499
Discord keeps walking into rakes, but TeamSpeak is thriving after 'incredible surge of new users' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 8 months ago (18 children)

I'm not sure which horse to bet on Stoat or fluxer.app.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 8 months ago (7 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    One thing that worries me a little about fluxer is this:

    Finally, we can offer commercial licences to companies that want to run Fluxer internally without being bound by the AGPLv3 copyleft terms. This is enabled via a contributor-friendly CLA, but it doesn't create a separate "enterprise edition". It's still the same Fluxer software everyone else uses.

    They have a CLA on contributions. So while today Fluxer is licensed as AGPLv3, tomorrow they can pull the rug and change the license, just like everyone else has been doing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    So while today Fluxer is licensed as AGPLv3, tomorrow they can pull the rug and change the license, just like everyone else has been doing.

    Isn't that just a problem for contributors to worry about though?

    Like, it's not like they can remove (or change the license of) the code that's already out there (their CLA says existing source code releases stay licensed as-is), nor does this affect forks. So I don't really see the harm to the consumer.

    any distributed version that includes your contribution remains properly licensed under the project license(s) that applied when you contributed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    They can’t retroactively close-source the older versions released under AGPL, but if it ever required a community fork to continue the last release of the GPL version, it would be a massive burden to maintain it, and could cause federation to break as the codebase diverges over time, which would create a rift in the community. You’d also have to hope that average users care enough about the license to jump ship to the GPL (probably now not as full-featured) version, otherwise the GPL version risks not being able to get enough funding to continue, or enough users to convince the larger communities to move over.

    As a somewhat similar real world example, the pixel-art program Aseprite once used a FLOSS license, but it switched to a proprietary license at some point. The last GPL version was forked by the community, but it never got much traction, and is now massively behind the closed source version in features and userbase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    XMPP!

    Stoat is dead in the water due to dependency on the UK and not an easy solution to deploy yet.

    Fluxer is dead in the water due to license.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    I don't get why so many people are saying this. Afaik, it doesn't have channels within servers like Discord and Slack, which I feel is a defining feature in the text chat part of the apps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    channels within servers

    Oh that is like the second most common thing on XMPP! It's rooms/chats/conversations on servers/conferences/salons, etc. Like, come on, even IRC has that and that was made before I was born.

    The one thing that's complex, or at least bad in the UI I've seen for most XMPP clients, is that searchability of rooms is not very good. Like, discoverability is, but to my knowledge there's no way to actually filter for rooms based on a keyword, you either get the whole roomlist for a server or nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    Oh shoot, is it? I'm using Cheogram and Conversations on my phone and I can't figure it out. I guess it depends on the client?? I'm a bit confused.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    I think Iambalicious may be confusing terms. AFAIK no XMPP client has discord-like rooms within channels. The Movim client is actively working on implementing that feature (it can also do group video calls and screen sharing), but it's the only one doing that unless I'm mistaken.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    Oh you mean nested rooms? That's just normal rooms with a different organization. I think there is one XMPP proposal for them but I don't know of any server that implements it (they are unneeded since you can just create temporary chatrooms, same as in IRC) and then you need client support, of which apparently only Movim and Dino are working on it yeah.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (2 children)

    There's a bit more to it than just their visual organization. In Discord, a user only needs to join a single community to access all of that community's rooms (they don't have to manually join each one to have it in their feed).

    The admins of that community can then seamlessly create or delete rooms within that community (the users don't need to do anything for those changes to be seen and applied on their end), and can independently adjust what the base requirements are to view, enter, or interact with each room, and then give an individual granular permissions of what rooms are visible within that community.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Oh yeah that already exists in XMPP, it's called "Server spaces" and grouping can be done by admin or by room owners, but it's experimental so there's no direct way to know what servers or clients are using it or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)