4 ms·

Indeed. There are lots of apps that cover parts of its functionality, but not all. We keep trying to introduce new alternatives at work, but to date nothing has

by junto 11y ago

Indeed. There are lots of apps that cover parts of its functionality, but not all. We keep trying to introduce new alternatives at work, but to date nothing has passed the test. Calls, group calls, chat, group chat, video, screenshare. For one communications client those are the boxes it needs to tick. Any suggestions?

thirdsun 11y ago
No suggestions, but I think those features scream "Slack" in my opinion. It would make a lot of sense to have those features in a service that is the center of communication for many teams anyway.
- balabaster 11y ago
  I've been using Slack (https://slack.com/ https://slack.com/) for a while too... it does everything useful, and everything it doesn't do natively, there's an integration for. You can do: - Private chat with one or more parties - Open Group chat via channels (both private and public channels) - Voice/Video via numerous integrations including Bluejeans, Appear.in, Skype, Hangouts, you name it. - ChatOps via services like IFTT & Zapier or even your own custom bridge into your network. - Get notifications right in Slack from your source control, build servers, JIRA, Confluence and any number of other services via webhook integrations. - A billion other wicked cool integrations (https://slack.com/apps https://slack.com/apps) that allow you to do just about anything, including the eternally useless, often inappropriate and highly amusing Giphy. - It's free(ish)... the featureset is restricted on the free account, but it has enough to be useful to small startups even of adhoc members. For teams there is a small per user/per month charge which unlocks a wealth of enterprise ready features. - It's searchable Highly recommended and well worth a look for small and large teams alike.
chc4 11y ago
Tox does all of that. XMPP does all of that. WebRTC does all of that. There are tons of shitty proprietary clones of Skype that also do all of that, too. There are plenty of options, people just don't use them because all their friends are on Skype.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  >Tox does all of that. Tox is getting there, but it doesn't appear to support asynchronous messaging that syncs later when some of the people in a chat are offline. If that's wrong let me know. >XMPP does all of that. That's like saying "TCP does all that". Would you like to name programs that support the full list? >WebRTC does all of that. As far as I can tell WebRTC has nothing to do with chat.
  - chc4 11y ago
    Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. That implies some company being behind the service to host that server, along with centralization and the ability of deanonymization. I'm sure there are clients that do support it, but I wouldn't want to use it. Proper Tox style would probably be to host your own bouncer server, like IRC, for that use. I don't actually use XMPP, but a quick Google gives a list that do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients#XMPP-related_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messagin... for example. Would you be upset if I said "IRC does that" if you asked for messaging? Why aren't you upset that I pointed at Tox, which is also a protocol with separate implementations? Your point about TCP, while meant to be a critism, is actually spot on: It is a protocol. Anyone can implement it and talk to all other XMPP (or Tox!) clients, unlike Skype which is completely proprietary and closed ecosystem. Pointing at only one client shows favoritism and is disingenuous, since you could point out "<x> doesn't implement <y>!" when another client does, while if it's supported in the protocol it CAN be support by any of the clients. You're actually right about the WebRTC point: it inherently doesn't support text, it's for p2p signaling. Most implementations do have a textbox for communication, however, and have the same benefit as Tox or XMPP: It's a protocol. Just because one site doesn't do it, doesn't mean any other site can't and inter-op with all other providers.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      >Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. You can get 90% of the benefit by having other clients in the chat act as relays for that chat. No centralization required. You'd only need a bouncer for specific situations, like mobile<->mobile chat with all desktop clients shut off. >Would you be upset if I said "IRC does that" if you asked for messaging? If I asked for just messaging, I would accept "IRC". But if I ask for video chat, and a tiny fraction of IRC clients did video chat, I would not accept "IRC" as an answer. If you want to name a protocol, the implementations need to have widespread support for the entire list of features. Theoretical support is not good enough. I agree that universal support is unnecessary, but widespread support is a must. It looks like "XMPP+Jingle" is a pretty good answer, but I'd have to look into it more.
dublinben 11y ago
Jitsi does all of that.
jvolkman 11y ago
Hangouts? https://apps.google.com/products/hangouts/ https://apps.google.com/products/hangouts/ And if you're looking for full conference room VC, https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ Google uses Hangouts for all of these tasks internally, and in my experience it works well.
- ars 11y ago
  > Hangouts I like Hangouts, but for a bunch of reasons I want a desktop program, not a web program.
  - khattam 11y ago
    Download the Hangouts Chrome App. It is a Desktop app.

