141–150 of 725 posts
Somewhat ironic that a company that’s entire existence was based on the idea of giving developers great tools no longer values giving its own developers great tools. Only a matter of time before this new attitude towards developers shows up in the product.
It's not that teams is bad, per say. It's just that there are more ergonomic tools out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's overtly harsh take I think. Teams has issues; but asking employees of a company to use said companies tools internally isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hard to improve without dogfooding.
So should they also force every subsidiary to use Windows, VSCode, Office 365, Azure, etc?
Azure: yes, all the major cloud providers should migrate all of their use to their cloud. If their cloud doesn't support something that's a problem for their users and they need to fix it ASAP.
O365: Same thing.
VSCode: Developer tools such as IDEs shouldn't be mandated (and weren't when I worked at MS) but if one is mandated it absolutely should be their version unless there's a strong technical reason otherwise (for instance, if they were using Java there are better choices).
Windows: Again, most good shops don't mandate what your desktop environment is
That’s plenty of time to dust off the resume and start pounding the pavement! Very generous of Microsoft to give so much notice! Edit: for those who may think I’m overreacting to a small change in tooling, I offer this classic essay [1]. It explains the reasoning behind leaving much better than I could! [1] https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...
At least the layoffs meant people got severances; this is walking for $0 and maybe the ability to find a different office productivity suite. I mean vote with your feet and all, but if this came up in an interview I'd probably laugh at you.
Somewhat ironic that a company that’s entire existence was based on the idea of giving developers great tools no longer values giving its own developers great tools. Only a matter of time before this new attitude towards developers shows up in the product.
That's overtly harsh take I think. Teams has issues; but asking employees of a company to use said companies tools internally isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hard to improve without dogfooding.
Of course, I'm not saying that teams is more secure than competing products or that this will automatically improve security. The point is that it's a single option that's easier to manage.
Outside of security, this also applies to cooperation between MS and Github teams. Teams helps with keeping common calendars, meeting invites, recordings and transcripts. Having more tools means that an adapter needs to exist between them and might be disincentivising communication, since engineers would prefer to work on their tasks rather than work around fixing soft problems.
Immediate resignation reason and turns out the ones who got recently laid off are the real winners as they walk away with a severance package at least.
That would be a rather silly reason to quit over, wouldn't it?
How is it possible that Teams is still such a poor product? I really didn't like it when my job switched like 6 years ago, and I don't recall ever feeling that it improved in any meaningful way. I switched jobs to one using Slack and it's not perfect but it is a lot better. It's almost a meme at this point. In the presence of other clients that have gotten it "right" (or at least more "right" than teams) like Slack,…
They are still using Slack. This is for video conferencing only. I've heard that with regards to video conferencing, it's competitive with zoom.
Did you hear that from a Microsoft salesperson? Only a person who hasn't used both regularly can say that. UX and features on Zoom are better.
The mere fact that to this day Teams has wildly different features depending on how you join the call is a joke - for instance, joining from a browser on macOS results in no chat (the button simply isn't there).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's overtly harsh take I think. Teams has issues; but asking employees of a company to use said companies tools internally isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hard to improve without dogfooding.
The point of dogfooding isn't feeding your employees any old dog food. The point of dogfooding is that the dog food you make is so damn good your employees prefer it over making lunch boxes or eating out. (It doesn't have to be perfect, or course, just do something better than its competitors to be attractive to use. I struggle to think of a single redeeming feature of Teams.)
You wouldn't want to eat dog food that wasn't prepared in sanitary conditions, so if you worked at a dog food plant and knew you'd be eating something that closed through that dirty grate, you'd clean it. You wouldn't want a program on your PC that regularly consumes an entire core while idle or that crashes when active, so you'd fix those issues if it was your software.
People naturally want to fix problems that affect them and add features that would improve their daily use of a product. At a small company or startup, where people can do this, you should use your own products as much as possible.
But if you are a Microsoft/GitHub employee with no access to the Teams code, not even access to a human being who works on Teams, there's no point. Use whatever meeting software lets you do your job best.