GitHub staff are required to use Teams by Sep 1, 2023

Bingo. Nearly impossible for our staff to do their jobs and not discuss something considered PHI.

Of course, and I can't fault Microsoft for that, even if (having been on the bad end of a similar acquisition and IT merge) it sucks for GitHub.

My point was: GitHub as an organization didn't choose Teams willingly, and are still paying for Slack and only using Teams for video conferencing. Of all the explanations of why that might be, the easiest to land on is "because Teams just isn't that good."

> not willing to pay to another company for a product that's actually their competition.

This. Companies are cutting costs. Teams may not be the best to use, but it doesn't make sense to have multiple chat solutions.

Curious now, which one would you say is the most troublesome in your experience out of those three then? And why…

> In big companies like GitHub people don't typically choose their own video conference platform. It's picked for them.

Yes, for larger meetings that applies.

Realistically, people will ping each other and video call on slack/hangouts/whatever if they don't like company's choice.

I is not just video conferencing. Teams sux if you need many ad-hoc working groups based on topics or small teams. Meaning, they sux for exactly the kind of work developers do.

I use Slack with several customers and it must keep them separate. Nobody would use it if it merged different companies into a single chat. For non business usage, maybe a unified chat could make sense even if I prefer to keep different groups separate as with Whatsapp groups or Telegram channels.

we use discord at work and the only bad thing is the screen sharing, many times we can get away with it but if we can't we usually just jump on a free zoom call

Discord is really bad for big groups of people and even worse if you need searchable content.

Conversely, my friend group is mostly on Discord for group chats, and it’s the least favourite chat program I regularly use.

I’m not interested in the constant upsells to their paid service, and I find the client fairly unpleasant to use with its lack of configurability (like I can’t even make the window as narrow as I want, there’s a minimum width to it that’s way too wide).

And Discord’s pretty hostile to third-party clients, so I’m stuck using this client that I don’t like.

You’ve mentioned this app before, last I checked there isn’t a usable client yet. Are you just hoping to get more FOSS devs on board or has something changed?

Have you considered using official Teams API? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/resources/teams-...

Have you considered using official Teams Graph API as your backend layer? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/resources/teams-...

I was just on such a call and the chop in / out is so weird

Exactly, thank you so much for putting the experience into words. The random errors are just so... astoundingly random.

I've had problems with a headset on USB-C (Sennheiser EPOS). Teams would connect once, and then never again. Another time it would stop responding to any click. Then it would reload whenever changing team/channel. And then it would no longer show any notifications.

I haven't seen an app with that amount of apparently completely random errors, often not reproducible either. It's like a Bethesda game.

People love change. Look how Google, Amazon, and social media took the world by storm. And pocket calculators, smart phones, large screen TV's, the list goes on.

People like changes that benefit them. On the other hand, probably the #1 user request for enterprise software is: Please don't change anything. This tells you something about the software. Common reasons are:

* The last major change broke everything and we couldn't do our jobs for weeks.

* The new system has nobody to help us when there's a problem.

* All of our files / contacts / messages disappeared, or we can't find them any more.

* Meanwhile, we're still expected to keep up the pace of work.

Ballmer famously grabbed an employees iPhone and pretended to stomp on it: https://www.businessinsider.com/ballmer-snatches-microsoft-e...

Too late to edit. Should be:

> Heard they weren't supposed to use them.

It's CDD, checklist driven development. When you are competing against another product in the enterprise space the people making the decision probably won't be using what you are selling often but they will look at the list of features, so money spent adding new features is more important and higher prioritized than stability reliability or any other nonfunctional requirement.

I recently tried edge to use the new Bing and I feel the same way. So many features, half of them buggy, and zero coherence throughout the app. (That said, few outright bugs although I assume I mostly have google to thank for that.) Not sure what it is about MS and features features features.

Pro tip: go to settings. In general, there is a "Chat density" setting. Change that to "Compact". Wish this was the default because it is so much better!

Or maybe people just have different experiences?

I ran teams on a fairly powerful i9-equipped MacBook Pro and it was unbearable. Couldn't even scroll up to older messages without it freezing up, the integrations with Office 365 were also really slow.

I have to ask: what the hell is wrong with your perception?

What other IM/AV applications have you used before, and on what hardware?

If you've never seen better, it's not surprising that you'd think Teams is good.

I vividly remember that 20 years ago there was MSN Messenger, and the experience was far better than that of Teams on hardware at least an order of magnitude less powerful. After that was (pre-MS) Skype, which was also not that bad.

