6 ms·

Someone should make job board where people can filter out companies that use Teams instead of Slack or Discord.

by dustedcodes 4y ago

jupp0r 4y ago
Throw JIRA into the mix while you're on it.
- b0afc375b5 4y ago
  Wait, what's wrong with JIRA?
  - muzani 4y ago
    Jira doesn't really work well out of the box. It needs a lot of work to configure. I love Jira now, but it's been hell in the other startups. It's probably why stuff like Trello and Asana took off.
  - gsich 4y ago
    Atlassian is an asshole company for their stance against selfhosting it.
    - alrlroipsp 4y ago
      What stance? You simply purchase a license and selfhost it. See https://www.atlassian.com/migration/assess/compare-cloud-data-center https://www.atlassian.com/migration/assess/compare-cloud-dat...
      - gsich 4y ago
        Maybe for insane prices. But that too will go away.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - emrvb 4y ago
        Newsflash: Jira Server end of sales was in februari 2021. Support will completely end in februari 2024. You better start scheduling your migration.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    People that don't need Jira but are forced to use it just hate it. Same as any other product in the world.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    Subpar at what it's supposed to do, extra features don't add a whole lot, mostly made and configured for managers instead of developers. Largely the same reasons people dislike Teams. Has even worse integrations with the Atlassian stack than Teams with the MS stack. JIRA, just like Teams, is slow, bloated, still won't fix basic issues and largely exists to appease managers. You have to actively work to make JIRA a pleasant experience. It's too easy for most management to make it hell.
  - viridian 4y ago
    I personally find that the more I have to use JIRA, and the more magical ephemeral rules that are set up in it to take actions in response to my actions with it, the more terrible it is to use. I've worked on teams where I just threw info into a card, and it was acceptable to use, and I've worked on teams where commits had to have a JIRA tag associated or the commit got rejected, including in instances where bitbucket was timing out it's call to JIRA. In the latter cases, I prayed for Atlassian's swift destruction, but alas, was never answered. So like a lot of tools, it's how you use it, mostly. That said, as far as universal problems, cloning cards has to be one of the worst UX experiences I run into on the job with any frequency that I can't just fix myself. If the web app needs to await a successful or failed clone of a record (or series of them), I'm not sure why they can't implement a modal or a spinner or other component to tell the user that something is happening, then either navigate the user to the new card, or ask the user if they would like to view the new card. Shooting off a process that you say could take an indeterminate amount of time then dropping eventually a completion notification and link in the bottom left panel is just about the least helpful way to communicate that information. edit: unrelated meta comment, but it's funny as hell to me that this question got 4 replies in the few minutes it took me to write this reply, all within 10 minutes of the original. People are really out here just waiting for a chance to complain about JIRA. Myself included it seems. Makes me feel a bit bad, hate to pile on to popular sentiment when others have already commented in a similar direction.
    - rjsw 4y ago
      I'm trying to cleanup a Git tree right now where people haven't put JIRA tags in their commit comments, it is impossible to find out why a change was made, it isn't a totally stupid requirement.
      - origin_path 4y ago
        This assumes that writing a ticket causes people to explain their rationale better than a commit comment does. That might be the case, but it often isn't because tickets are filed by developers themselves, or by PMs who just write tickets like: "A system requirement is that users be able to do X" without further explanation.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    What's good about it?
  - gregmac 4y ago
    There's lots, but I think it comes down to two main things: It has bad defaults, and it can be customized to have really draconian workflow rules. If you configure it to be reasonable -- keep the workflows very simple with few to no validation rules -- it can be fine to use. The temptation seems to be locking down admin access to managers, and then the admins going crazy building workflows like "these 19 custom fields must be filled out to start" "items must go through a QA step" "QA users are the only people that can approve that step" and "PMs are the only ones that can close a ticket". This quickly gets out of hand and makes it horrible to use. It also depends on the people using it -- garbage in garbage out, as they say. If people write good tickets (concise titles, format the body, remove irrelevant crap, and properly fill out meta fields like fixVersion) it is much more useful. JQL is awesome, and embedding tickets and JQL queries of tickets into Confluence is awesome (hint: easy way to make release notes) -- but both of these require non-garbage ticket content.
