24 ms·

How does it compare to mattermost?

sien 8y ago
Exactly. We're looking at paying for Slack and mattermost seems to offer most of what Slack does and is something that would be pretty easy to run. It's slick. Well documented and installs nicely in a container. Has anyone here used Mattermost? https://mattermost.com/ https://mattermost.com/
- meritt 8y ago
  We've been using Mattermost (I have not used Zulip but it looks superb) for about a year. The UI/UX of the desktop and mobile apps is a bit kludgy but functionally it was a breeze to setup, runs on a very low-cost instance, and has had 100% uptime. And most importantly, we're in control of our data unlike cloud-only offerings.
- tiles 8y ago
  Have you tried out Zulip? You may find the user experience pretty compelling. It's an entire alternative interface to the slack or IRC-style of chatrooms, and it's OSS and documents how to make it containerized.
  - sien 8y ago
    Not yet. Both mattermost and zulip look well worth it for saving quite a bit of money over slack for a fair sized company though. The responses from people here are really interesting.
- seedie 8y ago
  Not sure if this helps, but we were evaluating Mattermost and are still evaluating Zulip at the moment. Our users pretty fast had a tendency towards Zulip, while I've had a slight preference for Mattermost from a ops view. We only have/had a short eval phase and our use case is a small raceengineering team with 40 people at the racetrack, independent of internet access. So a very particualar use case, and our needs might not cover you needs. Zulip pro * Threading model (can't value that high enough) * All messages overview, no matter what stream they were written in * Zulip community at chat.zulip.org with direct contact to the devs. Tim Abbott the lead dev helped me out in a issue with a user login (haven't used the Mattermost support so can't compare) Zulip con * Most ops work has to be done by a python script manage.py, API has room to improve Mattermost pro * API * haven't measured but the UI felt smoother, faster Mattermost con * you have to pay for Enterprise features Both have great docs and a docker deployment
- gldalmaso 8y ago
  We have been using Mattermost happily for 4 months give or take. Our use case is basic chat features with some integrations for a team of around 40. We run it in a t2.small instance along with another tool. I only had to manually restart it once, which is fine by me. A postgres backend and S3 storage is most welcome and makes it very simple to manage. My only complaint would be that the config file is not included in the postgres database so you need a separate routine for its backup. (If anyone from Mattermost reads this, please just include it in the database) It could also handle importing multiple emojis for us Hipchat castaways.
tabbott 8y ago
The answer is pretty similar to that for Rocket.Chat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18401587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18401587 With the addition that Mattermost is open core, not fully open source.

sien 8y ago

Exactly. We're looking at paying for Slack and mattermost seems to offer most of what Slack does and is something that would be pretty easy to run. It's slick. Well documented and installs nicely in a container. Has anyone here used Mattermost? https://mattermost.com/ https://mattermost.com/

meritt 8y ago
We've been using Mattermost (I have not used Zulip but it looks superb) for about a year. The UI/UX of the desktop and mobile apps is a bit kludgy but functionally it was a breeze to setup, runs on a very low-cost instance, and has had 100% uptime. And most importantly, we're in control of our data unlike cloud-only offerings.
tiles 8y ago
Have you tried out Zulip? You may find the user experience pretty compelling. It's an entire alternative interface to the slack or IRC-style of chatrooms, and it's OSS and documents how to make it containerized.
- sien 8y ago
  Not yet. Both mattermost and zulip look well worth it for saving quite a bit of money over slack for a fair sized company though. The responses from people here are really interesting.
seedie 8y ago
Not sure if this helps, but we were evaluating Mattermost and are still evaluating Zulip at the moment. Our users pretty fast had a tendency towards Zulip, while I've had a slight preference for Mattermost from a ops view. We only have/had a short eval phase and our use case is a small raceengineering team with 40 people at the racetrack, independent of internet access. So a very particualar use case, and our needs might not cover you needs. Zulip pro * Threading model (can't value that high enough) * All messages overview, no matter what stream they were written in * Zulip community at chat.zulip.org with direct contact to the devs. Tim Abbott the lead dev helped me out in a issue with a user login (haven't used the Mattermost support so can't compare) Zulip con * Most ops work has to be done by a python script manage.py, API has room to improve Mattermost pro * API * haven't measured but the UI felt smoother, faster Mattermost con * you have to pay for Enterprise features Both have great docs and a docker deployment
gldalmaso 8y ago
We have been using Mattermost happily for 4 months give or take. Our use case is basic chat features with some integrations for a team of around 40. We run it in a t2.small instance along with another tool. I only had to manually restart it once, which is fine by me. A postgres backend and S3 storage is most welcome and makes it very simple to manage. My only complaint would be that the config file is not included in the postgres database so you need a separate routine for its backup. (If anyone from Mattermost reads this, please just include it in the database) It could also handle importing multiple emojis for us Hipchat castaways.

tabbott 8y ago

The answer is pretty similar to that for Rocket.Chat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18401587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18401587 With the addition that Mattermost is open core, not fully open source.