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

GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 725 posts

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#231

Post by jrochkind1 »

X-Istence wrote: post #224
samiru wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if those who complain about Teams actually use it. They might not. My company forces us to use Google Chat. I would take Teams any day.

My company uses Teams... and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. So here's at least one person who is using teams who complains about it. The shitty UI/UX is one thing, but some of the behaviors are incredibly frustrating. Here's some examples: - Sharing a single window makes Teams minimize the window with everyones video camera on it into a small window in the corner of your primary screen. I have a 49" wide scree…

> Sharing a single window makes Teams minimize the window with everyones video camera on it into a small window in the corner of your primary screen. I have a 49" wide screen, I can have that Teams window open (so I can see faces/people) and share a window at full-size for everyone else, STOP minimizing that window.

Took me a while to figure this out, but, and if I understand what's going on and you didn't realize it you're going to smack yourself, but...

Try clicking on that tiny window with everyone's video feed on it. It gets bigger again into a full (and resizable) window with everyone's video feed, while the window you are sharing is still being shared (and outlined in red).

Apologies if I misunderstand or this doens't apply to you (I'm on MacOS), but it literally took me months of being frustrated with that situation before I realized clicking on the tiny window would restore it to a full window, so I figured that might be you too. I forget, maybe it requires a double-click.

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#232

Post by DrBazza »

Teams is just bland. That’s it really. We moved from Slack to Teams and we had a huge drop in inter-team communication to the point we moved back. For remote company it’s hugely important.

A lack of thread conversations was a huge issue too.

The only plus side was video conferencing was rock solid and office integration was good, as expected.

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#233

Post by 1270018080 »

samiru wrote: post #196
revscat wrote: post #147

To everyone at GitHub: I’m so sorry. I don’t mean this in a clever way, either. Teams is awful and it will make your lives worse to one degree or another.

I wonder if those who complain about Teams actually use it. They might not. My company forces us to use Google Chat. I would take Teams any day.

I had to use Teams at my last job, now in interviews I ask every company if they use Teams or Slack. It's a good smoke test on whether the company pays a slight premium to improve the efficiency and quality of life of their employees, even if it doesn't directly show up on the balance sheet. Of course salary is more important than chat software, but I don't want my day to day experience to be miserable.

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#234

Post by [deleted] »

samiru wrote: post #196
revscat wrote: post #147

To everyone at GitHub: I’m so sorry. I don’t mean this in a clever way, either. Teams is awful and it will make your lives worse to one degree or another.

I wonder if those who complain about Teams actually use it. They might not. My company forces us to use Google Chat. I would take Teams any day.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#235

Post by kdtsh »

wvenable wrote: post #218
jacquesm wrote: post #194

Teams is so horrific we banned it. If you force us to use teams you'll have to find another supplier. Seriously, it is incomprehensible that Microsoft would ship something so utterly broken. I know they don't have a reputation for writing good software but Teams is on another level, and I don't mean that in a positive way. I've really tried to get it to work but it is so messed up that I don't think it can be done. M…

It's so weird -- I use Teams all the time and I've never had a serious problem with it. It's not the greatest software ever made but it's certainly functional. It's definitely getting a lot of work done to it.

Likewise, I don’t particularly like it but it’s fine. My biggest gripe is nonexistent official Linux support - I hate having to use a package maintained by one person on GitHub to get a desktop application for Linux, when this application is so critical for my day to day. But besides that it works fine.

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#237

Post by wvenable »

xattt wrote: post #219
wvenable wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so weird -- I use Teams all the time and I've never had a serious problem with it. It's not the greatest software ever made but it's certainly functional. It's definitely getting a lot of work done to it.

Your definition of broken is likely different than the GP.

Broken means "doesn't work". I've used Teams for 2 years now for conferencing, chat, desktop sharing, etc. It works just fine.

I think a lot of Microsoft hate is clouding judgement here. People want Teams to suck.

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#238

Post by dragonwriter »

wvenable wrote: post #218
jacquesm wrote: post #194

Teams is so horrific we banned it. If you force us to use teams you'll have to find another supplier. Seriously, it is incomprehensible that Microsoft would ship something so utterly broken. I know they don't have a reputation for writing good software but Teams is on another level, and I don't mean that in a positive way. I've really tried to get it to work but it is so messed up that I don't think it can be done. M…

It's so weird -- I use Teams all the time and I've never had a serious problem with it. It's not the greatest software ever made but it's certainly functional. It's definitely getting a lot of work done to it.

Teams is minimally usable, but its pretty much worst-in-class for…everything it does. It’s two compelling selling points seem to be (1) that “nobody every got fired for buying IBM” now applies to Microsoft more than IBM, and (2) moreover, users don’t actually buy Teams qua Teams, they get a Microsoft 365 subscriptions for some of the things where Microsoft has not-worst-in-class solutions, and Teams comes along for the ride, and its hard (for decisionmakers who do meetings–which, perhaps for this reason, are the least inadequate feature of teams–and have underlings to do most of the hands-on work) to justify paying to get something good when you have something you’re already paying for that fills the same 30,000’ bullet-point description.

And #1 is probably an even more compelling selling point if your company is a subsidiary of Microsoft.

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#239

Post by jrochkind1 »

Note the mandate is just "for the sole purpose of video conferencing".

That is, they're not replacing slack. Just, I think, what they used before/currently, is zoom.

This came up on an earlier HN thread when MS/Github leadership was already telegraphing that.

I think github uses some significant "slack ops" integrations, so even if leadership would like to move off that too, it would probably be a lot harder and take longer and require some development/ops work.

Re: GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

#240

Post by jacquesm »

wvenable wrote: post #237
xattt wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition of broken is likely different than the GP.

Broken means "doesn't work". I've used Teams for 2 years now for conferencing, chat, desktop sharing, etc. It works just fine. I think a lot of Microsoft hate is clouding judgement here. People want Teams to suck.

I simply can not get it to work. Note that we are on Linux/Chromebooks depending on the person in the team and this alone seems to be a major barrier for something that should be a non-issue. Every two bit video chat site in the world seems to have this figured out.
Post reply on HN