Personally, I like to keep the chat well away from any formal decisions and preferred the old chat/email method to separate the two. I don't use either Slack or Team in any meaningful way however I do have to administer PCs that run both Teams and Slack. Slack is a total nightmare to manage. It's a slow, buggy, resource hogging mess.
Microsoft prohibits the use of Slack internally, favors its own Teams collaboration software
- Thread starter onetheycallEric
- Start date
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
But if you stop and think about it, this isn't an anecdote which points toward the virtue of using a single email client, it's an argument against using Apple's.
If we make the assumption that both Slack and Teams are bug free and interoperable, what's the problem?
Another member suggested some users like Slack because, "it has more emojis".
Accordingly, it doesn't seem beneath M$ to pump Teams full of even more emojis to win over the employees. You know, after the fashion of leaving a trail of breadcrumbs, but breadcrumbs that look like eggplant..
.The only downside is, someone continuing to use "Slack", might eventually come to be referred to as "a Slacker", and we all know what negative connotations that has in relation to someone's work ethic..
(**)(**) Although workers with the inclination to send inter office memorandums laced with ridiculous icons instead of typing out their messages with actual words, might be "slackers" already.
Last edited:
MS Teams looks like a copy paste job of Slack
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Yeah BUT, given M$'s current business model of ramming Windows 10 and subscription Office down people's throats whether they want either or not, I highly doubt the in house methodology of "suggesting workers use Teams" is any softer, kinder, or gentler.
It's not about being bug free. They may have the same functions, but they require different setups and who knows if you'll be able to move your messages from one application to another with no issues (or even move to different PCs without issues). This would also mean that MS is taking a risk with transmitting sensitive data on applications they don't control.But if you stop and think about it, this isn't an anecdote which points toward the virtue of using a single email client, it's an argument against using Apple's.
If we make the assumption that both Slack and Teams are bug free and interoperable, what's the problem?
Another member suggested some users like Slack because, "it has more emojis".
Accordingly, it doesn't seem beneath M$ to pump Teams full of even more emojis to win over the employees. You know, after the fashion of leaving a trail of breadcrumbs, but breadcrumbs that look like eggplant..
The only downside is, someone continuing to use "Slack", might eventually come to be referred to as "a Slacker", and we all know what negative connotations that has in relation to someone's work ethic..
(**) Although workers with the inclination to send inter office memorandums laced with ridiculous icons instead of typing out their messages with actual words, might be "slackers" already.
You are making the dangerous assumption that both Slack and Team have 0 bugs and/or will not have problems in the future. Internal usage of your own tools also helps with their development.
I have no idea why you are so gung-ho against this. I think it is time you removed your tinted glasses and look at both the cons and pros of MS limiting the internal software stack from an objective point of view. There is such a thing as being too flexible.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
I'm sorry I've given you the impression I'm being "inflexible". I'm not.
I also used the precise phrasing, "assuming the programs are interoperable". Perhaps they are not. In which case the program which can be rewritten on site, (Teams), is the better choice. I honestly don't how a concept that obvious, drew such a pedantic lecture stating the very same thing, but in a rather more long winded version.
However, I do know the people above the age of reason, don't do anything, which doesn't have an ulterior motive.
For example, M$ says, "Windows 10 is our best (and last) operating system ever". They also say, "Windows has progressed.to a service", which kinda smacks of a prelude to Windows becoming a "subscription"
What Windows (10) has become, is a vehicle to herd customers to the "M$ Store", pretty much like cattle being prodded onto a boxcar, while culling their personal information in the process.
M$ is also doing the same thing to customers, as it is doing to its employees, by using Windows as a tool to render much 3rd party software useless. Except now, they've taken that to a whole new level, by announcing ahead of time, whose software they intend to break with their next update.
As to ulterior motives, the motive behind the edict may be a simple one of concern how people's perception of M$' software would be affected as a whole. "If it gets out, (which it obviously has), that our employees would rather use another company's software than our own, we'll lose prestige, as well as faith and respect from our customers and the rest of the industry as a whole, and god knows we can't have that"!
So, I don't know if this is an issue with you being a M$ employee, my syntax, or a slight "English as a 2nd language misunderstanding", but I'm certainly not "gung-ho" on either company's product. Nor do I believe I've posted anything to that effect.
In point of fact, I've posted in a humorous manner, borrowing the derisive term "slacker" from colloquial English, and suggesting that M$ "pump Teams, full of emojis" to level the playing field.
So really, if anybody has blinders on, it's not me.
Last edited:
Most companies have a list of authorized software. I am not allowed to install any thing I want. Don't know who you work for but it sounds like a hack waiting to happen.
Comparing the way a MS uses the internal tools with how you feel about Windows kinda shows that I was right about you have tinted glasses.
