First, they have a per-user pricing model which makes it quite expensive. While these tools work well, they have some downsides. Slack and Microsoft Teams are the popular choices in this market. It is certainly possible to make that, standing on the shoulders of various open projects - but the effort would be anything but trivial.Collaboration and communication tools are essential for all businesses these days. I don't think you can pick-and-choose a XMPP server and clients that will provide all that, today.
ROCKETCHAT ALTERNATIVES WINDOWS
I assume one would want a solid command line client, solid gui clients for Windows, OSX, Linux/BSD, Android, iOS and Windows phone, along with a good web client. But if you want solid off-line messaging, server-side logging and scalable group chat - there aren't any out-of-the box combination of free/open servers and clients that will work, as far as I've been able to figure out. Also has an IRC bridge: Īs for XMPP, I think it is still entirely viable as an alternative to using a brand new protocol and brand new clients and servers. But in the context of a slack-alternative, matrix is definitely the one to look at. On my last evaluation, I found the two most interesting to look at matrix and tox.chat. : That's what is trying to fix, by the way. And - if you are careful - you can later switch your chat-system-hosting provider if you want. But when it is possible to self-host, you could hire a specialized company to host the chat system for you. I agree with you: it's expensive to self-host. That's why I'm excited about efforts like. (Yes, I realize that Rocket.Chat user couldn't chat with Zulip user, for example. How would you do these things with Slack? Slack is great, and I like it, but it could stop being great at some point in the future. You could decide to change your phone service provider and (in some countries) even keep your number. If you give me your phone number I could be talking with you in a few seconds without me even knowing the name of our phone company. There are important differences between Slack and a phone company. It's interesting how you compare Slack with a phone company. Until there's a viable alternative that exceeds Slack's ease of use, that's what I recommend people use. I don't have to think or worry about anything. The neck beard and almost hipster pontification about the 'bloat' of Slack is kind of ridiculous. Try and get someone from your marketing department to use IRC. I can pay the Slack guys to maintain chat while my devs work on maintaining our products. But anything that requires me to 'self host' something that amounts to a service means that is a bad use of time. If it bothers people so much, create a FOSS Slack with the ease of use and setup and maybe people would be more interested. Worrying about a 'walled garden' for a chat tool is kind of silly.
ROCKETCHAT ALTERNATIVES SOFTWARE
Do we avoid the phone company because their software is closed source? There comes a point where this FOSS obsession sort of jumps the shark. I don't get what the problem is with closed source Slack. It works great, it's simple to use and it has an amazing feature set. I don't get the point of complaining about Slack.
We could ease time self hosting source control as well - to what end? I have members of the team spending time (and thus money) setting up something that pleases people philosophically but really adds zero value - in fact, it actually costs money (through very expensive developer time.) Not sure why I would want to self host what is effectively a phone system.
0 kommentar(er)
