5 ms·

We don't need OSS in this case, we need open protocols so anyone can use any other client, proprietary or not.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
We've had a perfectly good open chat protocol since... gosh, I don't even know. It's called IRC and it's so simple you can implement a server or client in python in under an hour. This is what happens when you over-engineer things.
- pitaj 7y ago
  IRC has many drawbacks not shared by more modern protocols. Slack works when you're offline, saves history, has notifications, search, etc. IRC is not perfectly good or it would still be used.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > Slack works when you're offline IRC doesn't do that, true, but there's a bunch of ways around it. > saves history, has notifications, search Trivial to implement in the client. > IRC is not perfectly good or it would still be used IRC is still used. Almost everything any fancier messaging protocol does can, and has, been implemented as a client-side feature with little hassle.
    - notafraudster 7y ago
      So corporate users can set up an IRC server; a network of per-user bouncers for offline state maintenance; an internal file hosting network for uploads; a bunch of server-based logging stuff and a central search repository to check history; train every middle manager to be an IRC server admin in order to add and remove people from channels for new projects; somehow intervene to disable DCC and other methods users could use to circumvent server-side logging; maintain their own fork of an IRC client in order to implement inline code, images, website previews, etc; break IRC's protocol in their client and server to allow text in excess of the maximum line length; and separately find a SAAS video/audio chat vendor or roll their own... ... all to save $7/month/person (or less for some competitors like MS Teams) because Slack is, like, too proprietary.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        They could easily pay someone else to handle all that stuff just like we do with HTTP servers. We're not talking about the service, we're talking about the protocol. > maintain their own fork of an IRC client in order to implement inline code, images, website previews, etc These already exist. No need to maintain a fork unless you want to add features that don't exist in it. And since IRC is so trivial a protocol, that's not even hard. > break IRC's protocol in their client and server to allow text in excess of the maximum line length You don't have to break shit. Just split lines into multiple messages and piece together messages from the same user when they were also the last one who said anything, or use a character that means "message continues", or any of probably a dozen other ways you could implement that on top of the already existing protocol and that will still gracefully degrade on clients that don't support it.
    - bradjohnson 7y ago
      Every time someone on HN says "you don't need x, just do a, then b, then c and you'll get something similar" I'm reminded of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        Dropbox is just a hosted rsync server really [0]. The service has value, the technology didn't really require a new protocol except for lock in purposes. I'm not saying that a service that takes existing ideas and makes them easier for people to use is bad, I'm saying that the open protocol people are calling for already exists, but because they have tech-brain they'd rather build a completely new protocol because it's more fun. [0] Not literally, I have no idea what it uses.
        scaryclam 7y ago
        I dug around many years ago into dropbox. I actually found rsync was being used in at least some of its functionality. I doubt that remains the case, but it made me smile when I found it as it made a lot of sense at the time. Edit: spelling
  - scaryclam 7y ago
    Slack just freaks out when I'm offline (or it even thinks I am). To the point I often just end up writing an email as it's less painful than using slack.
Arathorn 7y ago
Open protocols without OSS tend not to be particularly robust. In this instance, we have both: open protocols like Matrix.org, XMPP & IRC - and open source servers & clients (like synapse & Riot.im on the Matrix side), which are no longer an opensource curiousity but ready for primetime as Slack/Discord replacements. Just as Apache is ready for primetime as an IIS replacement.
wtetzner 7y ago
Yeah, it's worked out well for email. You can use paid services, or not. It's up to you, but they all interoperate.
- Biganon 7y ago
  They certainly DON'T interoperate. I have a mail-tester score of 100, use SPF, DKIM and DMARC, yet Microsoft still sends all my emails in the spam folder. There's nothing I can do about it, it's a black box. The only suggestion from them is that I subscribe to some paid program with another company in order to maybe, or maybe not, increase the trust in my mail server.

We've had a perfectly good open chat protocol since... gosh, I don't even know. It's called IRC and it's so simple you can implement a server or client in python in under an hour. This is what happens when you over-engineer things.

pitaj 7y ago
IRC has many drawbacks not shared by more modern protocols. Slack works when you're offline, saves history, has notifications, search, etc. IRC is not perfectly good or it would still be used.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > Slack works when you're offline IRC doesn't do that, true, but there's a bunch of ways around it. > saves history, has notifications, search Trivial to implement in the client. > IRC is not perfectly good or it would still be used IRC is still used. Almost everything any fancier messaging protocol does can, and has, been implemented as a client-side feature with little hassle.
  - notafraudster 7y ago
    So corporate users can set up an IRC server; a network of per-user bouncers for offline state maintenance; an internal file hosting network for uploads; a bunch of server-based logging stuff and a central search repository to check history; train every middle manager to be an IRC server admin in order to add and remove people from channels for new projects; somehow intervene to disable DCC and other methods users could use to circumvent server-side logging; maintain their own fork of an IRC client in order to implement inline code, images, website previews, etc; break IRC's protocol in their client and server to allow text in excess of the maximum line length; and separately find a SAAS video/audio chat vendor or roll their own... ... all to save $7/month/person (or less for some competitors like MS Teams) because Slack is, like, too proprietary.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      They could easily pay someone else to handle all that stuff just like we do with HTTP servers. We're not talking about the service, we're talking about the protocol. > maintain their own fork of an IRC client in order to implement inline code, images, website previews, etc These already exist. No need to maintain a fork unless you want to add features that don't exist in it. And since IRC is so trivial a protocol, that's not even hard. > break IRC's protocol in their client and server to allow text in excess of the maximum line length You don't have to break shit. Just split lines into multiple messages and piece together messages from the same user when they were also the last one who said anything, or use a character that means "message continues", or any of probably a dozen other ways you could implement that on top of the already existing protocol and that will still gracefully degrade on clients that don't support it.
  - bradjohnson 7y ago
    Every time someone on HN says "you don't need x, just do a, then b, then c and you'll get something similar" I'm reminded of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Dropbox is just a hosted rsync server really [0]. The service has value, the technology didn't really require a new protocol except for lock in purposes. I'm not saying that a service that takes existing ideas and makes them easier for people to use is bad, I'm saying that the open protocol people are calling for already exists, but because they have tech-brain they'd rather build a completely new protocol because it's more fun. [0] Not literally, I have no idea what it uses.
      - scaryclam 7y ago
        I dug around many years ago into dropbox. I actually found rsync was being used in at least some of its functionality. I doubt that remains the case, but it made me smile when I found it as it made a lot of sense at the time. Edit: spelling
- scaryclam 7y ago
  Slack just freaks out when I'm offline (or it even thinks I am). To the point I often just end up writing an email as it's less painful than using slack.

Arathorn 7y ago

Open protocols without OSS tend not to be particularly robust. In this instance, we have both: open protocols like Matrix.org, XMPP & IRC - and open source servers & clients (like synapse & Riot.im on the Matrix side), which are no longer an opensource curiousity but ready for primetime as Slack/Discord replacements. Just as Apache is ready for primetime as an IIS replacement.

wtetzner 7y ago

Yeah, it's worked out well for email. You can use paid services, or not. It's up to you, but they all interoperate.

Biganon 7y ago
They certainly DON'T interoperate. I have a mail-tester score of 100, use SPF, DKIM and DMARC, yet Microsoft still sends all my emails in the spam folder. There's nothing I can do about it, it's a black box. The only suggestion from them is that I subscribe to some paid program with another company in order to maybe, or maybe not, increase the trust in my mail server.