[HN Gopher] Zulip 5.0: Threaded open-source team chat
___________________________________________________________________
Zulip 5.0: Threaded open-source team chat
Author : srijan4
Score : 277 points
Date : 2022-03-29 18:40 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.zulip.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.zulip.com)
| vijaybritto wrote:
| We use this at work and its so good at keeping things in track!
| We never loose any conversations. Compared to Teams this is so
| good. I would pick this any day over Teams/Discord where things
| get lost all the time.
| gavinray wrote:
| I'm not going to lie -- I was forced to use Zulip because the
| Redhatters on the Quarkus team use it for their community chat.
|
| At first I thought it was terrible, but after a while it grew on
| me.
|
| The thread-first design makes it a lot easier to navigate, and
| you can optionally choose the "standard" chat view where all the
| threads + replies are lumped together in a channel's stream.
|
| Great product, thanks for all the hard work =)
| asah wrote:
| Same experience with my users:
|
| day 1: why do I need another app/website/etc
|
| day 2: ok fine, but what's with the threading?
|
| day 3: whoa, this is pretty nice.
|
| day 4: <feature request>
|
| day 5: <feature request is live>
|
| day 6: _mind blown_
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| Nice to see Zulip is still around! I was the Zulip evangelist at
| a previous company, but sadly was never able to get buy-in from
| senior leadership on the advantages of a real-time chat system. I
| contributed a couple of integrations that I'm happy to see are
| still active. :)
|
| My lesson from that project was that there can only be one
| canonical communication system due to the network effect, and
| that communication will naturally gravitate to whichever system
| senior leadership is using.
|
| Years later the company settled on Slack instead, driven by a new
| exec.
| regularfry wrote:
| Hah, this is funny. We have, that I know of, _five_ "canonical"
| communication systems that are all big enough to survive
| because of network effects and corporate sponsorship in
| different parts of the company.
| newuser33441890 wrote:
| dmix wrote:
| I kinda like the idea of 'resolving threads'. You could create a
| temporary war room for a particular issue then close it as
| needed. Although I doubt our company is big enough where it makes
| sense to segregate beyond job divisions.
| moksha256 wrote:
| The public access feature looks sweet...and I was able to use it
| to access demos of the upcoming redesign of the Zulip web
| application.
|
| Do any alternatives offer this ability to see content without
| having to sign up for an account?
|
| Slack et al are walled gardens because none of their content is
| publicly available...forums are the opposite, but they lack the
| real-time dynamic of chat.
|
| This public access feature from Zulip seems like it might bridge
| the gap nicely.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| For those who don't like the UI design, there's significant work
| happening to freshening it up. See the discussion (and mockups)
| below.
|
| https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/101-design/topic/UI.20...
|
| Congrats to this team for the product they deliver and service
| they provide.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Zulip is amazing we use it daily. Head and shoulders above Slack
| and Teams that we tried before
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| I use it at work, well it's a nice thing. But the only thing that
| is annoying, if I want to copy text by double clicking, it adds
| the sender to it. (E.g. If I want to copy $COMMAND,
| "$SENDER_NAME: $COMMAND" is copied into the clipboard)
| [deleted]
| asah wrote:
| hunh, this doesn't seem right. I just tested the behavior on
| https://chat.zulip.org/ and it copied just the text.
|
| try it again on that server?
| rstarast wrote:
| I'd love to work somewhere that uses Zulip over Slack, for the
| product itself, but particularly because I believe it has a good
| chance of coming with a more mindful communication approach than
| your average Slack shop. Anyone hiring?
| lanstein wrote:
| _raises hand_
|
| You're spot on.
| walrus01 wrote:
| what does this accomplish that a self-hosted matrix/synapse setup
| doesn't?
|
| the synapse daemon is not overly complicated to set up in a non-
| federated configuration.
|
| the official matrix client is pretty good, there are also a wide
| choice of other matrix protocol clients people can use to
| connect.
| dsr_ wrote:
| The UI is nicer than any of the matrix clients that I've seen.
| If you don't need federation, Zulip is just nicer to use for
| nontech people.
| eliudprom1 wrote:
| GREAT NEWS
| paxys wrote:
| I used Zulip for a while in one of my communities and quite liked
| it. It could use a lot more polishing (maybe the newer versions
| are better in that regard), but it brought a lot of innovation to
| the table compared to something like Mattermost, whose only goal
| is to be a pixel-by-pixel copy of Slack.
| lastdong wrote:
| Congrats Zulip team! Amazing milestone, and hoping many more
| celebrations ahead
| kibwen wrote:
| Zulip is fantastic. It mixes the paradigms of IRC and email while
| providing a clean interface that runs beautifully in a browser.