by junto 11y ago

thirdsun 11y ago

No suggestions, but I think those features scream "Slack" in my opinion. It would make a lot of sense to have those features in a service that is the center of communication for many teams anyway.

balabaster 11y ago
I've been using Slack (https://slack.com/ https://slack.com/) for a while too... it does everything useful, and everything it doesn't do natively, there's an integration for. You can do: - Private chat with one or more parties - Open Group chat via channels (both private and public channels) - Voice/Video via numerous integrations including Bluejeans, Appear.in, Skype, Hangouts, you name it. - ChatOps via services like IFTT & Zapier or even your own custom bridge into your network. - Get notifications right in Slack from your source control, build servers, JIRA, Confluence and any number of other services via webhook integrations. - A billion other wicked cool integrations (https://slack.com/apps https://slack.com/apps) that allow you to do just about anything, including the eternally useless, often inappropriate and highly amusing Giphy. - It's free(ish)... the featureset is restricted on the free account, but it has enough to be useful to small startups even of adhoc members. For teams there is a small per user/per month charge which unlocks a wealth of enterprise ready features. - It's searchable Highly recommended and well worth a look for small and large teams alike.

chc4 11y ago

Tox does all of that. XMPP does all of that. WebRTC does all of that. There are tons of shitty proprietary clones of Skype that also do all of that, too. There are plenty of options, people just don't use them because all their friends are on Skype.

Dylan16807 11y ago
>Tox does all of that. Tox is getting there, but it doesn't appear to support asynchronous messaging that syncs later when some of the people in a chat are offline. If that's wrong let me know. >XMPP does all of that. That's like saying "TCP does all that". Would you like to name programs that support the full list? >WebRTC does all of that. As far as I can tell WebRTC has nothing to do with chat.
- chc4 11y ago
  Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. That implies some company being behind the service to host that server, along with centralization and the ability of deanonymization. I'm sure there are clients that do support it, but I wouldn't want to use it. Proper Tox style would probably be to host your own bouncer server, like IRC, for that use. I don't actually use XMPP, but a quick Google gives a list that do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients#XMPP-related_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messagin... for example. Would you be upset if I said "IRC does that" if you asked for messaging? Why aren't you upset that I pointed at Tox, which is also a protocol with separate implementations? Your point about TCP, while meant to be a critism, is actually spot on: It is a protocol. Anyone can implement it and talk to all other XMPP (or Tox!) clients, unlike Skype which is completely proprietary and closed ecosystem. Pointing at only one client shows favoritism and is disingenuous, since you could point out "<x> doesn't implement <y>!" when another client does, while if it's supported in the protocol it CAN be support by any of the clients. You're actually right about the WebRTC point: it inherently doesn't support text, it's for p2p signaling. Most implementations do have a textbox for communication, however, and have the same benefit as Tox or XMPP: It's a protocol. Just because one site doesn't do it, doesn't mean any other site can't and inter-op with all other providers.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    >Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. You can get 90% of the benefit by having other clients in the chat act as relays for that chat. No centralization required. You'd only need a bouncer for specific situations, like mobile<->mobile chat with all desktop clients shut off. >Would you be upset if I said "IRC does that" if you asked for messaging? If I asked for just messaging, I would accept "IRC". But if I ask for video chat, and a tiny fraction of IRC clients did video chat, I would not accept "IRC" as an answer. If you want to name a protocol, the implementations need to have widespread support for the entire list of features. Theoretical support is not good enough. I agree that universal support is unnecessary, but widespread support is a must. It looks like "XMPP+Jingle" is a pretty good answer, but I'd have to look into it more.

dublinben 11y ago

Jitsi does all of that.

jvolkman 11y ago

Hangouts? https://apps.google.com/products/hangouts/ https://apps.google.com/products/hangouts/ And if you're looking for full conference room VC, https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ https://www.google.com/work/chrome/devices/for-meetings/ Google uses Hangouts for all of these tasks internally, and in my experience it works well.

ars 11y ago
> Hangouts I like Hangouts, but for a bunch of reasons I want a desktop program, not a web program.
- khattam 11y ago
  Download the Hangouts Chrome App. It is a Desktop app.