  - petejansson 4y ago
    JIRA implementations I've seen don't help people see what's ahead; they focus on what's been done to date. If you're on a single, small team that has minimal dependencies on other teams, that can work, but if the project has any significant dependencies on other teams, it becomes very hard for anyone to understand how things are going.
    - relaxing 4y ago
      That’s literally the point of the kanban board. I don’t understand how these projects were configured for that to be true — did they hide the backlog?
- kevincox 4y ago
  Also can I choose my own OS or am I stuck with the "approved" one or two.
  - jupp0r 4y ago
    You can choose which job to take and you can ask what OS they'll allow you to use before you sign any offer.
tut-urut-utut 4y ago
I'd rather have Team that Slack or Discord. After my company switched to Teams, my IT department became much more productive because the amount of needless interaction with other people decreased. And we were not affected by that shit, since we share the same office anyways. Who needs a messenger when you can shout ;)
- rowanG077 4y ago
  How did Teams do that that slack or discord couldn't do? 90% of the features are overlapping. And Teams performs by far the worst at that 90%.
  - klibertp 4y ago
    I think this: > And Teams performs by far the worst at that 90%. is exactly the reason for: > the amount of needless interaction with other people decreased. Simply put: nobody wants to touch teams, so they only do this when absolutely necessary (and even then chances are they will just send an email).
FearNotDaniel 4y ago
Unfortunately, at least in my experience, if the company shows any signs of success then incoming Finance/IT execs will force a change to Teams to "enable growth". If they begin to struggle, then incoming Finance/IT execs will force a change to Teams to "consolidate and streamline". I've experienced both of these. Resistance is futile.
capableweb 4y ago
It's not about the specific technologies a company uses, but rather how that choice gets made. Teams is chosen in companies where the organization is so big that "unification" is seen as a big plus. What you're out after, are smaller organizations where choices are made based on what people working with those things actually want to use. So look for headcount rather than what chat program they use, because the headcount will affect more choices than just what chat program you'll end up having to use.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > It's not about the specific technologies a company uses, but rather how that choice gets made But sometimes specific products are simply less than ideal no matter how they're used. I consider Teams to be one of those.
bsharitt 4y ago
Use of Teams has a been a deciding factor about not taking a job before. It's got to be pretty bad when it makes me nostalgic for HipChat.
- Liskni_si 4y ago
  I used HipChat for years and never actually saw what the thing looked like. Any XMPP client just worked, no hassle whatsoever. When we later switched to Slack it was actually a downgrade from my point of view. :-/
otabdeveloper4 4y ago
Slack is worse than Teams, no thanks.
- denysvitali 4y ago
  I've used both. IMHO Teams is by far worse than Slack. This doesn't mean that Slack is better than anything else, it's just better than Teams. Truth be told, even sending a letter by mail is better than Teams.
  - alanwreath 4y ago
    My company uses both. That doesn’t improve things much but it does give me a good view of both. - slack great for - huddle collaboration - chat threads - searching chats - focused chat layout - teams great for - sharing video of eachother - taking control of screen share (no need to futz with asking someone to stop sharing when they already vocally told you to share, most sharers aren’t trying to steal the screen from you as devs) - reactions / emojis when you want to react silently
- brodouevencode 4y ago
  "surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman"
- wincy 4y ago
  Teams seems to consistently make me think I’m fat fingering things and I have to go back and type again when I open a new message and start typing. I seems like it’s storing something in a buffer then spewing it async out all at once in the wrong order when it catches up with my input. This happens multiple times a day on a 2017 i7 laptop. Maybe Teams is an Intel make work program? Have it run slow on all but the most expensive new Intel processors?
kurisufag 4y ago
why on earth would you use Discord in a company setting? I would rather just go back to IRC.
- mst 4y ago
  I've always regarded Slack as "IRC, but non-geeks will use it as well." This model is not by any means entirely accurate but it's been an extremely effective heuristic.
packetlost 4y ago
It's the first line on my LinkedIn bio. I've gotten no shortage of recruiter inboxes saying they don't use Teams.

