Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

dave.cheney.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 536 posts

Re: Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

#151

Post by AsyncAwait »

27182818284 wrote: post #58
PaulHoule wrote: post #47

What drives me nuts is that there are so many of these things. I know groups that (for business or pleasure) use Slack, Discord, Skype, Google Hangouts, IRC, etc. All of these clients are a bit more obstrusive than they need to be in terms of pop-up notifications, software updates, cpu, memory, transfer, etc. They all screw up enough that there's always a little apprehension that something will go wrong when you get…

>It is one thing to deal with one of these things, but when you have to install ten to get The modern office large office is pretty bad in this respect. Really not uncommon to see things like • Need to have Slack open • Need to keep an eye on Basecamp/pm software • Need to have Outlook open / check in on for email and calendar invites • Need Skype open because not everyone uses Slack • GitLab is open in another tab I…

As a freelancer, I have EXACTLY this problem, so I started hacking away on my own solution. Don't want to shamelessly promote myself here, but if you're interested, link is in my profile.

Re: Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

#152

Post by uiri »

scrollaway wrote: post #103
hueving wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If freenode disappears, it's less than a day to pick a new network and connect. Nobody changes clients, tooling, etc. That's the difference between a closed walled garden like slack and an open protocol.

Nobody changes clients if Slack disappears and is replaced by another webapp. It's all in browser. The UI might change, but the UI also changes when you go from a Mac IRC client to a Windows one, which doesn't happen with web apps. I say this as someone who's used IRC a crapton and is a strong advocate for open protocols (and for more than just ideological reasons): Realistically , if Freenode disappears, IRC will mo…

If Freenode disappears, people will join Debian over on OFTC. I'm not sure if Mozilla and GNU/FSF use Freenode or run their own infrastructure but if the former, then they may set up their own network(s).

Other IRC networks than Freenode and OFTC exist too.

As far as security goes, SSL is an option for clientserver connections. I hope that at this point it is default for serverserver connections. What else are you expecting for security?

Re: Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

#153

Post by throwaway9475 »

uiri wrote: post #132
drey08 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a note: if you go from free to paid, you can recover those lost messages. They're never actually deleted, you just can't view messages after the 10k limit in the free version.

Wow, that is kind of evil. I could understand if Slack kept, say, the last 20k or 50k and only showed the most recent 10k. For them to store all the messages indefinitely for all free servers means that they are incurring the same storage costs whether the server is free or paid. Are the bandwidth costs really that high to justify hiding all those messages (likely on the order of 100k or 1M for many servers) ?

No, they hold your data hostage because they can. Welcome to capitalism.

Re: Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

#154

Post by giancarlostoro »

PaulHoule wrote: post #47

What drives me nuts is that there are so many of these things. I know groups that (for business or pleasure) use Slack, Discord, Skype, Google Hangouts, IRC, etc. All of these clients are a bit more obstrusive than they need to be in terms of pop-up notifications, software updates, cpu, memory, transfer, etc. They all screw up enough that there's always a little apprehension that something will go wrong when you get…

I just use Franz:

http://meetfranz.com/

Re: Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

#155

Post by IanCal »

uiri wrote: post #132
drey08 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a note: if you go from free to paid, you can recover those lost messages. They're never actually deleted, you just can't view messages after the 10k limit in the free version.

Wow, that is kind of evil. I could understand if Slack kept, say, the last 20k or 50k and only showed the most recent 10k. For them to store all the messages indefinitely for all free servers means that they are incurring the same storage costs whether the server is free or paid. Are the bandwidth costs really that high to justify hiding all those messages (likely on the order of 100k or 1M for many servers) ?

They might be shunted to a disk somewhere and removed from search indices while on the free plan, reducing their costs but allowing them to recover things after.

> Are the bandwidth costs really that high to justify hiding all those messages (likely on the order of 100k or 1M for many servers) ?

Given that the cost to you is 0, what cost to them is required for it to be justified to you?

It seems odd that providing a free but limited service is evil, based only on it being slightly more expensive to give you an even better service for free.

Re: Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

#156

Post by IanCal »

Underqualified wrote: post #134

Tangentially, I don't get how developers on the one hand strive for private offices and no (physical) interruptions, but on the other want to communicate through chat channels. Maybe these are different people altogether, and I'm just getting the wrong impression. But personally I prefer a little personal interaction over a long chat.

As someone who works remotely, I really appreciate things happening more on chat channels, because then I'm included in part of them.

> But personally I prefer a little personal interaction over a long chat.

Although it's hard to schedule an 80 second meeting between five people, but a quick set of questions and answers might only take that long.

Re: Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

#158

Post by mmanfrin »

joaodlf wrote: post #125

Forums. I don't know why the internet got tired of them, even when they sometimes fit the bill so well. Slack is chat. Mailing lists are far too outdated. Forums are good, and some good people out there are still developing them.

Reddit and Facebook ate forums. Reddit in particular fills that interest-niche conversation role to a degree that it strangles forums.

Re: Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

#159

Post by qudat »

kuschku wrote: post #124
NateDad wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"log in to slack" vs. "deploy 3 services in the cloud by yourself and force everyone to use a specific irc client (good luck)" There's a reason people like slack so much. It does a ton of stuff out of the box with no headaches. Nobody wants to maintain all that stuff.

> There's a reason people like slack so much. It does a ton of stuff out of the box with no headaches. Nobody wants to maintain all that stuff. So instead of paying someone to maintain it, you pay someone to maintain it who keeps all your data from you and prevents you from accessing it, and who admits he’ll read all your stuff. How is that better again? That said, IRCCloud already does it for free, in the cloud, jus…

> So instead of paying someone to maintain it, you pay someone to maintain it who keeps all your data from you and prevents you from accessing it, and who admits he’ll read all your stuff.

You aren't paying "someone" you're paying an entire company that is dedicated to making the application highly available, with all the bells and whistles, with zero hassle.

Really, if you think IRC is so similar to Slack, then why are so many companies, organizations flocking to it? There has to be a reason.

Post reply on HN