Teams is an absolute pig in comparison. It works --- just barely. Audio and video calls are probably what it does best, and "best" is relative. For IM, it's beyond horrible.

Umm, teams video will reliably cause my surface pro 7 to actually BSOD. Not exaggerating, having the video turned on will cause a no-shit BSOD on Microsoft hardware, and my coworker with the another surface also has that issue.

On my desktop with a no-name webcam with a generic driver I have no issues with teams, but the complaints about the software are rooted in actual problems. It's inconsistent, I've never seen a program that can have so many different bugs. We have 2 users who regularly use teams to communicate with an external vendor, they are on exactly identical Dell desktops. One has no issue at all, the other will see massive performance issues when teams is running in the background, somehow it is saturating disk read on a ssd. It would be hard to have more identical systems, they are running the same OS image with the same programs installed, the only thing that's different is the user account they are signed into. I finally just gave up and swapped the user's entire system with a spare, which resolved the issue but as far as I can tell there are no problems with that system. I pulled it out of spares 2 months ago for a new employee and they have not reported any issues at all, and I have followed up with them out of curiosity.

Teams is just super inconsistent, so the fact that it works on 1 computer for you doesn't in any way invalidate all the other problems people report with it.

Edit: unfortunate autocorrect typo substituting a slur for the worn 'new'

> what the hell is wrong with your computer?

Nothing, because Zoom works completely fine while Teams is always struggling to make a connection, keep a connection, have good quality video and audio, and well even OPEN. There is a persistent problem on Macs where Teams refuses to open unless you delete an obscure file.

agreed. I use teams every day, and the meetings features are great. chat isn't as good, but it's useable. zoom is terrible and lacking basic features

I sort of agree, teams are working really well for us, a medeium sized globally dispersed team of developers.

I do have one pain-point: my phone discord sometimes does not understand that it should be quiet if I am active on a computer at the same time, and dings for very new chat message.

> I have to ask: what the hell is wrong with your computer?

For our org, it isn't the PC, it is the org controlling Teams and the firewall.

They have Teams configured somehow, that none of the subsidiaries can talk to each other, you can't talk to outside people or invite them, and the performance is really bad due to the way the clients and firewall are configured.

I'm guessing lots of orgs are in the the same boat because Teams is newer than Zoom, Web Ex, or Go to meeting, and for these legacy meeting clients the PCs, firewall, and org has had time to optimize for them.

Teams is more of an afterthought because it comes with 365.

True, Teams isn't as awful as it was in 2020. But it's still pretty bad, and it's a bad that is foisted on many of us. That makes putting up with it even more irritating than it might otherwise be.

Yes, that's how most people use MS Teams. It's extremely useful. The sharing space for documents is good. Collaborative editing in Office is good. Conferencing is good. Presenting from Powerpoint is good.

It's the same thing in every discussion involving Teams: most HN readers don't realise just how unusual the tools they use and what they want are with regards to the average job.

And here's me thinking that turd polishing was not location dependent.

I don't think lack of feedback is a problem, nor would Microsoft have any trouble assembling a paid group of testers to give them feedback if they needed it without subjecting Github employees to the not-even-all-that-polished turd that is Teams.

By "generic" do you mean competing by means other than the strength of their product?

Which companies do you have in mind? (Apart from Oracle.)

The point of dogfooding isn't feeding your employees any old dog food. The point of dogfooding is that the dog food you make is so damn good your employees prefer it over making lunch boxes or eating out.

(It doesn't have to be perfect, or course, just do something better than its competitors to be attractive to use. I struggle to think of a single redeeming feature of Teams.)

That's the problem: Microsoft isn't a company. They aren't a cohesive team working on a product. They are a corporation: a group of companies with separate trends writing on separate products.

Is the GitHub team working on Teams now? I doubt it.

Team has issues is the understatement of the year. A simple feature like screen freeze has been requested per use in the thread below hundreds of times...

"Between different messaging boards (including the link above) this feature has been requested over 2000 times (1044 times as of this writing on the link above alone). Could Microsoft chime in to let us know if this is going to be on the roadmap? Thanks."

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msteams/forum/all/pausin...

The tool will say you are in the meeting but won't let you have access to the chat. A bug hitting regularly hundreds of persons.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-teams/why-s...

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-teams/probl...

I pity GitHub employees and would consider resigning :-)

Dogfooding only has a purpose if someone cares about the dogs' feedback.

So should they also force every subsidiary to use Windows, VSCode, Office 365, Azure, etc?

Literally sitting here right now trying to figure out how to get simple things going compared to slack after being forced to move to teams from slack (not GitHub).

