And This is why I avoid these types of sites...

[BC_Programmer]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/how-skype-does-and-doesn-8217t-work/1051

I usually don't read these things but it was linked in a newsletter I receive. I'm surprised they pay people for this type of thing. Reading the authors other articles, I notice a theme. It seems that many of his articles follow the trend of:

• Notice a recent acquisition by Microsoft.
• Declare the product to be inferior using either retrospective falsification, anecdotal evidence, or both.
• back it up with a bunch of made of stuff and insert a few technical words here and there.

Basically, the author didn't do ANY research to back up any of what he says.

For example, he claims that Skype, being run essentially P2P, can't work on a PC with a firewall. That is simply untrue.

In one paragraph he says it's encrypted using 256-bit encryption, in another he's saying that anybody along the way can view your precious data. Of course he's just playing off the lot of Security-Related FUD That has permeated the industry as a whole, which is evidenced by the epic facepalm that was most peoples response to the iPod tracking thing. For example, he says "It goes through a lot of computers" OOOOOH! SCARY! yeah, that's called a network, buddy. That's how they work. We also have colour televisions.

He implies that P2P is unreliable, yet countless people seem to be able to make skype calls and use other Peer-2-peer applications just fine.

And that is why I usually don't read these types of things. What concerns me more is that there are plenty of people who do, and a good portion of them actually think most of these people are intellectually qualified for anything more cognitively demanding then a staring contest with a turnip. I know I've seen a few posters on this forum mention they used a registry cleaner or a "tune up" tool because it was recommended by one of these types of sites, which IMO puts a lot of their credibility right out the window. (That combined with the incessantly repeated nonsense comparing the Windows registry to a "Brain")

[Geek-9pm]

Here is a tidbit from that article.

Really, what were you thinking Ballmer when you wrote a check for $8.5-billion for Skype? You do know that not even two years ago Skype was valued at $2.75-billion right?

The answer should be obvious. They will get the money back in just  one year.

[BC_Programmer]

Here is a tidbit from that article.The answer should be obvious. They will get the money back in just  one year.

Exactly; when it comes to stuff like this, I prefer to defer to the experience of the corporation that is worth billions as a result of making similar decisions in the past. This points out something else I've always found amusing: so many people like to think they are business analysts; I mean, sure, that can be a good germ to spark a discussion, but it's hardly a position that presents itself as an authority. I'm not a business analyst so all I- or really most people- can really do is look at the decisions from a common sense perspective; however, and I suppose it's debatable, but really, thinks like marketing/economics/business analysis are a sort of science, and common sense is practically useless in science, since it's only applicable within the narrow range of experiences we grow up with. It's often more harmful than helpful in the scientific process. Nobody that hasn't worked as a business analyst can say that a particular business decision was or was not "common sense" because their experience simply doesn't contain any context in that field. That said, I can say with some certainty that the author of the article didn't have very much context to make what appears to be a "common sense" accusation; after all, if they did and competent at it, they wouldn't be writing alleged technical articles- they'd be making those types of decisions.