5 ms·

Congrats! This has probably been asked before, but has there been any thoughts about moving community chat to a platform other than Discord? Discord has been b

Congrats! This has probably been asked before, but has there been any thoughts about moving community chat to a platform other than Discord? Discord has been brought up many times on HN for its accessibility/privacy/proprietary lock-in concerns that don't seem to be in line with the spirit of open-source. Also see [1]. [1] https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/28/Dont-use-Discord-for-FOSS.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/28/Dont-use-Discord-for-FOSS...

spencerchubb 3y ago
Are there any FOSS alternatives to Discord that are free (as in money)
- toastercat 3y ago
  Zulip is free for open source projects. Creating a channel on Matrix.org is free.
- toastal 3y ago
  Conversations & blabber.im offer free XMPP accounts. I self-host so I haven’t tested whether or not its users can create MUCs on those servers. Libera.Chat & OFTC offer free IRC for open source—& can depending on the community be a welcome bridged platform for any alternative as IRC requires the least resources to run (tho if you need rooms with encryption, that won’t be an option).
Alifatisk 3y ago
Could answeroverflow.com be a temporary solution to this?
Liquix 3y ago
Not likely even in light of how important it is to not use Discord. In the comments of the bun 0.6 announcement, a question similar to yours was downvoted almost enough to get flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970869 And in the comments of the bun 0.8 announcement, the same question generates very little interest and some well every other project uses it, so...: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37244294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37244294
- toastal 3y ago
  Yet we should still continue to press against proprietary chat. Developers are the kind of folks wise enough about technology to know better than to support this. There are very good reasons to at a minimum support a bridge. If we have to teach new developers raised on Discord, then that’s a great opportunity for them. > Choosing proprietary tools and services for your free software project ultimately sends a message to downstream developers and users of your project that freedom of all users—developers included—is not a priority. — Matt Lee
  - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
    Hacker news is proprietary too
    - toastercat 3y ago
      FOSS projects don't organize on HN, it's a public link aggregator.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
      I don't think anyone uses it for community chat / support. You can also content without logging in, its content is search indexed, and it doesn't try to convince you to spend money on it.
      - MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
        So HN wasn’t a perfect example. What about GitHub. You can’t use GitHub’s search feature unless you’re logged in, and it very much encourages you to spend money on it. The Discord-hate is a double standard that is not applied to any service (to the extent that comments criticizing Discord appear with extreme regularity on threads that should be completely unrelated).
        tyre 3y ago
        Github issues are indexed by google and searchable.
kylemh 3y ago
Discord's accessibility has improved quite a bit. Even a screenreader user in the article's source section agrees: > What I can tell you is that, to my surprise, Discord’s accessibility has apparently improved in recent years, and more blind people are using it now. One of my blind friends told me that most Discord functionality is very accessible and several blind communities are using it. He also told me about a group of young blind programmers who are using Discord to discuss the development of a new open-source screen reader to replace the current Orca screen reader for GNOME Discord is honestly a great place for FOSS to house their communications. I find all of the articles claims very haphazard: > When you choose Discord, you are legitimizing their platform and divesting from FOSS platforms It is legit? It's free? It has loads of compelling features, is very accessible, and - most importantly... Also, choosing Discord does not take value away from FOSS communication platforms. > Use IRC It isn't IRC which is very inaccessible to lots of people new to computers and software in general.
- pxc 3y ago
  Requiring stakeholders (users, contributors, whatever) in a free software project to use non-free software to fully participate in the community is a disservice to the movement, the users, and software freedom generally. There's some room for debate about offering Discord as a bridged option. But having the official community chat only on Discord? How is there even a question?
  - MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
    This argument also applies to GitHub, yet I’ve never seen an open source project criticized for hosting issues on GitHub. Both are proprietary websites owned by for-profit companies. Both require you to create an account in order to participate in discussion.
    - pxc 3y ago
      Most sizeable F/OSS organizations track bugs somewhere other than GitHub for exactly that reason! Don't get me wrong. I get small developers defaulting to infrastructure they don't have to set up and maintain themselves, and I understand wanting to meet people where they're at. But it's definitely a problem that GitHub plays such a central role in F/OSS development, too.