I am all for dogfooding here, but if the dog-fooding is not improving the product it shows that the goal is to eat market because of lopsided ecosystem monopoly. Screw MS and MS Teams.

eg. : We need a tag in a shared channel so that we can provide single point of support for other teams, instead of people having to tag the whole channel. Slack made is as easy as breeze to sync on-call person from PD -> a group.

"Teams has issues" is an understatement, the app will sometimes notify you that you have a new message, and when you try to open it from the web page, it won't show up, but if you force refresh it will. Or it will show up on the mobile client, but not on the web one.

> Teams has issues;

Issues like unable to switch teams without re-authenticating? Slack can do this, Discord can do this, both of them completely seamlessly but Teams just can't.

Dogfooding means using your own product. The Teams team does not work at GitHub, they work at Microsoft. Yes, I know the one owns the other, but the fact that this requirement needs to be made at all is testimony to the fact that they would much rather use a product by a competitor, that's how broken it is.

> Hard to improve without dogfooding

They've been dogfooding and I don't think most of us regular users have seen any measurable improvement for years. Apparently it's hard to improve with dogfooding too?

I view WSL the same way.

Especially cloud devs prefer running Linux on their machines, or Mac (the latter is a bit more popular in our org). And developers is where the exodus starts. Because they build ecosystems.

The big selling point of WSL for businesses is endpoint management. It's really hard to manage Linux endpoints in particular if you have a mix of distributions. Windows is better at this despite active directory being a horrible mess of legacy crap and modern management not really ready for prime time.

In fact Linux is so bad at it that I see a lot of users wanting it so they can escape company management.

Teams works relatively fine for me now that I upgraded to an M1 macbook pro. (Still occasionally crashes for no reason, but no apparent performance problems).

A year ago I was still on a 2015 Macbook, and it was still doing just fine for me on everything but Teams, Teams was a disaster, it would freeze and drop video all the time, or have perceptible delay between click and effect.

Because it's by far the worst UX-wise. If you know better tools, it's just shit. To add insult to injury, it kind of sort of works, sometimes, but there are tons of small problems here and there all the time in many cases. I had to use it only for video calls for 3 years, and probably weekly there was something wrong like restart needed because it screwed up my audio.

I've been using it on Windows for well over a year. I can't speak to how well it works on Mac or Linux, could be a terrible experience, I dunno.

In my opinion, its not the most ergonomic tool out there but its by far the most fully realized tool out there. There's lots of tools that are good for this or good for that, but mixing them in together gets to be a bit kludgy. Having calendars, live editing of documents, meetings, chat, and other tools all integrated into a single tool is extremely handy when done right, and Teams to me gets like 85% of the way there. There's some things it just doesn't do well (like the threaded messaging, kind of a mess, maybe we just don't do it right), there's things where its inconsistent (different features for meeting chats versus individual versus group chats), and overall it could stand to be a lot faster and responsive. But in the end, when someone shares a document in a call I've got it in chat history and in my OneDrive and can recall it straight from Excel or Word or whatever. When someone emails me a calendar invite, its in my Teams automatically. The first-party integrations are hard to beat.

Do I prefer things like Mattermost for pure chat? Sure, but then its separated from the tools I use for document management and separated from what we'd use for video calls and separated from my calendar for meetings and separated from our actual org structure integrated into it and all kinds of stuff. In the end, I personally like all these things being well integrated, and can deal with not having all the custom emojis and a slightly more responsive chat client.

You haven't used it on Linux perhaps, or perhaps you aren't aware that it was spying on Android users?

I haven’t used it much, but as an outsider it’s pretty hard to judge how much the criticism is exaggerated. People also hate Slack with a burning hatred passion, while I’ve used it for many years with very few issues.

Teams is a bit of a resource (but Slack is no better) but there’s nothing really wrong with it as a tool. In fact it works pretty well for group communications and is constantly adding new helpful features.

It's a "productivity tool" that actively wastes my time. If it _just_ did messaging and conferencing and had reasonable tools and _configuration_ around those options, I might not mind.. it's all the other useless cruft they insist on forcing into the product that never really works properly.

Notifications. Someone put a thumbs up on my message. I get notified twice. Once in the cat and once in "Activity." You can hide "Activity" but that doesn't stop the notification. You can't configure this.

One day teams decided that the window with the view of myself should be mirrored. There's no option to change this. If you're using your camera to show documents or other items, this is an absolute nightmare.

The background video filters work once. If you join a second meeting, they never work again until you restart the browser. You can text chat but you can't video chat with yourself, so there's no good way to test your camera setup until you're going live.

