I'm currently running Fedora Core 6 - x86_64.

Seems like I'm pretty much out of luck for using skype on this platform for now, but is there any likelihood that it'll be available in the near future?

If only the linux version of skype could be open sourced...then the user community could take care of porting on its own.

I agree that Linux is poorly supported by , I agree that an open protocol(which is different from open-source client) would have been great for all of us, but there are no chances that we'll see source code; there are many (good, from Skype/Ebay point of view) reasons for that, so please stop asking.
At least once a day there is some new user of this forum thinking s/he must share with us her/his deep thoughts on software development models. What we get? The n-th message stating <<I think that Skype should be OSS>>.

Ok...no worries here. I wasn't trying to offend anyone.

So...back to my my actual question...is x86_64 on the roadmap anywhere?

No. Why use skype?

If you have the appropriate 32-bit libraries installed, you should be able to run Skype on an AMD64 system. Granted it isn't as nice as an official 64-bit release, it should work fine.

I run the 1.3.0.53 build on my Ubuntu Edgy system. I needed to install the ia32-libs package and get a copy of the 32-bit version of libasound.so.2.0.0, but it does work.

64-bit version is lie?

Not a lie per sé.

The 64bit version (for Debian/Ubuntu as presented on that other thread) is just a repackaged 32bit version that should be installable without issues or broken dependencies.

Let's call it 'service'

Just hope for development of a TRUE 64bit version which should improve performance and enjoyment for us all !

I can run the 32-bit version on x86_64 F10 without any problem.

Ifs and Buts, shoulds and woulds ...

"If the 32bit compatibility binaries are installed ..."

It is quite a revelation that skype does not think a 64 bit version is a viable option. Compiling 64 bit is a trivial task, which I accomplish everyday and I am NOT getting paid a penny ...

As I'm not willing to pollute my 32bit free system, a 64bit version of Skype is a must for me. And I accede to my predecessor, that compiling a static/shared 64bit version can't be such a resource consuming task. You've the source, you've compiled 32bit version, so I really can't see where's the problem.
I'm also not willing to pay the same rates for less service.

i really don't know why to use 64 while u can use 32 and everything is supported

what are the benefits of the 64 version ?

I use skype on Arch64, with or without PulseAudio it works fine. What am I doing wrong?

Don't know about others, but I'm physicist and need to run math simulations quite often: 64 bit systems is a must for me (and others) because in hight demanding numeric processes (and that means not only math, but also sound/video encoding, image rendering and a large etcetera) is faster.
Using 32 bits apps in 64 bits systems implies compatibility libraries (duplicated libraries) and that is not "efficient". Right now, and after the release of 64 bits flash plug-in, skype is the only 32 bits app I'm running.
You see, a 64 bits skype is important for many of us.

I agree. Even some of my apps run a bit faster in 64 bits. Also if you have over 3 Gb of RAM you need a 64-bit OS to be able to fully use all of it efficiently.

I'm also currently running the 32-bit version of skype on Debian Lenny. Unfortunately, I have 2 big issues with it. First, whenever there is a major update, skype stops working well and I have to reinstall it. Secondly, and more importantly, Whenever I use my webcam the buttons on the "call window" dissapear...this didn't happen with the 32-bit version when I had Debian Lenny 32-bits.

It appears the developers have promised a 64-bit version for Linux to be released in 2009, among other updates and changes to skype:
http://share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/01...ux_updates.html

Let us hope they speak the truth!

Although there's no need to be repetitive: Skype needs 32bit compatibility libs, which are unwanted on my system. And I need a 64bit system for working in digital content using a lot of memory.
Of course I don't need 64bit for Skype, but I need 64bit Skype.

Who needs 64 bits?

Really! there will barely be any noticeable difference in performance, I run x64 and still I am running applications for 32b without problems, yes you need 32 bit libraries, so what? good deal, just add 2 more Mbs to your disk drive, stop being stubborn about 64 bits, the performance difference between both arch is barely noticeable except for especialized applications and runtimes that can take real advantage of it.

Skype would also have to double support and the development/maintenance cost of Linux Skype would increase.

btw, I am a scientist too and it is a shame that a fellow scientist cant understand about pragmatism.

Hesperos < stupid. If you are a scientist.. its a shame on you that your knowledge is so ...

The 64bit got the point when it comes to high load, and simply when it comes to converting things, packaging, compiling, calculating, etc etc. Yeah I run mathematic applications and YEAH I *DO* need 64bit. Read after what does it means, and then write such comment.. LOL.

who needs them? people who runs 3D raytracing renderer for animated feature film? physics simulation? GIS? i'm not a scientist (you claim to be one) but i do highend 3D rendering. and obviously i'm more technically advanced than you.



applications that doesn't need lots of RAM won't notice the difference, yes.



with the risk of bricking your system because of polluted libraries? a week ago i failed to install a license server for a well-known 3D application because of mixed libraries between 32 & 64.



oh really, simply replacing some 32 bit pointers and data and recompile for 64 bit will _double_ the development cost?



a moron like you and you call yourself a scientist? what a joke. get a clue before opening your mouth. stay away from linux cause you WILL brick your system.

It works as long as you do something that is compiled into multilib, as using the default audio output, but when you want to use a bluetooth headset, then you will run into trouble and get messages like:

ALSA lib control.c:909:(snd_ctl_open_noupdate) Invalid CTL bluetooth
ALSA lib pcm.c:2104:(snd_pcm_open_conf) Cannot open shared library /usr/lib32/alsa-lib/libasound_module_pcm_bluetooth.so

Or say you want to make a plugin to skype, how many do you think has a 32bit gcc environment setup to build it?

The only reasons I still struggle with multilib are skype and adobe reader and I only can use it on my AMD64 based machine while on my PowerPC and Sparc machines skype is the only IM that I can't use. I would have to say I wish the protocol standard can be open up a bit, so we can see other clients which don't require you to have a skype up and running.

Hi Trizt,

Hopefully you can just Get people to open their eyes to the reality that there are good options for a better future. If there's an important enough recalcitrant, fallback would be connecting to skype-net via FreeSWITCH or Asterix on an appropriate machine that can run skype.

Best wishes

P.S. Also, in thread below that ref is flash-based site via which can do skype-net chat.

Under Debian 5.0.3 »Lenny« 64-bit (with AMD64 dual core processor) actual beta package skype-ubuntu-intrepid_2.1.0.47-1_amd64.deb works fine on my system - after installing the Debian package ia32-libs-gtk_2.7_amd64.deb.

I tested audio calls and can receive video [but having no webcam, I did not test video transmission].

Baltasar