Why is it a major feature omission? Screen sharing isn't an easily solvable problem, there aren't any good FOSS libraries out there (at least that I'm aware of).
Expecting a way way way smaller team that didn't get $1billion in founding, like Discord did, is an extremely poor mindset to have.
All you're proving is the need to implement a tech tax to force companies to fund FOSS at the behest of the federal government, which frankly I'm all for.
This is my problem with the alternatives, nothing has replicated simple voice channels (next to text ones) that you can see who's in and just jump in and out of, with screen share. This shouldn't be any harder to implement than video calling itself but almost nothing has done it. Even spacebar chat is more interested in keeping discord bots compatible than achieving feature parity.
Zulip "shells out" to other apps like Zoom or Jitsi for this with a light integration in the UI.
I'd call that a pretty major feature omission since it means splitting things across multiple apps.
Why is it a major feature omission? Screen sharing isn't an easily solvable problem, there aren't any good FOSS libraries out there (at least that I'm aware of).
Expecting a way way way smaller team that didn't get $1billion in founding, like Discord did, is an extremely poor mindset to have.
All you're proving is the need to implement a tech tax to force companies to fund FOSS at the behest of the federal government, which frankly I'm all for.
8 replies →
No different to ising Slack and Zoom which is a very common combination.
1 reply →
This is my problem with the alternatives, nothing has replicated simple voice channels (next to text ones) that you can see who's in and just jump in and out of, with screen share. This shouldn't be any harder to implement than video calling itself but almost nothing has done it. Even spacebar chat is more interested in keeping discord bots compatible than achieving feature parity.