This backend outage reveals how horrible the Slack UI is implemented. You post a message.... you think it got sent. Then 1min later, it tells you it was not.
It's not an implementation detail, it's a whole (controversial) UX design pattern: https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/11/true-lies-of-optimi...
Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
51–60 of 225 posts
Re: Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
#52Slack is unusable, but it did get me to restart Docker which had ballooned to 16 GB memory and a bazillion processes. Modern software development is something else
I understand there are benefits and reasons for the state of affairs...
Re: Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
#53Pour one out for the SREs.
Re: Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good reminder that I needed to do this. Docker for me had gotten up to 13GB even though I have it supposedly limited to 8.
If you are on a Mac you are probably looking at virtual memory because that is what Activity Monitor displays by default.
Re: Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have both Slack and Teams. Almost everyone I know who has an option picks Slack.
I've never used Teams, but if everyone prefers Slack over it, it must be horrible.
A Teams "channel" has counter intuitive behavior, the messages you send are more like forum threads, users can reply to them, and when that happens it reorders the whole messages to put that one at the bottom. It makes it impossible to "catch up" on a channel since people will happily reply to any messages so the ordering is completely random.
There is also a completely counter intuitive distinction between "groups chats" and "channels".
Teams is also the only chat service I know where there is an actual limit on the number of non-public channels you can have. After 30 channels have been created, you're doomed.
Want to remove an existing channel to make room for a new one? Nope, you cannot remove a channel, only "archive" them. Archived channels are removed after 30 days and there is no way to force their removal early. So basically if you reach 30 channels you have to wait minimum 30 days to create a new one.
Did I mention the UI is slow as hell, and half the screen space is used by unnecessary large padding between messages? I am rarely able to have more than 3/4 messages displayed on a 23" screen.
The only positive point of Teams is integration with outlook 365 and meetings. It works really well, quality is good, reliable, nice UI, présentation mode, screen share, etc
Re: Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in their defence, you can't really know how much the uptime is going to be affected by until the incident is resolved. If it was a live counter then you'd see the uptime go up as the month progresses!
I don't have a problem with it if they update the uptime stats afterwards, but why couldn't it be implemented "live"? Basically time "down" / total time elapsed during $period. At the beginning of the month/quarter/period you'd be at 100% (if they are up at that moment). Or even simpler, just have it be a measurement of a rolling window X days in the past.
Re: Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
#57Re: Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
#58This backend outage reveals how horrible the Slack UI is implemented. You post a message.... you think it got sent. Then 1min later, it tells you it was not.
Just experienced this and decided to context switch to hackernews for a few minutes. Ironic that this post is the top on homepage.
Re: Users may be unable to connect or experiencing degraded performance
#59I watched this a while ago, and it did not fill me with confidence for the Slack backend at the time: https://youtu.be/WE9c9AZe-DY