For several months my calendar lost the time column on the left side. I had to open each meeting to see what time it was actually set for. That randomly came back in December.

Twice I've been trying to present something on a call when a dumb "hey check out this new feature" dialog popped up right into the middle of what I was doing. Once it captured the click, and then promptly crashed when it tried to open whatever thing it was hyping. Even if you're just chatting, the pop ups steal focus and interrupt what you are doing.

Once a day teams will start using all the CPU and will stop showing chats or notifications. I have to actively watch the CPU on that machine to see if this is happening and I need a restart. Most often I find out when I get an email that shows me an unread teams message or someone asks why I didn't answer their call.

The UI is garbage and there are zero keyboard shortcuts. It constantly asks me if I want to "replace the attachment" simply because I once uploaded a file with the same name to an entirely different chat.

You can't forward a chat. You literally just have to copy and paste it to a different user. If you join them to an existing personal chat, it just creates a new specific chat for whatever ad hoc group you tried to create.

The whole thing is a poorly thought out also ran set of extensions designed to stave off competition and it's all built on ancient Microsoft Exchange technology. I sincerely hate it.

Ram usage for one, then there's the general slowness. Sometimes it just dies. It took the longest time to get an apple silicon native version. Compared to VSCode which is one of the best electron apps, Teams shows why you might want to go native instead.

What it comes down to is that Teams is fine at best... but just that.

We use Teams, Slack, and Zoom on Mac.

Zoom is much easier to use than Teams for conference calls. When I use Teams for conference calls, I find the default never works for establishing a connection (I have found that connecting through the browser works fine -- but this is not the default way to connect -- it still takes some effort to pick the path that works).

I have also found the user interface is non-intuitive. I had little trouble getting up to speed on zoom (from webex). I might have less problems with Team once I get used to its interface. At present, if anyone accidentally schedules a meeting with Team (which sometimes is the default conference call setting in our Outlook), they usually create a zoom conference call link which is used instead (usually, the notification for the zoom link goes out through slack -- for some reason, folks don't even chat over team to let folks know that the meeting has been changed to zoom).

As far as the application itself, I find that Slack is much easier to use and has capabilities that have been very helpful. The Slack user interface was intuitive and I quickly got up to speed. For Teams, I use it when I need to (not all times at our company have slack) but everyone I know prefers slack. The slack ui is more intuitive and has features such as slacking to yourself which is useful for notetaking. Again, my opinion of Teams might change as I better learn the user interface.

For people who are not solely at one company - contractors/freelancers who perhaps need to support connectivity with multiple organizations - MS Teams is a huge hostile pita.

I had 2 clients each using Teams, and I was working with each. But... I can't just be 'logged in' to two different Teams organizations. If I was in company A, I couldn't see anything from company B. Apparently you can do this in the phone app, but not the desktop version. I could keep one company on desktop, and another on phone, and just monitor two, but... you can't scale that.

With slack, I'm just connected to 3-4-5 client orgs at a time, and can react/respond as needed within the same tool without needing to log in/out constantly.

The last time I had to deal with this was last autumn - perhaps it's "fixed" now? Except... I don't think it's seen as a "bug" in the first place, so may never be "fixed".

Also... just connecting to Teams would often just hang... wait... no indication anything is happening. If I got impatient, I'd have folks saying "oh... just calm down..." but then also wonder why I was "not in the meeting"... well... because... Teams can never tell me if it's going to take 90 seconds to join, or 39 seconds or... if it just will never resolve. Opening a secondary link in a web browser became my default, though I'd have to read a banner every time saying "you won't get the best experience - some features may not work!" except... it at least loaded.

If you use it for a single company (ie one login) it is OK, but IMO a worse experience than Slack; MS get away with it because it is free.

Where the true nightmare begins is when you need to login to multiple tenants/workspaces. You simply can't use multiple at the same time, and switching from one to the other is super slow and unreliable. I tried to do so today and Teams crashed 4 times, at which point I uninstalled it and decided to just use the web app instead.

It has not been decent for me.

Here is a specific complaint about messaging. If you want a tool for programmers to collaborate, don't have it automatically insert smart quotes when trying to quote code in messages.

You have to search to figure out how to turn it off. And if you do, it will still turn that back on sometimes for no particularly good reason. And my being able to send them correctly doesn't help when someone else posts code and it gets converted on THEIR end.

Yes, yes. You can just attach a file. But it is a collaboration speed bump telling people that they have to save snippets to a file, then share the file, rather than simply using cut and paste in the obvious way. Doubly so if you're interacting asynchronously and you're reading their message some time after they mangled it.

