices?
You mean like subverting standards bodies, patent trolling over vfat, and pushing ARM vendors to lock their bootloaders so Linux can't even start?
Those modern Microsoft practices?
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot. Shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the difference between the words that would impact my original post?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting yes, but not totally surprising. For all the legitimately intelligent people here, a lot of them (as well as the rest I suppose) are total hypocrites. There's a reason Slashdot is laughed at by other tech sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Black slaves wearing cotton shirts were hypocrites by your definition, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, it is interesting that the Skype website wasn't immediately rebranded with Microsoft logos. It seems MS are underplaying their ownership of this cross platform service
It was actually a demand from Skype to be left alone as a team. Apparently, their CEO even demanded that their office keycards would have [digitaltrends.com] Skype logo on them, and not MS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
As another person dissatisfied with Skype, could you please take a bit of time to describe what other solutions you are using?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks.
Google Talk (Score:2)
I switched to Google Talk. I use the browser plugin in chrome, which is fine for me since I use gmail for my mail client anyway (ever since kmail broke down...) There isn't official voice/video support for other linux clients [google.com], but some claim to support it (e.g. Empathy [gnome.org] says lists "Voice and video call using SIP, XMPP and Google Talk." as a feature).
Re: (Score:2)
I use it extensively since I got an Android phone, but one problem with it is that it doesn't support video or audio calls.
People who use other clients see me in their list of contacts, but the video/audio call option is grayed out. That is strange, because the phone has a video camera, the Internet connection is reasonably fast, and Skype works well on it.
Is there some magic checkbox I have to tick to enable audio calls on the GTalk client for Android?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the problem is your Android version. After I upgraded mine to 2.3 the audio calls started to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the feedback. I thought so too, but I believe that is not the case - I have 2.3.7, Cyanogenmod 7.1.0.1.
My version of Google Talk is 1.3, can you tell me if yours is newer?
Re: (Score:2)
I use DarkyROM, which bundles Google Talk 2.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Google+ Hangouts. The only people I regularly video chat with is my family.
There are a lot of interesting tech contacts I have too, that it could be potentially interesting to video chat with. They are also on Google+. My old high school classmates aren't on Google+, but I wasn't planning on video chatting with them.
Re: (Score:2)
At work we use Skype. The features we use include: IM, IM chat rooms, direct file sending, audio calls, audio callout to real phones, audio conference calls, audio conference calls with real phones, screen remoting, video calls (occasionally). This all has to run on Linux, Windows, OSX, and Android.
I've been unable to find any competing product that does all of this at the same time. So we use Skype, which I loathe.
(Skype's notifications on Linux are so terrible that people have got into the habit of ta
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too late, but hey, thanks for trying Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Turns out Microsoft is really interested in your conversation with your grandma.
Possibly not. But they would be interested in cooperating with governments for this sort of behaviour.
In 2001, the Australian government refused permission for the Norwegian ship MV Tampa to enter Australian waters because it was carrying 400 refugees who had been rescued from a sinking boat. Prime Minister John Howard sent Australian special forces to board the ship and prevent the refugees from being disembarked.
This created a major controversy in the run up to a general election.
Years later, the inspector general of Intelligence and Security found that in addition to the "extensive-and legal-surveillance of communications" to and from the Tampa, the government used illegal phone taps to monitor the communications between the lawyer for the shipping line and his clients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair
64 bit? (Score:5, Insightful)
The most important question is whether they made a native 64 bit version? [for those of us who don't want to pollute our machines with 32-bit compatibility libraries]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they did, though I haven't tried it yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Great!
Weird times, though: this puts me in a position of wanting to thank Microsoft...
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you've used it.
No, no snarky undertone...I didn't use it (never will), but wait until you've actually used software before thanking the developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure?
I've downloaded both the static and dynamic versions and they are only 32-bit... where did you find information about a 64-bit version?
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you find a static version of 4.0?
Re:64 bit? (Score:5, Informative)
No, the "64bit" version is still 32 bit:
$ dpkg-deb -I skype-ubuntu_4.0.0.7-1_amd64.deb
new debian package, version 2.0.
size 29342422 bytes: control archive= 4552 bytes.
