101–110 of 153 posts
It's sad that we don't have a very good self hosted chat solution. Last time I checked around, XMPP didn't have a client that I could recommend to business clients that looked easy/simple to use, has no gotchas and looks native. Currently I use Mattermost, which does basic things fine and things are stable but the formatting is just getting in the way making texts unnecessary big and bold when people never intend to…
It's sad that we don't have a very good self hosted chat solution. Last time I checked around, XMPP didn't have a client that I could recommend to business clients that looked easy/simple to use, has no gotchas and looks native. Currently I use Mattermost, which does basic things fine and things are stable but the formatting is just getting in the way making texts unnecessary big and bold when people never intend to…
Assuming you know the minimum features non-technical users want/need in such a tool is going to exclude a lot of options that might otherwise be viable.
WYSIWYG is probably the canonical example of this: non-technical users DON'T need WYSIWYG.
Slack has been the (non-self-hosted) solution du jour for what you describe. My company use Slack and we have thousands of non-technical staff on it: complaints were rife when they recently introduced WYSIWYG and we continue to get requests for help in disabling it.
For the future, I think Riot is your best bet. Matrix may suffer the same fate of XMPP, but if it escapes that fate, it'll be because of Riot.
It doesn't tick all your boxes yet, but RiotX is a hopeful project in terms of native, and the integrations it supports make a lot of features easy to add in some usable capacity.
It's sad that we don't have a very good self hosted chat solution. Last time I checked around, XMPP didn't have a client that I could recommend to business clients that looked easy/simple to use, has no gotchas and looks native. Currently I use Mattermost, which does basic things fine and things are stable but the formatting is just getting in the way making texts unnecessary big and bold when people never intend to…
Web version is rather mature already, with android / iOS clients coming to shape fast and will soon be released. We'll likely make an Electron-based desktop version, though of course it far from ideal
However, doing all this great stuff we had to replace many common XMPP extensions, like multi-user chat, which is utter garbage. The replacement works like ... well, Telegram groups, has nice fallback capabilities to legacy clients and is generally very well working.
It's sad that we don't have a very good self hosted chat solution. Last time I checked around, XMPP didn't have a client that I could recommend to business clients that looked easy/simple to use, has no gotchas and looks native. Currently I use Mattermost, which does basic things fine and things are stable but the formatting is just getting in the way making texts unnecessary big and bold when people never intend to…
Matrix seems to be the future now. The present is, however, Slack.
Actually, in terms of number of users, the present is MS Teams. Both companies release their numbers and it's not even close.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You would tell your client to connect to "google.com" and it was hardcoded to connect to "xmpp.google.com", with no option to choose a different server. >If you had multiple domains that you wanted to connect the servers would also default to xmpp.other.domain. This seems strange. XMPP has SRV records specified for discovery of the client endpoint, so the "correct" thing for a client to do would be to look up the x…
It's what Jabber used to do back in the day at the least.
Your other option is just to give everyone their own XMPP address on a subdomain for each site - foo@dublin.example.com, bar@brussels.example.com, etc. I do this with a number of independent XMPP servers and it works fine. Then you're just depending on ordinary XMPP s2s to communicate between them, which is obviously well-supported.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matrix seems to be the future now. The present is, however, Slack.
> The present is, however, Slack. Actually, in terms of number of users, the present is MS Teams. Both companies release their numbers and it's not even close.
It's sad that we don't have a very good self hosted chat solution. Last time I checked around, XMPP didn't have a client that I could recommend to business clients that looked easy/simple to use, has no gotchas and looks native. Currently I use Mattermost, which does basic things fine and things are stable but the formatting is just getting in the way making texts unnecessary big and bold when people never intend to…
WhatsApp is the most popular chat app among non-technical users in the world, and it explicitly uses symbols instead of WYSIWIG for formatting.
I'm pretty sure you're making up these requirements without actually researching your target audience.
It's sad that we don't have a very good self hosted chat solution. Last time I checked around, XMPP didn't have a client that I could recommend to business clients that looked easy/simple to use, has no gotchas and looks native. Currently I use Mattermost, which does basic things fine and things are stable but the formatting is just getting in the way making texts unnecessary big and bold when people never intend to…
[1] - https://delta.chat/en/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matrix seems to be the future now. The present is, however, Slack.
> The present is, however, Slack. Actually, in terms of number of users, the present is MS Teams. Both companies release their numbers and it's not even close.
Is this a client or is Dino also running a chat server/issuing accounts etc? I used to use pidgin/adium/finch back when google & facebook supported XMPP, but I'm not sure what I'd do with a client now. Crucially: If I have Dino, can I chat with any of my friends? Or do I need to persuade them to install Dino & create an account somewhere first?