4 ms·
You're trying to make this into an old vs. new argument, but I'm just looking at good vs. bad. Discourse being self-hostable FOSS certainly ameliorates that pa
by Gormo 2y ago
You're trying to make this into an old vs. new argument, but I'm just looking at good vs. bad. Discourse being self-hostable FOSS certainly ameliorates that part of my criticism, but it still suffers from being a web-only application with close coupling between functionality and presentation, and contrary to your complaint about "retrograde" UIs, I find Discourse's interface to be quite slow and disorganized, and offers a "narrow" view of discussion, in contrast to more mature UIs' "broad" view.
"Message organization" is one of the most significant elements of this particular use case. Maintaining well-organized archives is extremely important, and it's not enough for messages merely to be searchable -- they should be easily browseable by topic and time range.
- chuckadams 2y agoI'd say Discourse makes a different set of tradeoffs, and a large percentage of people are fine with those tradeoffs. Discourse could use some alternative clients for sure, and it'd be even better if there were a standard for such clients to coalesce around. It seems these days all the effort around standardizing such a thing is in the fediverse, which is a fine idea but ActivityPub is an over-engineered monstrosity that results in incompatible servers and clients anyway.