32 bytes, 1 lines conffiles
904 bytes, 21 lines control
9835 bytes, 137 lines md5sums
Package: skype
Version: 4.0.0.7-1
Section: non-free/net
Priority: extra
Architecture: amd64
Depends: lib32stdc++6 (>= 4.1.1-21), lib32asound2 (>> 1.0.14), ia32-libs, libc6-i386 (>= 2.7-1), lib32gcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1-21+ia32.libs.1.19)
Conflicts: skype-mid, skype-common
Replaces: skype-mid, skype-common
Installed-Size: 34742
Maintainer: Skype Technologies
Description: Skype
.
Skype is software that enables the world's conversations.
Millions of individuals and businesses use Skype to make free video and voice calls,
send instant messages and share files with other Skype users.
Everyday, people also use Skype to make low-cost calls to landlines and mobiles.
.
* Make free Skype-to-Skype calls to anyone else, anywhere in the world.
* Call to landlines and mobiles at great rates.
* Group chat with up to 200 people or conference call with up to 25 others.
* Free to download.
Re: (Score:2)
Well bugger. I stand corrected.
Re:64 bit? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. The 64-bit version won't even install on my 64-bit version of Ubuntu 12.04. It complains of dependency errors with ia32-llbs and how it can't install it or ia32-libs-multiarch. That said, the 32-bit version installs and runs just fine. It also finally fixes the nasty bug of using 100% CPU while on a video call.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a context switch performance hit when the kernel is doing its multilib thing? Do registers need to get swapped out, for instance?
I know people are complaining (Score:4, Insightful)
But at least they are supporting linux with it vs not. The bottom line is when your trying to use Linux as your desktop OS and need to Skype with someone they don't want to hear "Just download X client and we'll use that instead of Skype". Maybe the people forcing you to run Skype to communicate with them should care about open standards but like most people they probably just want to use something that's familiar and easy to use.
I'll remain firmly in the past, thank you. (Score:2)
The last time I allowed Skype to update, it broke Excel.
No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Piss poor distro support (Score:3, Funny)
Ubuntu 10.04, Debian 6.0, Fedora 16, and OpenSUSE 12.1 ONLY. Are you kidding me?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a generic dynamic & a generic static binary tarball.
I'm using the former in a TinyCore virtual machine.
The complete VM is about 140 megabytes and includes ALSA sound, Fluxbox, Chromium and Skype.
I can upload it as a VirtualBox appliance if anyone's interested,
Re: (Score:2)
Use alien and treat it like a generic tarball if you need too.
Some people even call those "Slackware packages".
Re: (Score:2)
Tarball: .tar.gz. .tgz.
Slackware package:
Slackware packages are also tarballs, but they contain some standardized scripts for configuration and installation on slackware. They are typically binary-only packages as well, as opposed to regular tarballs which typically (but far from always) are used for source distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
>Tarball: .tar.gz. .tgz.
>Slackware package:
>Slackware packages are also tarballs, but they contain some standardized scripts for configuration and installation on slackware. They are typically binary-only packages as well, as opposed to regular tarballs which typically (but far from always) are used for source distribution
Actually that's not quite true. Slackware does still support tgz packages but ever since slackware 13 they have not been standard. All standard slackware packages are in, and all
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since Debian, Fedora, SUSE, and their derivatives probably have a >90% "market" share, I'd say it's a pretty good start.
Or was that the joke? =)
Whats poor about that? (Score:2)
Chat window width? (Score:2)
One of the STUPIDEST and most annoying things about the newer versions on Windows is that chat windows have an arbitrary fixed max width to the text, with forced linewrapping! You can fullscreen it to your widescreeny heart's content, and be greeted with nothing but giant blank white areas on either side, with just a slit of text down the middle furiously wrapping itself.
This SUCKS for pasting in source code or any other material with intentional linebreaks, and I haven't found anything to be able to allow
4.0 with new improved annoyances! (Score:2)
No thanks.
So who is doing video/audio over jabber?
Re: (Score:2)
>So who is doing video/audio over jabber?
Google ? Jingle is just a jabber extension.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more open than google, but yes they would qualify too.
RPM's and DEB's (Score:2)
I see RPM's and DEB's but no static nor dynamic tarballs. In the past these have been useful for installing to other distros like Arch, and cases where the packaged versions conflict with existing libraries. Are they available somewhere?
Not that I'm a big Skype user nor supporter myself, but I know I'm going to get bugged by other people about this.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.skype.com/go/getskype-linux-beta-dynamic [skype.com]
http://www.skype.com/go/getskype-linux-beta-static [skype.com]
Also see: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2916797&cid=40330813 [slashdot.org]
Any Skype-similar, Open Source VoIP S/W? (Score:2)
So, if Skype is now such a dog (eg, due to coming ad's & its previous acquisition by Microsoft), where are all the Open Source counterparts?