I find Teams to be just fine for instant messaging and conference calls. It's everything else that is awful. I hate the way it has files stored in a "Team" almost as much as SharePoint. I can never find what I'm looking for and ultimately have to ask and then create a browser favorite to every doc for $current_project.

Most terrible, shitty electron apps I've suffered through were orders of magnitudes more pleasant to use than teams. Teams seems to be actively A/B testing new ways to be a terrible experience.

It's not just electron, there's some kind of Heisenbug-driven-design going on in the backrooms of Microsoft.

I am forced to use Teams on a Mac. It's beyond horrible. Messages sometimes take an hour+ to appear.

I would crawl through broken glass for google chat. Teams is sooooo bad.

I will be blunt. Teams is an awful user experience; I have been using online collaboration tools since the BBS days, and while I appreciate and understand why and what they are trying to build, it is bad software.

Every single experience I have had as a teams user in professional settings, interacting with communities, and being required to use it for interactions with my childrens schools since the 2020 shutdowns has been awful.

The platform is slow, and every time I have to use it, it feels completely obtuse in unique and frustrating ways. After nearly three years of weekly interactions, I regularly am confused by what I am meant to do, or how to resolve errors that occur; it is the single most frustrating online tool I have had to use, largely because the decision to use it is out of my hands.

The absolutely sole saving grace for the tool is that I can now effectively use it with a web browser, instead of the invasive thick client application that I was required to when it was first rolled out.

If my employer required me to use it, I would immediately find another job. It's that bad.

I use it and I would be happy if Teams was able to do basic copy/paste. When you copy, it copies things you didn’t select and doesn’t copy some things you selected. When pasting, it auto-formats the text and does a terrible job at it. It’s a disaster. I hope the Teams team is forced to use Teams.

My company uses Teams... and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

So here's at least one person who is using teams who complains about it.

The shitty UI/UX is one thing, but some of the behaviors are incredibly frustrating. Here's some examples:

- Sharing a single window makes Teams minimize the window with everyones video camera on it into a small window in the corner of your primary screen. I have a 49" wide screen, I can have that Teams window open (so I can see faces/people) and share a window at full-size for everyone else, STOP minimizing that window.

- That small window sits in the bottom right corner of the primary screen, if you move it elsewhere, click on Teams for chat, and then foreground another app, it re-positions itself in the bottom right corner (thereby obscuring whatever app happens to be sitting there)

- All of my meetings that were created through Outlook/Office 365 as a Teams meeting are labeled "untitled" and there is no way for me or anyone else to change the title of the meeting, its worse if the meeting is on a shared calendar

- Teams notifications are the worst, it'll tell me I have 2 messages, but I open the app and there is nothing, OR it's messages I've already seen

- No easy integration for 3rd party chatbots and the like, which is a HUGE thing we use on Slack

- Teams out of all of the apps (including all the security software corporate loves) uses the most energy and power, and is the primary reason that we all upgraded to M1's as fast as possible because then maybe we'd have a chance to use our laptops without carrying the power brick when in meetings

- Tagging people in messages may or may not notify them...

- Meetings allow you to add people to them, but once the meeting is over they get removed from the chat, even if you've tagged those people in the meeting chat with important information, you have to formally invite people to the meeting with the original meeting invite for them to "stick".

- No way to copy/paste entire chat history/print chat history. I have so many screenshots of meetings/notes I need to keep and or share with others.

Overall Teams is one of the worst products I've used, and I was using "Teams" in the Microsoft Lync on macOS during the Office Communicator days.

The lack of native app is a real killer though, and unlike Slack which has done a LOT to improve how they use Electron/how much energy they use, Teams is the slowest and worst of them.

Google Chat has improved a lot but it's definitely not there yet from a savvy users standpoint.

I've seen it used with great success at smaller, non-technical companies though.

I had to use Teams at my last job, now in interviews I ask every company if they use Teams or Slack. It's a good smoke test on whether the company pays a slight premium to improve the efficiency and quality of life of their employees, even if it doesn't directly show up on the balance sheet. Of course salary is more important than chat software, but I don't want my day to day experience to be miserable.

On what basis do you insinuate that other people's dislike is based on ignorance? That's a shallow dismissal of the kind that https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html asks us not to do.

Most of the time people's dislike is based on past bad experiences. If you think that those experiences may be out of date, indicate what has improved. If you like one product better than another, say why.