| The Rust language developers use it and I couldn't imagine any
| better way to keep up with the volume of so many discussions
| across so many teams.
|
| However, the mobile app could use a whole lot of polish. I rarely
| use chat apps on my phone, but if I did then I wouldn't have
| nearly as good an impression of Zulip as I do.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| This is arguably one of the biggest strengths of Matrix: there
| are a _zillion_ clients for almost every imaginable platform,
| and lots and lots of libraries so integrations are a breeze.
| You don 't need to violate the ToS (discord), get API
| keys/permission and agree to conditions (Slack), and so on, in
| order to do your own implementation.
|
| Governments (including military), health care, and large
| enterprise have been moving to Matrix. It's enough of a threat
| that Slack had to get off their asses and actually "innovate"
| some cross-slack messaging.
|
| Threading and more integrated A/V is what's missing, and both
| are supposedly in the works, but they seem to be perpetually
| "coming soon"...
| kibwen wrote:
| Sure, I like federation and I think it would be nice if Zulip
| were federated (maybe it is, I actually don't know!). My
| comment is just about the user experience, though.
| bifrost wrote:
| I tried using Zulip, nobody else wanted to use it because it was
| so clunky. I appreciate what they're trying to do but as someone
| who's been using internet based chat for 30 years (oof), I don't
| think its going to catch on until you can turn off the "thread
| only" mode.
| epolanski wrote:
| I think the "thread-only" feature is the biggest selling point,
| it's niche-y by default. Zulip is the meeting point of a
| hackernews/reddit-like board, real time chats and mailing
| lists. UX and UI needs work, but the base concept is its main
| feature.
|
| I participate in two different zulip's, the microsoft rush one
| and the functional programming one and I always felt Zulip was
| the best choice for technical discussions.
|
| Threads discourage spam and off topic, searching discussions
| and topics you care about is simpler. If you come from 3
| decades of IRC it gets time to get used to, but it's great in
| everything IRC is unfit.
| spockz wrote:
| And if you don't want it, use a "General" thread? Or
| basically a thread like a channel?
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Thread mode is the selling point for us. I've been in various
| chats since late 90s, and threads aren't exactly a cookie-
| cutter IRC thing, that other chats are doing, but it does
| wonder for organizing the flow of inforamtion
| agentdrtran wrote:
| Thread only is the biggest reason to use it outside of FOSS,
| but the UI design and overall experience could use some work.
| It's not bad, but for apps like Zulip that are different from
| what people are used to, it can make a big difference.
| DreamFlasher wrote:
| It still doesn't have e2e encryption. It's unfortunate that they
| reinvented the wheel instead of using a great protocol (matrix)
| and focusing on writing a great client.
| dsr_ wrote:
| It generally doesn't need e2e encryption, because it's strictly
| public or strictly inside-the-firewall.
|
| If it had federation capabilities, or people wanted to use
| private groups, it would need e2e. I hope that's on their
| drawing board.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Right. As long as you are accessing the site over SSL and
| your server is secured, then you really have a form of e2e.
| mrbabbage wrote:
| Zulip came out in 2012, which predates Matrix.
| klysm wrote:
| Then they must've pre-invented it!
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| They obviously should've used a time machine.
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Zulip Cloud security vulnerability with reusable invitation
| links_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30479430 - Feb 2022
| (35 comments)
|
| _Why Zulip will stand the test of time_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29595926 - Dec 2021 (80
| comments)
|
| _Why Zulip will not get on the blockchain bandwagon_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29205346 - Nov 2021 (195
| comments)
|
| _Zulip 4.0: Threaded open source team chat_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27149123 - May 2021 (170
| comments)
|
| _Zulip 3.0: Threaded Open Source Team Chat_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23860338 - July 2020 (133
| comments)
|
| _Zulip 2.0: Open source team chat_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19284321 - March 2019 (96
| comments)
|
| _Zulip Server 1.9: HipChat import and much more_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18400988 - Nov 2018 (123
| comments)
|
| _Zulip - Open-source, threading-based Slack alternative_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17622987 - July 2018 (99
| comments)
|
| _Slack channels are a waste of time_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17622707 - July 2018 (49
| comments)
|
| _Zulip 1.8: Free software Slack alternative with email-style
| threading_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16863675 -
| April 2018 (148 comments)
|
| _Zulip Server 1.6 released_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14506426 - June 2017 (14
| comments)
|
| _Dropbox has open-sourced Zulip_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10279961 - Sept 2015 (313
| comments)
|
| _Dropbox Acquires Zulip, A Stealthy Workplace Chat Solution
| Still In Private Beta_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7419408 - March 2014 (14
| comments)
| asah wrote:
| WOOT !!! Zulip is amazing and this is a big release.