Windows' ubiquity may have contributed to Linux & FreeBSD's growth...
Won't the ad's and/or Microsoft refurbishing of Skype contribute to the growth of Open Source, Skype-counterparts?
If not now / soon, when?
Re: (Score:2)
You can extract those from the .deb, like so:
Repository (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu gives you Skype through Canonical partners repository. I think you are asked whether you want it there during the installation, in the same window where they ask about multimedia support and updates during installation. Downside is that we will probably not see the new version for while.
is it worth upgrading? (Score:2)
I'm glad that Microsoft is working on Linux, but I was just wondering whether I want to update. I use Skype on both Linux and Windows and to be honest, I prefer the old version from Linux. Sure: it crashes more often, and has somehow less features. But for what I mostly do, it works ok. And the interface is much less cluttered, I can quit the app without having to read a manual, no ads, really slick.
I haven't looked at the new Skyp 4 yet, but I don't find it unlikely that I switch back to the old version at
Welcome to 2005, Skype (Score:2)
All conversations in one windows? Sounds like most clients already have tabbed views. (it surprises me to find out skype still didn't!)
The rest is mostly sugar candy, new emoticons and stuff. As for "more webcams support"... if voice+video is your main bussiness, it sounds like a bug-fix, not a "new feature".
wow! (Score:2)
Re:Oh Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they just fixed their usage of V4L. A lot of cameras didn't work unless you did a stupid hack like :
LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib32/libv4l/v4l1compat.so skype
Re: (Score:3)
There's a major factor here on top - which is that there are two major versions of libv4l - with incompatible interfaces- for a long time skype didn't support v4l2 but I think they fixed that now.
Even that isn't all of it, many webcams (my own logitech for example) require codec-style interpretation to be done by the drivers/apps. For a long time I couldn't get my cam to work with skype despite it being fully supported on Linux. Why ? Because the codec part of the driver was in a 64-bit kernel and skype did
Re: (Score:2)
There's a major factor here on top - which is that there are two major versions of libv4l - with incompatible interfaces- for a long time skype didn't support v4l2 but I think they fixed that now
I guess this is exactly what they've done. But then the summary should be more along the lines of "Skype finally managed to stop using webcam library from the previous millenium that has been deprecated for over a year.", instead of the positiv spin they've put on it where it sounds like they actually did some good work.
Re: (Score:2)
That is very likely, but I'll have a look tonight and see if my home-cam actually plays nice with the new skype.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No your just insane. Plenty of people are still using 32 bit linux, and I'm sure plenty are still using it on 64-bit hardware even.
I don't even think most netbooks are fully 64 bit yet(I know my friends wasn't when he tried to install a 64bit version of windows on it, and it was just over a year old with an atom processor), which are all the rage if you pay attention to anything other than your big black rig.
Really, no one sane cares about 64 bits for what amounts to an accessory. Which is what skype pret
Re: (Score:2)
I was one until fairly recently. I tried to switch many times, but inevitably there would be some pain which would make it not worth it. Problems with Flash and graphics card drivers mostly. For quite a while, I had to choose between utilizing the 8 GB memory on my laptop or the NVidia graphics card (the driver still has issues, it crashes the kernel and corrupts my files, but a
Re: (Score:2)
You mean aside from the fact that it means installing a crap load of duplicate libraries ? Some of us find that er... incredibly annoying to have to do just to support one single app.
The only other app where this is still needed is wine and at least the wine guys are working really hard to fix that - and they have an excuse (the difficulty of supporting the very different multilib architecture that windows 64-bit uses) - skype is just too lazy to set up a 64-bit build-box.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew there was something I was forgetting.
Re: (Score:2)
>Which should make it obvious that, most people using desktop linux are using it on older hardware.
That is just plain not true. In fact the vast majority of desktop linux users happen to be technical people, programmers and sysadmins and such - and most of us like to have new and fast computers.
Granted I also have several older computers which I run older distro's on - but I don't use them as my day-to-day desktop, and I have no need to put skype on that - I use it where I actually work most of the time
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I am sure they are already working on a solution to lock old clients out.
Re: (Score:2)
The Fedora 16 version WILL install and run in F17.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't the devil say "what the heaven"?