Personally I have 25 years of bad experiences with Microsoft products breaking quoted code through inserting smart quotes, long dashes, and the like. It is beyond absurd to me that Teams tries to be a collaboration tool for teams which include programmers, and STILL gets this wrong. Other tools like Slack don't make this mistake. And decades of Microsoft's continuing this behavior makes me doubt that they will ever see this as something to change. They are too wedded to trying to be clever about formatting.

I am forced to use it and it is hot garbage. It is a productivity killing anti-app.

> My company forces us to use Google Chat. I would take Teams any day.

For video or text chat or both? Meet + Slack is my preferred solution. IMO Google Meet is the easiest to use video meeting software. Click link and the person is dropped in the meeting. Slack is the best text chat.

Zoom is fine.

Teams is a dumpster fire on my mac. I have a couple external meetings that are Teams and I have to remember start trying to get on 5-10 minutes early. Otherwise I won't have time to force quit the client or restart my browser to make Teams work.

Teams is better than whatever we had before. Couldn't cut-n-paste code into a chat because it turned all the punctuation into emojis.

I work with multiple organizations so have opportunity to use Teams and Zoom calls regularly. When using both regularly it's hard to start thinking that Teams is just fine. It seems like I might start to think Teams is fine if I only used Teams, but that would just be my standards lowering, not something I want to happen.

Zoom has issues as well but I don't regularly get to use better services than Zoom.

Yes I use it daily at work and its as bad as people are saying here.

Compared to any other Message software it is the worst.

I would rather use Discord then Teams.

> My company forces us to use Google Chat. I would take Teams any day.

What are the shortcomings of Google Chat over Teams?

I occasionally use Teams on my Mac and am dismayed that every time I open it, it reinstalls itself in my Login Items. In my book, that qualifies it as malware. I used the desktop version for a while, to see if they would update it and fix this bug. Turns it out it was a 'feature' not a 'bug'. Now I just use the web version, and plan to never reinstall the desktop software again.

I've used Teams, Zoom and Meet. Teams is, by far, the worst options. I cringe every time I have to use it, because it's random whether I or one of my colleagues will not waste minutes at the start of the meeting getting something to work, or just joining.

You see, MS has completely messed up the login for Teams. I have like 3 different MS accounts (Azure, Office365, etc). Some of my coworkers have many more than that, due to identities they use for contracts. I've tried Chrome, Edge, Firefox, etc. I've tried incognito windows. Sometimes it just doesn't work.

Never had a single problem with Zoom or Meet, other than the default audio devices not being selected. That's easily fixed.

I use it and hate it for chat. For video calls it's better than WebEx but how much is that really saying? (Disclaimer: I haven't used WebEx in years, things may be better now)

I’m fine with using Teams for the actual scheduled meeting video calls.

It isn’t amazing — but has been relatively reliable for me. The app takes up too much memory, but Slack video calls have had a lot of issues also (although Huddles has improved things a lot).

My contention with using teams would be for team text chat. No thank you, it is terrible. I’d rather use Slack or really any alternative.

When these forced teams migrations happen, what I’ve seen most people do is some core subset of the dev team has an unofficial Discord, free Slack, or Telegram channel that they use for chat instead.

Teams is terrible on Linux. Maybe it sucks less on other platforms. Academia standardized on zoom+slack in like 2016 in part because of excellent cross-platform support.

Google Chat isn't much better, so that's not saying much.

I do use Teams when a vender uses it, and it's just so so bad.

Did Google chat decide the reverse the scrolling of one of the chat tabs without notice so everyone wasted a day scrolling down to get to the latest message only to find they were going to older messages.

But they didn't reverse the other tab, so depending on context you may need to scroll up or down. What a crappy UX which still occasionally catches me out.

Teams also wants you to create a "team" for a group chat, but this also creates a sharepoint site and other pointless tabs for documents to go in. Now you have probably just lost discoverability of requirements.

I've used Google chat and it was a pretty rubbish chat. However Teams is not just bad software, it's user hostile.

Multi-line code blocks are impossible on the Linux client. And Android (just confirmed). I have to use this feature about 10 times a day and triple backticks works about 1% of the time so you know what i do? I copy a multi-line code block from another chat and edit the text. Garbage.

I can add a code snippet but that thing is bloody awful. What's with the huge title over the snippet and truncating the text to a few lines even if it's only 2 lines longer? Gah.

Also, separating "chats" and "teams" into two places in the UI? Why? It's confusing. I occasionally click on the teams section and see a bunch of unread messages they I did't get notifications for.