spencerchubb 3y ago

Are there any FOSS alternatives to Discord that are free (as in money)

toastercat 3y ago
Zulip is free for open source projects. Creating a channel on Matrix.org is free.
toastal 3y ago
Conversations & blabber.im offer free XMPP accounts. I self-host so I haven’t tested whether or not its users can create MUCs on those servers. Libera.Chat & OFTC offer free IRC for open source—& can depending on the community be a welcome bridged platform for any alternative as IRC requires the least resources to run (tho if you need rooms with encryption, that won’t be an option).

Alifatisk 3y ago

Could answeroverflow.com be a temporary solution to this?

Liquix 3y ago

Not likely even in light of how important it is to not use Discord. In the comments of the bun 0.6 announcement, a question similar to yours was downvoted almost enough to get flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970869 And in the comments of the bun 0.8 announcement, the same question generates very little interest and some well every other project uses it, so...: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37244294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37244294

toastal 3y ago
Yet we should still continue to press against proprietary chat. Developers are the kind of folks wise enough about technology to know better than to support this. There are very good reasons to at a minimum support a bridge. If we have to teach new developers raised on Discord, then that’s a great opportunity for them. > Choosing proprietary tools and services for your free software project ultimately sends a message to downstream developers and users of your project that freedom of all users—developers included—is not a priority. — Matt Lee
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  Hacker news is proprietary too
  - toastercat 3y ago
    FOSS projects don't organize on HN, it's a public link aggregator.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
    I don't think anyone uses it for community chat / support. You can also content without logging in, its content is search indexed, and it doesn't try to convince you to spend money on it.
    - MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
      So HN wasn’t a perfect example. What about GitHub. You can’t use GitHub’s search feature unless you’re logged in, and it very much encourages you to spend money on it. The Discord-hate is a double standard that is not applied to any service (to the extent that comments criticizing Discord appear with extreme regularity on threads that should be completely unrelated).
      - tyre 3y ago
        Github issues are indexed by google and searchable.

kylemh 3y ago

Discord's accessibility has improved quite a bit. Even a screenreader user in the article's source section agrees: > What I can tell you is that, to my surprise, Discord’s accessibility has apparently improved in recent years, and more blind people are using it now. One of my blind friends told me that most Discord functionality is very accessible and several blind communities are using it. He also told me about a group of young blind programmers who are using Discord to discuss the development of a new open-source screen reader to replace the current Orca screen reader for GNOME Discord is honestly a great place for FOSS to house their communications. I find all of the articles claims very haphazard: > When you choose Discord, you are legitimizing their platform and divesting from FOSS platforms It is legit? It's free? It has loads of compelling features, is very accessible, and - most importantly... Also, choosing Discord does not take value away from FOSS communication platforms. > Use IRC It isn't IRC which is very inaccessible to lots of people new to computers and software in general.

pxc 3y ago
Requiring stakeholders (users, contributors, whatever) in a free software project to use non-free software to fully participate in the community is a disservice to the movement, the users, and software freedom generally. There's some room for debate about offering Discord as a bridged option. But having the official community chat only on Discord? How is there even a question?
- MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
  This argument also applies to GitHub, yet I’ve never seen an open source project criticized for hosting issues on GitHub. Both are proprietary websites owned by for-profit companies. Both require you to create an account in order to participate in discussion.
  - pxc 3y ago
    Most sizeable F/OSS organizations track bugs somewhere other than GitHub for exactly that reason! Don't get me wrong. I get small developers defaulting to infrastructure they don't have to set up and maintain themselves, and I understand wanting to meet people where they're at. But it's definitely a problem that GitHub plays such a central role in F/OSS development, too.