Linux Skype 4.2 won't sign in

Seriously?

 

Yep, seriously... again in car terms think of it like one being a VW Phaeton and the other being a Bentley Continental GT... They look different, they're even aimed at different customers, but underneath they're the same chassis...

Mint and Ubuntu look different, but underneath they're the same O/S... hell you can remove unity [default ubuntu UI] and replace it with MATE [the Mint default] if you so choose...


Neither Gareth or I are trying to mislead you, it may say 'Ubuntu' rather than 'Mint' on the skype page, but as far as [most] software is concerned they're one and the same...

 

I think we've more than adequately established that it's more work than it's worth.

P

 

Possibly, but the point is it shouldn't be... all this confusion has come from one sentence on the skype website...

I get the frustration, I've had it myself, I've also almost lot my rag with some like Gareth who's come along and said 'Well it works for me so nyah...' [not a dig at you Gareth, just an example...].


The ways to fix the problem:

Download the 'Ubuntu 12.04 (multiarch)' package from the skype site and install it... [yes, it is the correct one, yes it will install]
Upgrade to a new[er] version of Mint and grab it from the repo
Use something else [be it another messenger or the skype web client]
Do none of the above and grumble in the corner

It's your choice which you go with... we're here to help whichever way...

 

Then why bother?

 

You're comparing a start screen replacement with a whole new OS?

 

that's the thing though... mint isn't a whole new OS... it's just ubuntu with some stuff bolted on and a lick of paint... It may not seem it, Mint may not explicitly say so, but it is.


... and we've hit that argument, despite all attempts to keep it away from it...

 

Then... why bother?

 

For the same reason people replace 8.x's start screen with something else... They [mint's devs] deem the base OS to be flawed or lacking in some way and are attempting to remedy what they perceive to be it's flaws/deficiencies...

Whether they've succeeded in their goal, or whether there was any need to 'fix' things in the first place... Is a matter of personal opinion...

 

To confuse matter further - these 2 are different Linux OSes with the same UI [slightly differing versions of the UI but hopefully you get the idea], top one is Fedora with KDE, bottom is Kubuntu [Ubuntu with KDE frontend]




These 2 are the same base OS [*buntu] with 2 different UIs - Unity and LXDE respectively...




Point is, just because they look different doesn't mean they are different, just because they look the same doesn't mean they are the same underlying OS...

 

In a similar vein, at work I run Ubuntu with cinnamon (mint's front end) installed.

 

all my linux have no gui

 

I'd like to point out, not for the first time, that linux needs to sort out its collective priorities.

 

I don't understand why you continue using linux. You seem to utterly hate the way linux carries on. Which is fine. But you continue to use it. Which is confusing

 

Pretty much, yes.

People keep telling me it's fixed, that it's no longer a massive ballache to do everything, that it's now suitable for the desktop, that it's all OK and everything will be fine. They keep being wrong, but yes, if it's an admission, I admit I keep giving Linux a chance.

I run my laptop on linux so I can keep tabs on how it's doing in a fairly undemanding environment (where it constantly fails anyway, as here). I don't really feel like I can continue to advise people against using it - which I regularly do - unless I occasionally do use it. Unfortunately, it keeps on reinforcing my dislike.

P