Someone should make job board where people can filter out companies that use Teams instead of Slack or Discord.

jupp0r 4y ago

Throw JIRA into the mix while you're on it.

b0afc375b5 4y ago
Wait, what's wrong with JIRA?
- muzani 4y ago
  Jira doesn't really work well out of the box. It needs a lot of work to configure. I love Jira now, but it's been hell in the other startups. It's probably why stuff like Trello and Asana took off.
- gsich 4y ago
  Atlassian is an asshole company for their stance against selfhosting it.
  - alrlroipsp 4y ago
    What stance? You simply purchase a license and selfhost it. See https://www.atlassian.com/migration/assess/compare-cloud-data-center https://www.atlassian.com/migration/assess/compare-cloud-dat...
    - gsich 4y ago
      Maybe for insane prices. But that too will go away.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - emrvb 4y ago
      Newsflash: Jira Server end of sales was in februari 2021. Support will completely end in februari 2024. You better start scheduling your migration.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  People that don't need Jira but are forced to use it just hate it. Same as any other product in the world.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Subpar at what it's supposed to do, extra features don't add a whole lot, mostly made and configured for managers instead of developers. Largely the same reasons people dislike Teams. Has even worse integrations with the Atlassian stack than Teams with the MS stack. JIRA, just like Teams, is slow, bloated, still won't fix basic issues and largely exists to appease managers. You have to actively work to make JIRA a pleasant experience. It's too easy for most management to make it hell.
- viridian 4y ago
  I personally find that the more I have to use JIRA, and the more magical ephemeral rules that are set up in it to take actions in response to my actions with it, the more terrible it is to use. I've worked on teams where I just threw info into a card, and it was acceptable to use, and I've worked on teams where commits had to have a JIRA tag associated or the commit got rejected, including in instances where bitbucket was timing out it's call to JIRA. In the latter cases, I prayed for Atlassian's swift destruction, but alas, was never answered. So like a lot of tools, it's how you use it, mostly. That said, as far as universal problems, cloning cards has to be one of the worst UX experiences I run into on the job with any frequency that I can't just fix myself. If the web app needs to await a successful or failed clone of a record (or series of them), I'm not sure why they can't implement a modal or a spinner or other component to tell the user that something is happening, then either navigate the user to the new card, or ask the user if they would like to view the new card. Shooting off a process that you say could take an indeterminate amount of time then dropping eventually a completion notification and link in the bottom left panel is just about the least helpful way to communicate that information. edit: unrelated meta comment, but it's funny as hell to me that this question got 4 replies in the few minutes it took me to write this reply, all within 10 minutes of the original. People are really out here just waiting for a chance to complain about JIRA. Myself included it seems. Makes me feel a bit bad, hate to pile on to popular sentiment when others have already commented in a similar direction.
  - rjsw 4y ago
    I'm trying to cleanup a Git tree right now where people haven't put JIRA tags in their commit comments, it is impossible to find out why a change was made, it isn't a totally stupid requirement.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      This assumes that writing a ticket causes people to explain their rationale better than a commit comment does. That might be the case, but it often isn't because tickets are filed by developers themselves, or by PMs who just write tickets like: "A system requirement is that users be able to do X" without further explanation.
- coldtea 4y ago
  What's good about it?
- gregmac 4y ago
  There's lots, but I think it comes down to two main things: It has bad defaults, and it can be customized to have really draconian workflow rules. If you configure it to be reasonable -- keep the workflows very simple with few to no validation rules -- it can be fine to use. The temptation seems to be locking down admin access to managers, and then the admins going crazy building workflows like "these 19 custom fields must be filled out to start" "items must go through a QA step" "QA users are the only people that can approve that step" and "PMs are the only ones that can close a ticket". This quickly gets out of hand and makes it horrible to use. It also depends on the people using it -- garbage in garbage out, as they say. If people write good tickets (concise titles, format the body, remove irrelevant crap, and properly fill out meta fields like fixVersion) it is much more useful. JQL is awesome, and embedding tickets and JQL queries of tickets into Confluence is awesome (hint: easy way to make release notes) -- but both of these require non-garbage ticket content.
- petejansson 4y ago
  JIRA implementations I've seen don't help people see what's ahead; they focus on what's been done to date. If you're on a single, small team that has minimal dependencies on other teams, that can work, but if the project has any significant dependencies on other teams, it becomes very hard for anyone to understand how things are going.
  - relaxing 4y ago
    That’s literally the point of the kanban board. I don’t understand how these projects were configured for that to be true — did they hide the backlog?
kevincox 4y ago
Also can I choose my own OS or am I stuck with the "approved" one or two.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  You can choose which job to take and you can ask what OS they'll allow you to use before you sign any offer.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago

