5 ms·
Doing research on a potential employer and filtering out opportunities based on preferred toolchains is a green flag not a red flag.
by bitmasher9 1y ago
Doing research on a potential employer and filtering out opportunities based on preferred toolchains is a green flag not a red flag.
- Spooky23 1y agoDev tools, sure. Self-selecting yourself out of the office/email toolset used by 90% of companies seems like a weird flex.
- philipallstar 1y agoTeams is just so much more horrible than Slack and Zoom, and dev teams use Slack and/or Zoom.
- Spooky23 1y agoMost customers of both use O365. The zoom fascination is pretty weird. It’s literally Webex 3.0 without Cisco bullshit. Slack is pretty awesome. It wouldn’t factor in selecting an employer, but that’s just me.
- zelphirkalt 1y agoI definitely wouldn't call Slack "awesome". Self-hosted tools like Zulip are doing a better job. Slack is however, the smaller evil amongst MS Teams, Zoom, MS Outlook and similarly bad software. Like, if someone told me all communication, including text chat shall happen via MS Teams, I would seriously consider looking for another job. It is a recipe for absolute disaster and completely broken communication. If the same happened with Slack, I would dislike it, but I guess it is at least usable. Still garbage, but not as much garbage, as MS Teams.
- kapone 1y ago[flagged]
- 1123581321 1y agoWhat do you do to make Zulip better than Slack? A vanilla installation is not better, and scales worse with more users, more devices per user more mobile users and more integration sources. But, I’ve never been in a situation where I was forced to make Zulip an attractive communication tool to an organization; there must be a lot that is possible. Getting away from a Salesforce product is a good goal.
- dijit 1y agoI’ve never touched a scaling issue with Zulip, how many devices are we talking about here? Maybe I’ve just never touched the walls of scaling it. The architecture seems fine to scale if you self host though. The only issues I’ve found with Zulip is how it looks and training people to use it right. I’ve had a lot of comments that Zulip has ruined people because they realised how good it is only after they stopped using it, and can tell that everything is so much worse, but the whole time they used it- they hated it. The other issue, if we can call it as such, is that there’s not that many native third party integrations, we had to write our own bots for some pretty basic things. But writing bots is so much easier in Zulip than Slack (and for Teams its a lesson in genuine masochism) so I give them a pass.
- zelphirkalt 1y agoWhat I would do if hosting Zulip for a company, is: (1) host an up to date Zulip version (2) setup or rent a Jitsi Meet or other open source / free software voice + video chat solution. Jitsi Meet might be a bit difficult to properly set up, compared to Zulip, because of extra things needed, like TURN server and in general the complexities of web RTC. Maybe renting that for some < 10 EUR is fine for a company. (3) Configure Zulip to have for example `/jitsi` or `/meeting` for creating meetings right out of Zulip. (4) Setup other integrations, that exist for Zulip. (5) Setup backups for the Zulip database. It is just a postgres database. One can dump it and move the dump to a backup store. If this is too much, for example because the company doesn't have the knowledge in their employees to manage this, then one can also rent Zulip hosted solutions. Getting away from Salesforce alone is in my opinion already worth it.
- 1y ago
- rootusrootus 1y ago> The zoom fascination is pretty weird. It’s literally Webex 3.0 without Cisco bullshit. Yes, though Zoom came first, Webex copied their UI during the covid Zoom craze.
- philipallstar 1y ago> The zoom fascination is pretty weird Why? It's much better than Teams, if for no other reason than Teams just got deprecated on MacOS Monterey and that's really annoying. Or rather not for just that reason, but for the reason that Teams is Microsoft's 10th biggest priority, whereas video calling is Zoom's only priority, so they make a better product.
- Kirby64 1y agoJust because someone uses Outlook doesn’t mean they use Teams too. I’ve seen Zoom or Slack with Outlook/Office suite for the remainder at companies.
- philipallstar 1y agoYes - agreed. I'm just saying that in my experience dev teams do care about some tools that Office is trying to replace.
- davkan 1y agoMy company uses both outlook and slack. Teams is also used for scheduled meetings but never touched for chat. I personally don’t find teams to be significantly worse than zoom but I’d rather never use either.
- cc81 1y agoWhen it was introduced Teams was pretty bad but these days it works just fine. I don't see that it being a decider really more than just historical preference.
- phatskat 1y agoWe have Teams and Slack and I don’t ever see anyone push for a chat in teams. Most channels are a ghost town. To me, teams would be “fine” if it’s all we had, but when you see it next to Slack it’s a no-brainer for me. Teams UI is just baaaaad
- 7thpower 1y agoSlack is an unintuitive piece of junk, and yes I will die on this hill.
- rkomorn 1y agoIt is, but all the other ones I've had the misfortune of dealing with have been worse. Including IRC.
- dotancohen 1y agoA few years ago I worked at a company that actually used Telegram and Telegram Desktop. It was great. Available on mobile and desktop, all platforms, supports all the features we needed, new users get full history.
- rkomorn 1y agoThe best I've used, and I say this in all sincerity, is actually Facebook's work platform (but it's not a chat-first experience, obviously, and that's probably what made it better).
- pxc 1y agoCompanies that use Microsoft for one thing invariably use it for another, and then another, and then another, because they're "already paying for it". Their business model has always been like this. Microsoft Office usage is highly predictive of lots and lots of other choices.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lostlogin 1y ago> Microsoft Office usage is highly predictive of lots and lots of other choices. Job sites could do with this as a filter. Even more specifically, ‘Teams’.
- dijit 1y agoI once rejected a job because of Teams; I felt bad/entitled about it though... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30264591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30264591
- lazide 1y agoI’m fairly certain I’d deeply regret my life choices if I had to use teams daily. Occasional (mandatory) usage interacting with it for various gov’t usage, etc. has reinforced that view. Why subject yourself to something you know you’ll hate every day if you can avoid it? Is that being entitled? Plenty of people don’t have such choices, sure! If so, who cares? Live your life, make your decisions. Don’t let jealous people make your life miserable. Personally, I’d rank it as: 1. Google meet (as good as a gvc program can get for actual meetings, near as I can tell). Best when you have a group of people who are somewhat co-ordinated and not malicious though. 2. Zoom (not great for actual meeting quality, like audio/video, but not bad - and has a lot of useful tools and workflow stuff, especially for larger groups of strangers. I get it) 3..24 - every other random product. 25. Teams (lots of random bugs, worse than zoom for actual meeting quality, tons of silly MS’isms when trying to actually use it, somehow doesn’t work well for groups of people working together OR for groups of strangers, etc). MS is the king of the package deal and ‘check box sales’, so they are impossible to avoid for long however.
- cactusplant7374 1y agoIn this economy? This sounds like a fantasy.
- carlmr 1y agoOP might not have recently been looking for a job.
- numpad0 1y agoI think the point is that GP red flagging all MS shops, which is more or less just sorting companies by headcount and flagging all from top, implies incompetency at GP's side than at the company side. Like, if a fighter jet pilot came and told all American jets are equally weak and overcomplicated and ineffective, it probably tells more about that pilot than about the jets. I don't know if that's the case, but that would be the idea.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- int_19h 1y agoSharePoint really is that bad though (and I say this as someone who used to develop for it as a platform). The fact that it's so widespread in our corporate culture is more indicative of how enshittified it is. Now, realistically, we might not be able to avoid it because of that, but let's not pretend that it's not shit.