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

Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

shrugs.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 236 posts

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#61

Post by julianlam »

toastercat wrote: post #33
woodruffw wrote: post #5

See also: Ripcord[1], which has both Slack and Discord support. [1]: https://cancel.fm/ripcord/

Ripcord is great and I use it for Discord and Slack, but it is far from feature complete. Important to note that Ripcord is developed by one person. Some major things that are lacking: * No search (Slack/Discord) * No huddles in Slack * Thread support in Discord For these reasons, I typically navigate to Discord/Slack in the browser when I need access to those features. Not ideal, but the snappiness of Ripcord over t…

Is there a better frontend for Ripcord? I tried it, and while it's fast, it's just so utilitarian.

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#62

Post by heartbreak »

tlrobinson wrote: post #59
selcuka wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violating the API Terms of Service [1]? > [...] Further, you will not: [...] (C) access our APIs or documentation in order to replicate or compete with the Services; [1] https://slack.com/intl/en-au/terms-of-service/api

I’m not a lawyer, but I believe Slack would have to show they were harmed in some way to successfully sue. They can certainly attempt to block 3rd party clients, though. Or threaten to / actually sue, even if they’re unlikely to be successful.

Unlikely to be successful? This app has near zero chance of surviving a legal challenge from Slack.

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#63

Post by madrox »

Mandatum wrote: post #23

Ripcord survived C&D letters because it didn't charge. I feel bad for OP for putting all this work in, because it's really cool - but you're going to get sued.

To be fair, I'd love to see a case like this brought to court. I'm not sure there's great precedent here. I think a case could be made that Slack was not harmed through this work.

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#64

Post by st3fan »

pxc wrote: post #46
st3fan wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but multiple windows! OMG! I find managing multiple conversations with Slack so incredibly challenging. Having multiple windows open for active conversations is sooo good.

That's interesting. I find managing Teams' multiple windows cumbersome and confusing, but find Slack very natural and efficient. Do you end up sending messages in the wrong chat often? Or missing messages or both? What do the main frustrations of a single window setup look like?

I lose stuff all the time when I switch between conversations and channels.

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#65

Post by greenthrow »

paxys wrote: post #13

The first thing I looked for was a comparison with the official Slack client in terms of performance, since that's the only reason why I'd consider using this. Numbers for CPU load, memory use, time to perform certain actions, crashes. Doesn't seem to be anything available on the site regarding this, which is a shame.

An even better reason would potentially be security. Exploits in electron are pretty common, which may be a result of its ubiquity making it a big target. But also it's just a complicated platform to secure.

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#66

Post by [deleted] »

greenthrow wrote: post #65
paxys wrote: post #13

The first thing I looked for was a comparison with the official Slack client in terms of performance, since that's the only reason why I'd consider using this. Numbers for CPU load, memory use, time to perform certain actions, crashes. Doesn't seem to be anything available on the site regarding this, which is a shame.

An even better reason would potentially be security. Exploits in electron are pretty common, which may be a result of its ubiquity making it a big target. But also it's just a complicated platform to secure.

[deleted]

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#67

Post by azinman2 »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #32
vzaliva wrote: post #4

It looks nice, but if you plan to try it as you default Slack client be aware it is lacking many features: - Edit posted messages (big one, TBA) - Authentication w/ XOXC tokens - Loading older messages - Typing indicators - Starring & Pinning things - Search - Sharing messages - Screensharing and Calls (aka Screenhero) - Joining and creating channels

Oof, I feel like just one of those would be a deal breaker for most, but all those missing together makes it feel more like a proof of concept than anything else. A $20 proof of concept.

Gotta start somewhere.

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#68

Post by tptacek »

josephcsible wrote: post #60
gtirloni wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not public as in an utility. It has its own Terms of Service.

The point is it's not fair that Terms of Service can impose that restriction. Just like it wasn't fair when you were only allowed to use phones that you rented from your phone company.

Why isn't it fair? They run the service. What gives other people the right to tell them how to run it? If you don't like their terms, there are about 100 alternative projects you can use.

There are pretty clear, practical reasons you might want to control the client of a commercial network service.

Re: Shrugs.app – A native Slack client for macOS

#70

Post by tptacek »

madrox wrote: post #63
Mandatum wrote: post #23

Ripcord survived C&D letters because it didn't charge. I feel bad for OP for putting all this work in, because it's really cool - but you're going to get sued.

To be fair, I'd love to see a case like this brought to court. I'm not sure there's great precedent here. I think a case could be made that Slack was not harmed through this work.

I'd like to hear a lawyer (HN has several) corroborate this "Slack must articulate harm" claim, because there is a whole branch of civil law that exists to enforce contracts in the absence of torts; as I understand it, it's called "contract law".
Post reply on HN