I'd rather have Team that Slack or Discord. After my company switched to Teams, my IT department became much more productive because the amount of needless interaction with other people decreased. And we were not affected by that shit, since we share the same office anyways. Who needs a messenger when you can shout ;)

rowanG077 4y ago
How did Teams do that that slack or discord couldn't do? 90% of the features are overlapping. And Teams performs by far the worst at that 90%.
- klibertp 4y ago
  I think this: > And Teams performs by far the worst at that 90%. is exactly the reason for: > the amount of needless interaction with other people decreased. Simply put: nobody wants to touch teams, so they only do this when absolutely necessary (and even then chances are they will just send an email).

FearNotDaniel 4y ago

Unfortunately, at least in my experience, if the company shows any signs of success then incoming Finance/IT execs will force a change to Teams to "enable growth". If they begin to struggle, then incoming Finance/IT execs will force a change to Teams to "consolidate and streamline". I've experienced both of these. Resistance is futile.

capableweb 4y ago

It's not about the specific technologies a company uses, but rather how that choice gets made. Teams is chosen in companies where the organization is so big that "unification" is seen as a big plus. What you're out after, are smaller organizations where choices are made based on what people working with those things actually want to use. So look for headcount rather than what chat program they use, because the headcount will affect more choices than just what chat program you'll end up having to use.

JohnFen 4y ago
> It's not about the specific technologies a company uses, but rather how that choice gets made But sometimes specific products are simply less than ideal no matter how they're used. I consider Teams to be one of those.

bsharitt 4y ago

Use of Teams has a been a deciding factor about not taking a job before. It's got to be pretty bad when it makes me nostalgic for HipChat.

Liskni_si 4y ago
I used HipChat for years and never actually saw what the thing looked like. Any XMPP client just worked, no hassle whatsoever. When we later switched to Slack it was actually a downgrade from my point of view. :-/

otabdeveloper4 4y ago

Slack is worse than Teams, no thanks.

denysvitali 4y ago
I've used both. IMHO Teams is by far worse than Slack. This doesn't mean that Slack is better than anything else, it's just better than Teams. Truth be told, even sending a letter by mail is better than Teams.
- alanwreath 4y ago
  My company uses both. That doesn’t improve things much but it does give me a good view of both. - slack great for - huddle collaboration - chat threads - searching chats - focused chat layout - teams great for - sharing video of eachother - taking control of screen share (no need to futz with asking someone to stop sharing when they already vocally told you to share, most sharers aren’t trying to steal the screen from you as devs) - reactions / emojis when you want to react silently
brodouevencode 4y ago
"surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman"
wincy 4y ago
Teams seems to consistently make me think I’m fat fingering things and I have to go back and type again when I open a new message and start typing. I seems like it’s storing something in a buffer then spewing it async out all at once in the wrong order when it catches up with my input. This happens multiple times a day on a 2017 i7 laptop. Maybe Teams is an Intel make work program? Have it run slow on all but the most expensive new Intel processors?

kurisufag 4y ago

why on earth would you use Discord in a company setting? I would rather just go back to IRC.

mst 4y ago
I've always regarded Slack as "IRC, but non-geeks will use it as well." This model is not by any means entirely accurate but it's been an extremely effective heuristic.

packetlost 4y ago

It's the first line on my LinkedIn bio. I've gotten no shortage of recruiter inboxes saying they don't use Teams.