I think. Because notifications are garbage. I'll be told that there's a message in a chat. Now I have to click on it and pray that it brings me to the right place. With slack the notification used to contain the sender and part of the message. Half the time I could eyeball the notification and get 100% of that i need without context switching.

Edit: my team is insisting on slack. We're ditching teams as a chat tool. Might keep it for video stuff but that depends how slack video conferencing works. (Used to use Zoom and Slack before)

Whoever used WebEx would treat Teams as the coming of the messiah.

The work chat tier list

    Discord
    Slack
    Mattermost
    <chasm>
    IRC
    Email
    <chasm>
    Hangouts
    Teams
    <chasm>
    Linq / Skype For Work

Teams so fundamentally misses what the point of a good office/team oriented chat looks like that it’s worse than useless. They would be better off just splitting off the video calls (which are pretty good but drop the annoying corner thing) and just starting over with a Slack clone.

In my professional life, I have used Webex, Slack, Discord, Skype, and Teams.

I would only pick Teams over Webex and Skype.

L9s ship more ppt than code

I've been in a "mixed" slack/teams environment and it seems there was always a push to be a little more teams-y every month or so - given that Github is owned by MSFT, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened there, too.

> I've heard that with regards to video conferencing, it's competitive with zoom.

Did you hear that from a Microsoft salesperson? Only a person who hasn't used both regularly can say that. UX and features on Zoom are better.

The mere fact that to this day Teams has wildly different features depending on how you join the call is a joke - for instance, joining from a browser on macOS results in no chat (the button simply isn't there).

That makes a huge difference. It's worth editing the title to add "for video conferencing".

My current company had the same thing happen on acquisition, we had to ditch Zoom for Teams for video, but could stay on Slack. I find Teams video absolutely fine. It just works and I never think about it.

Yes, I will give Microsoft that -- MS Teams is so much better than Skype for Business/Lync, which was a horrible piece of video conferencing software.

The 3 companies I've worked for over the past 5 years have used Slack for chat and teams for meetings. and to be honest that's my preferred way to work too.

Huddles are okay for internal 1-on-1 meetings, but Teams works well when you need to organise a large meeting (potentially with people outside your org).

On the other hand Teams is awful for chat. Slack has put so much care and thought into messaging that their UX is close to perfect imo.

But also, the volume is too low in Teams and has been since forever. Slack, Zoom, Meet and so on has this working.

Most fun thing about Teams is that it works so poorly with different accounts that everybody waits for just that guy that logs in with a non-guest account and let the herd in.

Doesn't discord have some pretty serious security flaws and questionable data collection policies for use as a private commercial messaging platform?

For small teams that aren't too concerned about that it seems fine. Personally my group of a couple dozen friends and I use it for pretty much all of our communication because we don't care much about privacy in that context. But for any company larger than a couple dozen folks it seems like a pretty risky choice compared to Slack/Microsoft/Google/etc.

>Making Teams not suck doesn't move their revenue dial one iota.

That's not true, I would switch to Office 365 if it didn't suck. Having an entire suite fully integrated and under one license is a great value proposition - but the thing has to work. I've had to use Teams over the years and every time I get the same shitty experience I've had with it 5 years ago when I first tried it.

In what ways does Teams "suck?" Slack is wildly more expensive, so it's hard for people to see the value in paying so much for it. How does Teams negatively impact the bottom line for a company?

SAP is just a swamp of legacy. Companies have customized and integrated so much during the decades (often in unsupported ways by people that have long gone) that any meaningful improvement will cause millions worth of redevelopment on their enterprise clients' side. And every little problem introduced has the potential to crash entire companies for days.

All they can do is put a bit more lipstick on the pig.

I was estimating - I guess my point was that they started using it right around the time it started replacing Skype for Business.

I'm excited for Linen[0] to potentially replace Discord for our use case because unfortunately it doesn't feel like there is another tool that we could use besides Discord or Slack. (We were on Slack for a long time but we just couldn't get people to use it, and we've had a lot more success building a community since swapping to Discord.)

What other tools do you recommend for Open Source communities to use?

0: https://www.linen.dev/ (They are going to be adding a 2-way sync soon that lets you post messages from the web into Slack, Discord, and even GitHub Discussions, so you can basically pick any platform and it doesn't matter. Kind of like the old IRC days!)

My lord, that behaviour drives me mad.

The experience of using the editor for writing and editing is horrendous.

...I would seriously consider bytecode manipulation to remove this "feature" from the executable. And I haven't touched even assembly in almost 20 years.

> Does teams allow you to draw on the screen?

i mean; no one can really tell you what to do with your sharpie.

