Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #9290 > unrolled thread

Please don't use Slack for FOSS projects

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Please don't use Slack for FOSS projects Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-11-01 15:32 +0000
    Re: Please don't use Slack for FOSS projects RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-11-01 22:05 +0300
      Re: Please don't use Slack for FOSS projects Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:14 +0000
        Re: Please don't use Slack for FOSS projects Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-11-02 12:25 +0000
          Re: Please don't use Slack for FOSS projects Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 11:38 +0100
            Re: Please don't use Slack for FOSS projects Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-04 18:28 +0000

#9290 — Please don't use Slack for FOSS projects

https://drewdevault.com/2015/11/01/Please-stop-using-slack.html

Quoting from the URL above:

   I've noticed that more and more projects are using things like Slack as
   the chat medium for their open source projects. In the past couple of
   days alone, I've been directed to Slack for Babel and Bootstrap. I'd
   like to try and curb this phenomenon before it takes off any more.

   Problems with Slack

   Slack ...

   is closed source has only one client is a walled garden requires users
   to have a different tab open for each project they want to be involved
   in requires that Heroku hack to get open registration

   The last one is a real stinker. Slack is not a tool built for open
   source projects to use for communication with their userbase. It's a
   tool built for teams and it is ill-suited to this use-case. In fact,
   Slack has gone on record as saying that it cannot support this sort of
   use-case: "it's great that people are putting Slack to good use" but
   unfortunately "these communities are not something we have the capacity
   to support given the growth in our existing business."

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9301

In article <k4OflpZvYtQmmbDRfL0jzLJJ@dont-email.me>,
 Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> https://drewdevault.com/2015/11/01/Please-stop-using-slack.html
> 
> Quoting from the URL above:
> 
>    I've noticed that more and more projects are using things like Slack as
>    the chat medium for their open source projects. In the past couple of
>    days alone, I've been directed to Slack for Babel and Bootstrap. I'd
>    like to try and curb this phenomenon before it takes off any more.
> 
>    Problems with Slack
> 
>    Slack ...


Good post - it caught my eye too.  I found the article itself somewhat 
'rant'-y, but there's a good thread at hackernews that goes into how 
this differs from - or is similar to - IRC, whether IRC shortcomings can 
be overcome, and whether it's worth managing your own chat platform for 
(presumably) a workgroup of developers.

I'd looked at chat awhile ago, wishing I could simply build an INN news 
server for in-house communication but realizing getting non-technical 
staff to understand Usenet would be close to impossible.  That got me 
looking around, trying to answer the question 'what else is out there 
other than mailing lists?' and Slack was one of the discoveries.  It's 
neat but the idea of paying monthly for this kind of service still galls 
me, and frankly, non-threaded interfaces are in my opinion a huge step 
backwards for communication.  But hey, look where I'm posting.  And for 
what it's worth, I happen to like IRC quite a bit.

Here's the hackernews thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10486541

The biggest annoynance currently is the sense there's good money to be 
earned by solving technical problems with software; the money angle 
leads almost inexorably to closed protocols.  That's not the way I want 
us to be heading.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9318

On 2015-11-01, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

[16 lines snipped]

> Good post - it caught my eye too.  I found the article itself somewhat 
> 'rant'-y, but there's a good thread at hackernews that goes into how 
> this differs from - or is similar to - IRC, whether IRC shortcomings can 
> be overcome, and whether it's worth managing your own chat platform for 
> (presumably) a workgroup of developers.

We used both usenet and IRC on the trading floor at a previous employers
of mine. The users liked them.

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 14th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9320

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> Good post - it caught my eye too.  I found the article itself somewhat 
>> 'rant'-y, but there's a good thread at hackernews that goes into how 
>> this differs from - or is similar to - IRC, whether IRC shortcomings can 
>> be overcome, and whether it's worth managing your own chat platform for 
>> (presumably) a workgroup of developers.
>
> We used both usenet and IRC on the trading floor at a previous employers
> of mine. The users liked them.

We use IRC internally, and very valuable it is too.  Attempts to replace
it have largely been ignored and instead its use has spread across
multiple sites as we’ve become more integrated.  It has its limitations
but we have email, wikis, an internal pastebin-workalike, telephones and
so on and so forth.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9371

On 2015-11-02, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> Good post - it caught my eye too.  I found the article itself somewhat 
>>> 'rant'-y, but there's a good thread at hackernews that goes into how 
>>> this differs from - or is similar to - IRC, whether IRC shortcomings can 
>>> be overcome, and whether it's worth managing your own chat platform for 
>>> (presumably) a workgroup of developers.
>>
>> We used both usenet and IRC on the trading floor at a previous employers
>> of mine. The users liked them.
>
> We use IRC internally, and very valuable it is too.  Attempts to replace
> it have largely been ignored and instead its use has spread across
> multiple sites as we’ve become more integrated.  It has its limitations
> but we have email, wikis, an internal pastebin-workalike, telephones and
> so on and so forth.

The company I joined in 1998 was using Lotus Notes for much of this and
it worked very well.  Unfortunately web access for all meant that it saw
declining usage and what had been a valuable resource got the chop.

-- 
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly
go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or
repair.                                                       -- HHGTTG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9385

On 2015-11-04, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2015-11-02, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>>> Good post - it caught my eye too.  I found the article itself somewhat 
>>>> 'rant'-y, but there's a good thread at hackernews that goes into how 
>>>> this differs from - or is similar to - IRC, whether IRC shortcomings can 
>>>> be overcome, and whether it's worth managing your own chat platform for 
>>>> (presumably) a workgroup of developers.
>>>
>>> We used both usenet and IRC on the trading floor at a previous employers
>>> of mine. The users liked them.
>>
>> We use IRC internally, and very valuable it is too.  Attempts to replace
>> it have largely been ignored and instead its use has spread across
>> multiple sites as we’ve become more integrated.  It has its limitations
>> but we have email, wikis, an internal pastebin-workalike, telephones and
>> so on and so forth.
>
> The company I joined in 1998 was using Lotus Notes for much of this and
> it worked very well.  

There are many things that can be said about Lotus Notes, but "worked very well" is none of them.

-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web