"we're switching from a walled garden to another"
how do these kinds of posts end up on page one so often?!
how do these kinds of posts end up on page one so often?!
>That being said, this codebase isn't your typical open source project because it's not a library or package with a limited scope—it's our entire product.
Not sure what you mean by that.
It's their full product -- you can get all their code from GitHub and run your own version of their service locally (so it would be like Facebook the company outsourcing the whole codebase behind Facebook the website).
When I see a Medium post recommending a new software over another (especially over Slack since that gives me flashbacks), I just assume that there's financial incentive on part of the writer.
Walls are about control of what's inside of them, including keeping users locked in when they get inside. Using custom proprietary protocols and not giving an easy way to get at your own data are two common aspects.
EDIT:
There are degrees to being walled garden. Slack is one, pure and simple. My scanning of Spectrum's site did not reveal ease of export or FOSS mentioned anywhere on the main page, or on the features subpage, so I immediately assumed it's pretty much as walled as Slack. Now that other replies mention it, I did find a Github icon at the very bottom, linking to some repositories, so maybe the walls aren't as high and thick as I assumed.
Is being hosted on a central server operated by a third party, without federation features, a wall? Technically, yes. But a small one, relatively easy to scale. Personally, as long as I can get all my data out, and as long as I can easily interoperate with it from outside of the garden, I'm comfortable with that. Closed protocols are essentially barbed wire.
And without a token from spectrum, the apps will be limited to "local" operation. Fat load of use cases that has for a chat application.
@TeMPOral has it right: it stays a walled garden as long as it's under central control.
Hangouts chat was a walled garden, even though you could connect via Jabber, and download your stuff via takeout.
The one exception seems to be that it's hosted at a Spectrum owned domain, https://spectrum.chat/apollo.
Chat, as any platform for communication, is going to have network effects, and that's what all of these "we're also slack but not" products aim for. That's the only reason I ever interact with slack or facebook. Not because I want to (I don't) or because I love their apps so much (I don't) but because some things/people are simply only to be reached there.
- Do I own the data? Can I get all the data back easily, in usable format?
- Can I interoperate with it with my own tools? I have my preferences that generally fly in the face of modern UX trends, and being forced to use the officially sanctioned app is inherently limiting.
- What's the migration path? If the current gardener gets bored with the service, can the garden be "restarted" under someone's else control, with all the data migrated?
Decentralization is inherently inefficient, so I don't mind if some things are centralized. It's how they're centralized, how the ownership and control is distributed, that matters.
This is designed for local chat, exactly like slack. It is designed to chat with a community (an open source project, or maybe a company). In slack you need to register to every "team" you want to join, so how is it exactly the same to self hosted spectrum and ask users to register on your instance.
So it is a public garden, but you can take all your plants and plant then to your own backyard. It is not walled.
Can you provide an example of someone who does this right in your book? All instances are hosted by someone -- unless I'm reading you wrong it seems like the only thing that would satisfy you is a chat platform built on the blockchain.
Take for example podcasting: podcasts generally speaking aren't walled gardens - its a completely open protocol based on RSS. No locking. Spotify Podcasts, is a walled garden.
But in any case, what's the problem with "We switched from one walled garden to another"?
Perhaps, the "walled garden" aspect is not what's important to the team, but they care about other interaction aspects? Are they allowed to, or is "walled garden" a no no, and people should not post their use of such services?
It's like a GNU zealot dissing a post about a video editor switching to/from FCP X as "we switched from one proprietary NLE to another".
Yeah, so? Should proprietary/walled garden software be disallowed? Is there something that makes those posts not interesting/useful? If they had switched to some open source alternative it would have made for a better post? Aren't there people that still want to use such services, and do care about the relative merits of different vendors?
Besides, doesn't a large slice of HN make their income either as entrepreneurs or as developers of "walled garden" SaaS products?