|
| In particular, the source code and dev process are truly
| delightful, and I've painlessly made all sorts of custom mods to
| it, from UI to backend. Most systems of its size are "open source
| in name only" but not Zulip.
| throw0101a wrote:
| Regarding threading generally: perhaps it's just me and my Usenet
| habits, but I find threads really helpful in keeping a chat
| channel relatively 'clean'.
|
| However trying to get conversations to actually occur in them
| seems to be an uphill battle with other (non-techy?) people, and
| often things 'degenerate' into a stream-of-consciousness series
| of messages.
|
| Is it just that I'm atypical in preferring them? Do 'normal'
| people have a hard time with (understanding) them? Other?
| tfehring wrote:
| For better or worse, I think Slack's approach of opt-in
| threading is effectively the default at this point. If users'
| (technical or otherwise) mental model assumes that messages can
| get sent to a channel, but the software only allows messages to
| be sent to a thread, that disconnect could result in lots of
| unexpected behaviors.
|
| For what it's worth, I personally prefer Slack's approach over
| Zulip's - I think threading is a really important feature, but
| requiring it for every message creates excessive and
| unnecessary friction.
| gilbertbw wrote:
| Personally I've found the ability to move messages between /
| split threads (topics) helps a lot with this in Zulip. We
| moved from Slack, and those that struggled with threading
| there mostly picked it up over a few weeks.
| conradludgate wrote:
| I think if you could type a message, and it could use some
| heuristic to determine a sensible thread title for you
| automatically, that would improve the experience quite a bit
| tfehring wrote:
| Yeah, I think that would help a lot. I think I'd personally
| go a step further and make thread titles optional, I
| generally don't think they add much value over just reading
| the first message in the thread.
|
| Even with that change, though, I'd still rather have
| threading be opt-in. Not every message fits well into
| exactly one thread.
| gnulinux wrote:
| Zulip is pretty excellent. It's been a communication booster for
| the company I'm working for. Unfortunately, after almost 4 years
| they switched to Slack and Slack imho is terrible. Zulip to Slack
| was like going from Python to C I still feel disoriented to this
| day.
| noobermin wrote:
| Perhaps it's the "free tier" hosting (I don't have enough time or
| desire to figure out self-hosting) leaves a lot to be desired.
| Images are sometimes slow to load and the image upload from a
| phone is a little bit janky, especially compared to Slack.
|
| I primarily use it for a sort of photo sharing log with my
| fiance, and I convinced her to do it for "open source," so
| perhaps I'm not the intended audience.
| awill wrote:
| Dropbox bought this and then open sourced it, right? Did they buy
| the company only for talent, and not the product? Why didn't
| Dropbox try to actually use it to compete with Slack? Teams is
| terrible, but integrated. Slack is better, but isolated from good
| video/storage. It does seem there's room for a third option.
| alexklark wrote:
| qwertox wrote:
| I think a dose of fresh air would do you good.
| immortaljoe wrote:
| I got introduced to Zulip through recurse center (which still
| uses Zulip). I prefer it over slack, mostly cause i check the
| recurse Zulip once in few months and the threaded conversations
| make it so easy to follow and skip topics.
|
| Really wish my workplace used it instead of slack :(
| jessegavin wrote:
| So basically Zulip > Slack because it has nested channels?
| vosper wrote:
| Interesting that hosted Zulip has the same per-user monthly
| pricing as Slack. Slack runs around an 80% gross margin, I wonder
| how Zulip does.
|
| Is Zulip as featureful as Slack? You can do a lot with and in
| Slack these days.
| the_common_man wrote:
| love zulip, great team!
| dijit wrote:
| Nothing but love for Zulip honestly. But getting my company to
| switch from slack or teams seems to be impossible.
|
| For a good example of how great Zulip can be: the rust-lang zulip
| instance is a shining example.
|
| https://forge.rust-lang.org/platforms/zulip.html
| pm90 wrote:
| Same, love Zulip but slack seems too entrenched at the moment.
| I'm hoping that OSS communities continue adopting it and using
| it instead of slack though.
| geuhdyfdy wrote:
| let's not miss the point.
|
| the only reason companies use slack/teams/gmail is because
| those services understand the data belongs to their clients
| (the employer) and will provide ways to access private
| chats/change ownership of private documents/etc with zero
| trouble.
| pm90 wrote:
| Yep, you're 100% right.
|
| I was genuinely shocked to learn that slack admins can
| configure it so that certain folks can read private chats.
