3 ms·

Slack has exactly the same problem. How could one connect to Slack, without using Slack? What open protocol does Slack use for its internal communication? Con

by gcr 11y ago

Slack has exactly the same problem. How could one connect to Slack, without using Slack? What open protocol does Slack use for its internal communication? Convincing everyone to switch to Slack is just as bad as convincing everyone to switch to Facebook Messenger.

noir_lord 11y ago
I said like slack not slack, the fact that it would be open protocol if not open source was implied.
shkkmo 11y ago
You can choose one of two open protocols to interface with slack, IRC and XMPP: https://slack.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201727913-Connecting-to-Slack-over-IRC-and-XMPP https://slack.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201727913-Connec... Granted, they have to be enabled by the Team Owner, but still...
e12e 11y ago
It's not just connecting that's the problem: How do you implement your own server for slack, without using slack? Because if that's off the table, the rest of the discussion doesn't matter. Now, of course not everyone will write their own irc-server, or port one to a new architecture -- but without free and open source implementations, any alternative is just another dead end. Considering slack is doing so much right, I wish they'd realize this, and just either open up slack, or publish a new free/open slack server implementation, along with protocols for federation etc. As I understand it, many people are getting weary of having to choose between IRC -- which have a number of issues, not the least of which is its (lack of) security architecture (even with TLS bolted on), and "extensions" being limited largely to bots -- and XMPP which is over-engineered. I suppose the natural next step is something that is to IRC/XMPP as JMAP[1] is to IMAP -- a lightweight protocol, probably json (or: capt'n'crunch)-based -- that tries to combine strengths from IRC/SILC and XMPP without being complex. If I were running slack, I'd worry about if it was easier to "own" the new protocol, or to port slack to support it after someone else releases a Free alternative to slack. [1] http://jmap.io/ http://jmap.io/

by gcr 11y ago

noir_lord 11y ago

I said like slack not slack, the fact that it would be open protocol if not open source was implied.

shkkmo 11y ago

You can choose one of two open protocols to interface with slack, IRC and XMPP: https://slack.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201727913-Connecting-to-Slack-over-IRC-and-XMPP https://slack.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201727913-Connec... Granted, they have to be enabled by the Team Owner, but still...

e12e 11y ago

It's not just connecting that's the problem: How do you implement your own server for slack, without using slack? Because if that's off the table, the rest of the discussion doesn't matter. Now, of course not everyone will write their own irc-server, or port one to a new architecture -- but without free and open source implementations, any alternative is just another dead end. Considering slack is doing so much right, I wish they'd realize this, and just either open up slack, or publish a new free/open slack server implementation, along with protocols for federation etc. As I understand it, many people are getting weary of having to choose between IRC -- which have a number of issues, not the least of which is its (lack of) security architecture (even with TLS bolted on), and "extensions" being limited largely to bots -- and XMPP which is over-engineered. I suppose the natural next step is something that is to IRC/XMPP as JMAP[1] is to IMAP -- a lightweight protocol, probably json (or: capt'n'crunch)-based -- that tries to combine strengths from IRC/SILC and XMPP without being complex. If I were running slack, I'd worry about if it was easier to "own" the new protocol, or to port slack to support it after someone else releases a Free alternative to slack. [1] http://jmap.io/ http://jmap.io/