4 ms·

Why not use / invest in Mattermost?

• royjacobs 4y ago
  Perhaps you could provide some initial arguments why they should?
  • Arathorn 4y ago
    Mattermost is great, but it's not decentralised, it doesn't federate, it's not end-to-end encrypted, it's not based on an open standard, it's vendor-locked to Mattermost, only has one usable client implementation, and is rather aggressively open core (unlike the BundesMessenger distribution which is entirely apache-licensed FOSS). I'm also not sure that whether deployments easily scale up to million+ users like a big Matrix deployment can. It's worth noting that if Mattermost adopted Matrix, like Rocket.Chat has[1][2], the vast majority of these limitations would fall away :) [1] https://www.rocket.chat/press-releases/rocket-chat-leverages-matrix-protocol-for-decentralized-and-interoperable-communications https://www.rocket.chat/press-releases/rocket-chat-leverages... [2] https://matrix.org/blog/2022/05/30/welcoming-rocket-chat-to-matrix https://matrix.org/blog/2022/05/30/welcoming-rocket-chat-to-...
    • jansan 4y ago
      Ah, that's why they did not invest in mattermost.
    • Traubenfuchs 4y ago
      Thank you, explains everything! I thought it was completely open source.
• PurpleRamen 4y ago
  [..]Real time collaboration systems such as Microsoft Teams, Slack, Mattermost, Wire, Threema, WhatsApp and Signal are currently all closed proprietary systems - meaning they are walled gardens whereby all parties have to use the same vendor. That’s impractical, creates vendor lock-in and stifles innovation. There’s simply no way that a government entity using, say, Microsoft Teams would be able to have secure real time communication with another government entity using, for example, Slack, Mattermost or Wire.[..]