| Once that became known, most of my team offloaded to
| discord/keybase (at a previous gig with toxic leadership).
| sho_hn wrote:
| Meanwhile in Europe, where Slack never made much of a dent,
| Teams seems to be eating everything.
|
| ... which is frustrating, because its Linux desktop app is
| still quite poor and buggy in the basics.
| walrus01 wrote:
| teams is also an absolute CPU and memory hog on MacOS, even
| worse than slack, if that's possible.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| I guess it depends how much utter nonsense is going on in
| your slack.
|
| A quiet (?) teams seems to behave better than the
| absolute crapshow of slack 'apps' at my current gig.
|
| All that being said, I do kinda like the outlook calendar
| app, means I never have to go to office.com anymore ;)
| walrus01 wrote:
| if you want to see something amazing watch the CPU usage
| when somebody posts a high-framerate animated GIF into a
| slack channel, it can suck down 70% CPU usage and a
| massive amount of battery on almost any laptop. The idea
| that a primarily text based chat client can consume 70%
| CPU on a quad-core, 10th gen core i7 is amazing.
| sandermvanvliet wrote:
| I might be living in a different Europe than you but from
| what I see around my Slack is very pervasive and Teams is
| only used for video meetings because companies are already
| on office365.
|
| Nothing but hate for the chat/collaboration features...
| trulyme wrote:
| There seem to be quite a few Europes around. The one I
| live in uses mostly Zoom, with some Teams, Skype, Slack
| and even Jitsi thrown in the mix.
|
| Yeah, Teams is the worst of them in every dimension.
| sho_hn wrote:
| We used to be on Zoom for video meetings, then it lost
| favor due to fears of industrial espionage (the
| encryption crisis, etc.) and via Office 365, Teams snuck
| up. Initially as a Zoom replacement only for video
| meetings, too, but lately folks seem to be discovering
| the other functionality and it's creeping in.
|
| Atlassian (Confluence/JIRA) otherwise.
| trulyme wrote:
| Not a fan of Zoom myself, just - it seems to be used
| quite a lot around me. For me Jitsi is king for video
| conferencing.
|
| Sorry about Jira. :)
| sho_hn wrote:
| The condolences are appreciated ... :-)
|
| Zoom's ugly as hell, but the Linux client has long been
| fairly reliable. Teams meanwhile is plagued by issues
| that don't seem to affect some other Electron-based apps
| or Chromium. During meetings it'll start out fine, then a
| minute in it'll suddenly use microphone. Opening any
| settings views tends to knock audio out of working state,
| too. Their official forums are full of threads on this,
| and support people suggesting crazy mitigations such as
| running it as root (admin user).
|
| The most recent release seems to be from _September 2021_
| , which is positively ancient for something based on a
| browser engine and using it to display complex content
| from remote hosts.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Not least, it doesn't seem to allow include Yubikey
| access which is a bit of bummer when that becomes a
| company wide thing.
|
| Then again Microsoft sites don't seem to work with
| security keys in Firefox either.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| I actually preferred teams to slack+zoom last few times I
| had to use it at a client.
|
| On MacOS it behaves pretty ok. Once you get used to the
| weird double text box.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| It really depends on which company you're in.
|
| Big companies where IT is considered a cost center and
| day-to-day users have no say in their tools will be using
| Teams, partly because they have no choice but also
| because for a lot of them the standard is already Windows
| and "Skype For Business" and they legitimately don't know
| how much better other tools are.
|
| In smaller companies where day-to-day users have a say in
| their tools, Teams would absolutely not fly, especially
| when said users most likely have experience with better
| tools such as Slack.
| XorNot wrote:
| If I'm being honest, Teams and Slack are both about as
| bad as each other. Threading in Slack in particular is so
| bad as to be an active productivity killer.
| nseggs wrote:
| Not unlike the Windows version it seems
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Team is horrendous. Literally the worst group chat there is
| cyberpunk wrote:
| You totally missed hipchat, Skype for business and
| mattermost then?
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Hipchat yes, but Mattermost didn't really leave that bad
| of an impression. A bland SaaS chat.
|
| Teams however... the search functionality where you can
| find the message but can't jump to it so that you can see
| the rest of the conversation.
|
| I actually scrolled up for some 5 minutes non-stop once
| trying to get to the conversation like that
| vanderZwan wrote:
| The weird part there is that Zulip seems like a more sensible
| match for OSS especially since you can actually self-host it
| regularfry wrote:
| Zulip was my backup plan if $BIGCORP decided not to renew
| our Slack subscription back in the day, for exactly this
| reason.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-29 23:01 UTC)