←back to thread

796 points _Microft | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.635s | source
Show context
aequitas ◴[] No.22736838[source]
Not that I'm in favor of this practice, but the one key feature that conference software must have is: it just works™.

Nothing turns you off more from a conferencing solution than: any problem getting it working right now.

When there is just the slightest issue, one person not being able to join, one person not getting voice to work, bad audio, your entire team is blocked/distracted. Which results in a collective distain for the solution and video conferencing as a whole.

This extends to getting the solution working for greenfield installs as simple as possible. Because who knows which non-tech users from which department all need to join and can't figure out how to set the permission in their browser right or install/use the other browser that is compatible.

So sadly, from a functionality point of view, you want have the software be able to force itself onto the user in the most usable state it can.

replies(8): >>22736886 #>>22737349 #>>22737355 #>>22737357 #>>22737381 #>>22737449 #>>22738084 #>>22738434 #
t0mas88 ◴[] No.22736886[source]
I'm still curious why everyone thinks Zoom "just works" while others don't. Because in an enterprise context it is often hard to download an executable and run it with sufficient permissions. While Google and Microsoft both offer a product that "just works" with only a browser. What makes Zoom more "just works" than that?
replies(16): >>22736916 #>>22736940 #>>22737051 #>>22737108 #>>22737143 #>>22737238 #>>22737841 #>>22738424 #>>22738725 #>>22739146 #>>22739536 #>>22739595 #>>22739641 #>>22739741 #>>22739848 #>>22740219 #
aequitas ◴[] No.22737051[source]
We just had a corporate presentation with around 250 people. Normally we use Teams or Slack for internal communication, this was also stated by management, that Zoom should only be used for 'big' meetings like this. I think they know the other solutions will not work as well for bigger groups. I've not had issues with using either solution for small group meetings.

Actually I have to go out of my way to run Zoom in the browser instead of using the installer. I have to use Chrome instead of Firefox, download but not install the app and wait for the "or run in browser" link to appear after that.

I really don't like macOS installers anyways and passionately hate them as "installing" and App on macOS should be nothing more than moving the .app from a zip or disk image into your /Applications folder. I just don't trust them in not placing additional crap like auto updaters or kext's when I don't need them.

replies(4): >>22737111 #>>22737819 #>>22739780 #>>22739893 #
1. specialist ◴[] No.22737819[source]
App installation should always just be a file copy. Deinstallation should always just be a move to Trash (or ~/Disabled equiv).

IMHO.

I'm even uncomfortable with config scattered everywhere. The continued need for those 3rd party uninstallers is an admission of failure.

Source: released products ported to misc Windows, classic Mac, modern Mac. Our dev, QA, Test, tech supp was always so much easier on Mac. Not least because we could have multiple current versions installed. Which allows troubleshooting, rollbacks, etc.

Caveat: I personally use package managers and am curious to see if Nix becomes the norm. So I may change my mind in the future.

replies(1): >>22740176 #
2. johannes1234321 ◴[] No.22740176[source]
If the file is only moved to trash it will keep configuration and other artefacts around or not support such features or the file ahs to be mutable, which is questionable from a security pov
replies(1): >>22760608 #
3. specialist ◴[] No.22760608[source]
Thanks. I've been chewing on your reply. I didn't get very far. It finally occurs to me that macOS (or equiv) could implement iOS (or equiv) style sandboxing. Maybe that's already in progress. As a dev and former power user, I'm sure it'll be uncomfortable.