81–90 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can generally do this in your computer's sound settings by specifying that you want to listen to your recording device.
Not on macOS, I believe. According to the other commenter, this is called sidetone, and requires external hardware [1]. [1] https://www.citrix.com/blogs/2016/03/22/gotomeeting-audio-ha...
Has anyone else noticed how pristine the audio quality of a Slack call sounds? I wonder how they optimized it. My company's voip, and Lync, and Skype all fail to deliver the same kind of call quality. I've only noticed / admired better call quality when making a call within Cisco to another employee. I don't use video much but I hope they've done as good of a job as they did with audio.
VoIP at work (At least with Cisco) is usually some grumpy telecom guy disabling HD audio or the company skimping on telephones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their dropped packet handling is far far better than Skypes as well - in a dodgy wifi situation linq and skype are all but unusable while slack is crisp.
No hate towards you at all, but describing technical things as crisp drives me crazy. Can anyone enlighten me as to why that would bother my brain? Does a certain region use this or its usage widespread?
Crisp is a word with a few meanings. In this context, it's a metaphor assigning physical qualities to sound. (A crisp dollar bill is smooth and without creases)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if you're calling someone you expect them to say hello. It's not that easy to explain to a user that the call they just placed was dropped and they're really now answering a call.
I doubt thats the actual reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're looking for "a better IRC" while still not tying your communications to a single data silo, Matrix[0] with the Riot[1] client is currently the best experience. The brilliant bit is that you can set up your own homeserver which holds all your chat logs, can authenticate against whatever you like (internal username/password, LDAP, or even CAS single sign-on), and allows you to communicate with people and room…
Alright let's go further ... so how is this different from XMPP rooms? ( http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html ) XMPP can support all the other things you've mentioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not on macOS, I believe. According to the other commenter, this is called sidetone, and requires external hardware [1]. [1] https://www.citrix.com/blogs/2016/03/22/gotomeeting-audio-ha...
I believe you can use Loopback [1] for this (paid). If not, JACK [2] would certainly work but it's a bit of a hassle to get everything set up. [1] https://www.rogueamoeba.com/loopback/ [2] http://www.jackosx.com/
https://www.rogueamoeba.com/freebies/
hear the sound coming in through a microphone
Edit: It is specifically called out in the Citrix blog referenced above as not working well enough. Not sure if the Loopback software would be any different, but it does offer a free trial.
Does slack feel like IRC to anybody else? Sorry I didn't mean for this to be divisive or rude. I wasn't aware this was a common observation. I'm not trying to be negative or incriminate the product. I use and enjoy slack every day.
Wow quick to the low effort Slack is just IRC comment. In my opinion Slack does something that is often very undervalues and easily overlooked, it is like the opposite of a death my a thousand cuts - superiority by a thousand minor improvements. When taken individually or even in handfuls none of the features are that impressive, but cumulatively it creates a much better product. This was very apparent to me at least…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're using RHEL, you've got a version of GLIBC that's too old, we're trying to figure out what to do about this without asking users to install a bunch of crazy stuff
I know dynamically linking to libraries is the Linux way, but wouldn't just bundling the correct version of glibc with the Slack app solve the problem? Sure, the app gets bigger, but a missing feature is worse than that, I would imagine.
This is because libnss effectively has to (by definition of how /etc/nsswitch.conf works) be able to `dlopen` arbitrary files you don't know about, so statically linking it has no meaning or breaks that (you pick!).
For this reason, it's painful-to-difficult to bundle glibc with a program, and it WILL break some networking configuration options if you do it, which is probably worse than messing up a feature on an ancient linux no one should be using :)
The right solution to this, which for some dumb reason they don't want to do, is ship a different version of slack depending on your (distro, glibc) combo. For old RHEL and old Ubuntu, they just need to ship a version that is built against those old glibc versions.
It's trivial if they just open source their application and ask Redhat and Canonical to maintain packages of them and provide sufficient motivation (read money) to convince them to also package them for these old distros.
I don't know why the no-brainer idea of forcing redhat/canonical (who are experts on this glibc stuff and making debs and rpms in general) to maintain the slack packages for those distros hasn't occurred to them
Does slack feel like IRC to anybody else? Sorry I didn't mean for this to be divisive or rude. I wasn't aware this was a common observation. I'm not trying to be negative or incriminate the product. I use and enjoy slack every day.
Wow quick to the low effort Slack is just IRC comment. In my opinion Slack does something that is often very undervalues and easily overlooked, it is like the opposite of a death my a thousand cuts - superiority by a thousand minor improvements. When taken individually or even in handfuls none of the features are that impressive, but cumulatively it creates a much better product. This was very apparent to me at least…
Good luck handling 3000 concurrent buffers in slack, or even adding basic features like OTR.