I also don't know why you had to write a novel just to tell us that you hate MS and Windows (because that's the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from it).
If I defend MS on something I'm an employee now? Ha, damn dude, you sure like to make a lot of assumptions and then talk as if they're facts.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
The only reason I came to that incorrect conclusion, was the fact that you lectured me one time about how much of Windows coding was done in Romania. I think you gave your country credit for damned near its entirety
The fact remains, M$' corporate policies and goals aren't necessarily limited to Windows alone. Any rational person might draw that conclusion, or harbor that suspicion, be it right or wrong.
Let's call it a draw, you keep your blinders on, and I'll go with the rose colored glasses.
I am sure that many companies do not allow competitor products in their workspaces. You probably won't see people drinking Pepsi in Coca Cola headquarters break rooms. Google may have Bing blocked for their employees. Who knows, but I'm sure it happens everywhere. We have a philosophy where I work called "Eating your own dog food". You use what you you are selling to your customer. The employees become more familiar with the product they are selling and it is a great way to identify problems and get quick fixes if they are discovered internally.
Ha, you call it a "draw" but end it with calling me blind. Sure dude, the rest of the world is blind and you are right.
This is not about me being "right" or "wrong" here. You are just simply making weird assumptions while also making weird associations between different unrelated things just so you can forcefully reach a conclusion that suits your warped opinion on MS.
There is nothing wrong with a company having a restrictive policy on what tools the employees have to use.
Besides, if you yourself don't use what you created, what will your clients think of that product? It can be very damaging to the brand.
If you want "flower power" at your workspace then you'll have a hard time finding a job. Let's not beat around the bush and let's end it like it truly is,: just like I hate EA and Epic with a passion right now, you hate MS.
fluffydestroyer
Posts: 117 +49
a lot of companies don't like Slack because of its privacy policy. They collect data and share it and have no control over it...for a company thats pretty freaky.
https://slack.com/privacy-policy#information
Which I find humorous because the same org (but different individuals) chose O365 for our email provider over Gmail as MS said they wouldn't data mine us while Google would give no such guarantee. I guess our email is more important than our messaging.
fluffydestroyer
Posts: 117 +49
Microsoft wont sell or give your personal information or anything you do in Microsoft product. It does tell that in the front page Slack which is the whole contrary. Thats the main difference so again, information is very important and a lot more important than cool features with companies and organisation.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/trust-center/privacy
No, he said you had blinders on. Blinders narrow a horse's view to what is right in front of it, preventing it from seeing the whole picture, but they do not make it blind. You're thinking of a blindfold.
JFYI!
It's basically the same thing and changes nothing. Why did you even feel the need to write to me such a thing if you have nothing new to add to the conversation. O_o
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
@Puiu Here is a picture of the very famous Budweiser Clydesdales in full tack:
What are those things over the horses eyes?
Here is a single horse with blinders:
Blinders force the horse to only see what's in front of him (or her). Or as sit were, force them to have a limited field of vision.
You should probably know what someone is talking about before you cast aspersions that they're trolling you.
So, it's far from "the same thing as blind", but you don't seem to be doing well with American English idiomatic expression. And there is no translation I could find on the web in Romanian for "horse blinders", or I would have posted it.
What are those things over the horses eyes?
Here is a single horse with blinders:
Blinders force the horse to only see what's in front of him (or her). Or as sit were, force them to have a limited field of vision.
You should probably know what someone is talking about before you cast aspersions that they're trolling you.
Blinders still allow a horse to have vision, it's just that if forces the animal to see only what it's owner or driver wants it to see.
So, it's far from "the same thing as blind", but you don't seem to be doing well with American English idiomatic expression. And there is no translation I could find on the web in Romanian for "horse blinders", or I would have posted it.
Last edited:
This is starting to get really stupid as a conversation topic. Complete or not it still makes me blind to whatever you want me to see. Something that I've proven to not be true by using simple common sense.@Puiu Here is a picture of the very famous Budweiser Clydesdales in full tack:
What are those things over the horses eyes?
Here is a single horse with blinders:
Blinders force the horse to only see what's in front of him (or her). Or as sit were, force them to have a limited field of vision.
You should probably know what someone is talking about before you cast aspersions that they're trolling you.
Blinders still allow a horse to have vision, it's just that if forces the animal to see only what it's owner or driver wants it to see.
So, it's far from "the same thing as blind", but you don't seem to be doing well with American English idiomatic expression. And there is no translation I could find on the web in Romanian for "horse blinders", or I would have posted it.
If you ppl have nothing better to add to the thread I think it is time to move on.
the TLDR is this: the idea of a company allowing people to use whatever software they want is just not viable and/or recommended. it's a recipe for disaster, something that has happened time and time again.
Similar threads
