6 ms·

Allow me to shout into the void for a minute here... 1. Slack is a well-designed interface for allowing teams to communicate via chat. 2. Slack is easy to ins

by orofino 11y ago

Allow me to shout into the void for a minute here... 1. Slack is a well-designed interface for allowing teams to communicate via chat. 2. Slack is easy to install is use on Mac, PC, iOS, and Android. It Just Works™. 3. Slack doesn't require me to install IRC somewhere. Which also means I don't have to worry about how people gain connectivity to said server when outside the office. 4. Slack has whimsy. Fun colors, messaging, emoticon, bots, etc. All of this is what folks in this thread seem to be missing. I've used IRC for a very long time, but have NEVER been successful at getting wide adoption of IRC for communication. I am well aware that I'm trusting a third party with out information. I'm aware that alternatives exist and you can get them to work. That doesn't matter when I have to try to explain to my CEO how to /join #channel. There is a reason why IRC, a widely-available, chat solution that has been available for decades didn't catch on. It has nothing to do with how well the software moves messages from one computer to another. </rant>

Hello71 11y ago
> 1. Slack is a well-designed interface for allowing teams to communicate via chat. subjective. I consider a bloated web interface taking several tens to hundreds of megabytes of RAM compared to a text-based interface taking less than 100 kB to be poorly designed. > 2. Slack is easy to install is use on Mac, PC, iOS, and Android. It Just Works™. spelled wrong, and IRC clients are harder to configure only because there are so many options for servers, whereas Slack only supports one server. > 3. Slack doesn't require me to install IRC somewhere. Which also means I don't have to worry about how people gain connectivity to said server when outside the office. webchat was invented for a reason > 4. Slack has whimsy. Fun colors, messaging, emoticon, bots, etc. IRC has had mIRC-style colors supported and even adjustable by the majority of clients for at least 10 years. I don't know what "messaging" means. If you mean "private messaging", pretty much every chat software in the world has that. AOL and ICQ have that. You can put emoticons in your text manually if you want. It was on IRC that the concept of chat bots was invented, not on Slack. > There is a reason why IRC, a widely-available, chat solution that has been available for decades didn't catch on. It has nothing to do with how well the software moves messages from one computer to another. Yes, it is about how much money a for-profit company has to spend on marketing and copy as opposed to a standards organization.
- harryh 11y ago
  Up until very recently Slack had spent essentially nothing on marketing. It spread because, in the words of pg, they built something people want.
  - Hello71 11y ago
    alright, then replace "marketing" with "pretty pictures and rounded corners".
    - harryh 11y ago
      There have been plenty of very nice looking IRC clients over the years.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Isn't this roughly what people used to say about Apple?
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        s/used to//
  - kbenson 11y ago
    How recent is "very recently"? I've been hearing ads in the podcasts I listen to for something close to a year. Prior to that, slack was only something I had seen in HN titles, and even then I had never once clicked on one. I like slack, I think it's a great product. On finally watching their video and installing it, I immediately saw the draw, it's basically IRC with lots of usability enhancements and a lot of easy-to-configure bots available with a click or two. That said, it took me months or ads to finally take a look, but I did because the advertisements let me know that it was a possible solution for the problem I was dealing with. It may have spread because they built a good product, but I think it's equally important that they actually exposed a lot of people to information about it. Your great product will die if nobody ever sees how great it is.
- 11y ago
nfd 11y ago
Slack and IRC have two different (but interconnected) use cases. I love IRC, and I haunt a couple servers to chill or to ask an occasional newbie question. I'm pretty comfortable with IRC; it's a part of my culture. I often find myself needing to establish a line of communication between people who aren't particularly tech-savvy. Slack works excellently for this: I make a new team, fire off some invites, and everyone just understands how it works. I can only imagine that, say, coordinating dev, corporate, and sales over IRC would be like living in the same circle of hell cardinally occupied by people who talk at the theater. If IRC works well for your team (whatever it is), excellent! Don't try to fix something that isn't broken. Slack isn't flawless, but it does have its usecases, and it fills them very nicely.

by orofino 11y ago

Hello71 11y ago

> 1. Slack is a well-designed interface for allowing teams to communicate via chat. subjective. I consider a bloated web interface taking several tens to hundreds of megabytes of RAM compared to a text-based interface taking less than 100 kB to be poorly designed. > 2. Slack is easy to install is use on Mac, PC, iOS, and Android. It Just Works™. spelled wrong, and IRC clients are harder to configure only because there are so many options for servers, whereas Slack only supports one server. > 3. Slack doesn't require me to install IRC somewhere. Which also means I don't have to worry about how people gain connectivity to said server when outside the office. webchat was invented for a reason > 4. Slack has whimsy. Fun colors, messaging, emoticon, bots, etc. IRC has had mIRC-style colors supported and even adjustable by the majority of clients for at least 10 years. I don't know what "messaging" means. If you mean "private messaging", pretty much every chat software in the world has that. AOL and ICQ have that. You can put emoticons in your text manually if you want. It was on IRC that the concept of chat bots was invented, not on Slack. > There is a reason why IRC, a widely-available, chat solution that has been available for decades didn't catch on. It has nothing to do with how well the software moves messages from one computer to another. Yes, it is about how much money a for-profit company has to spend on marketing and copy as opposed to a standards organization.

harryh 11y ago
Up until very recently Slack had spent essentially nothing on marketing. It spread because, in the words of pg, they built something people want.
- Hello71 11y ago
  alright, then replace "marketing" with "pretty pictures and rounded corners".
  - harryh 11y ago
    There have been plenty of very nice looking IRC clients over the years.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Isn't this roughly what people used to say about Apple?
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      s/used to//
- kbenson 11y ago
  How recent is "very recently"? I've been hearing ads in the podcasts I listen to for something close to a year. Prior to that, slack was only something I had seen in HN titles, and even then I had never once clicked on one. I like slack, I think it's a great product. On finally watching their video and installing it, I immediately saw the draw, it's basically IRC with lots of usability enhancements and a lot of easy-to-configure bots available with a click or two. That said, it took me months or ads to finally take a look, but I did because the advertisements let me know that it was a possible solution for the problem I was dealing with. It may have spread because they built a good product, but I think it's equally important that they actually exposed a lot of people to information about it. Your great product will die if nobody ever sees how great it is.
11y ago

nfd 11y ago

Slack and IRC have two different (but interconnected) use cases. I love IRC, and I haunt a couple servers to chill or to ask an occasional newbie question. I'm pretty comfortable with IRC; it's a part of my culture. I often find myself needing to establish a line of communication between people who aren't particularly tech-savvy. Slack works excellently for this: I make a new team, fire off some invites, and everyone just understands how it works. I can only imagine that, say, coordinating dev, corporate, and sales over IRC would be like living in the same circle of hell cardinally occupied by people who talk at the theater. If IRC works well for your team (whatever it is), excellent! Don't try to fix something that isn't broken. Slack isn't flawless, but it does have its usecases, and it fills them very nicely.