(but yes; that's been baked in for a while)

Embrace Teams for video conferencing, Extend Teams to day-to-day collaboration, Extinguish Slack. That's not how Embrace-Extend-Extinquish worked traditionally but it still fits.

Nobody tell him what the underlying technology of Teams calling is.

At least that's a native app (or was?)

Not sure what you missed about Zoom. It's works, but doesn't feel smooth and seems to have a very big footprint for something with a specific use-case.

In particular, my day job is at a big corpo office space style place, and the software that requires the most updates is Zoom. I don't get why. It's also a lot less simple to use than Google Meet

Same way Gitlab and countless other services are built on top of Git, which is definitely not owned by MS :)

The problem is that what GitHub does is relatively reproducible (Gitlab, gitea, bitbucket? others do it) but the value GitHub provides is free hosting for so much content.

Anyone can make an image hosting site, making one profitable long term is always the problem. For now, GitHub is winning because of the free side of their toolset.

That's interesting to hear. Is it only certain teams that can do that? It thought Microsoft it's doing some interesting things but I didn't think I could work there because I'd be starting to from scratch with Ms tech, like even having a workflow on my own computer

"There is a large community inside Microsoft using Linux as their daily driver. " That's pretty cool to hear! (100% honest. No sarcasm.)

Same here. Work for MSFT, use a Mac Pro for work. They did give me the option between surface and mac, and recommended me use the mac because we were working on unix OSes with some ability to build/test on Darwin directly.

This was before M1 though, since we're building for x86-64 arch exclusively I likely will never move to an M1 device.

Yup. I was given a Surface Book and a MacBook Pro when I joined Microsoft in 2017, and the Surface Book was just so I could do some testing for things in Azure and make sure it worked well-enough on Windows. My last year at Microsoft, I focused entirely on Linux and used a combination of devices and there was even an internal team focused on making it possible to use Linux as your daily driver with little impact.

At GitHub (where I work now), it’s standard-issue MacBook Pros.

A lot of teams at Microsoft even used Slack internally before 2020. Compliance issues (and I’m sure cost) forced us onto Teams, which was unfortunate, but as a company, Microsoft was a lot more free/open than most other companies of its size with regards to what tools teams and individuals could use — especially when it comes to what you have to do to your own machines if you want to bring your own device to work (the InTune policies are completely and totally sane, more sane than when I worked for a company owned by Univision and Univision wanted me to call the help desk anytime I needed admin access or to install something outside of the Mac App Store — things I frequently needed to do for my job).

GitHub has completely separate IT systems. I can’t/won’t comment on what changes are happening for video calls, but I don’t see this as some sky is falling moment.

It's unlikely that they won't use it for more eventually if this works. They're probably playing it safe by mentioning only video conferencing.

As an example, if meetings are made in teams and people comment during the meetings, their input will be in teams. Further communication around the meetings is likely to stay in teams. They're making it inconvenient to use slack or other means.

But this isn't just about video conferencing software. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that Microsoft is going to keep pushing in the same direction

You'd think but if where I work ever mandated I had to stop using Linux I'd start looking elsewhere. I have to spend 8 hours a day using a tool and I get frustrated with suboptimal tools, why subject myself to that on top of everything else I have to do.

I did exactly this - AMA.

I've known several people not take a job because of Teams....

Alternatively, tell such an employer you require a company issued phone with Teams on it.

It's like "leave when the free soda disappears" - people who have "been around long enough" learn to notice the signs that tell them it might be time to start looking.

Others (and this is entirely valid in my opinion) see and notice and decide to ride it down all the way to the ground; this can be valuable also as a dying company is likely to promote anyone who remains; title inflation is a real thing.

Or another way to look at it - it's kinda extreme that a single straw would break a camel's back.

No it’s not. I work remotely. I am on slack and zoom 3-4 hours a day. It’s basically my virtual office.

Imagine if there was a company policy that made your office annoyingly uncomfortable after it was totally fine before. Is it extreme to consider other options?

For me it would be a clear sign that my employer does not give a shit about me when making tooling decisions. And that situation is definitely one that would have me eyeing the exits.

Yes many people would quit over being forcing to use tools that make their lives harder day to day.

It’s the difference over picking up a recruiter call vs ignoring. Or spending 15 min to fix up a resume.

There are degrees before flipping a table and walking out. Forcing people to use teams when they are accustomed to better software pushes everyone marginally in that direction.

There’s a big difference between pulling a George Costanza and quietly talking to recruiters at other companies. Don’t make a scene, just look for a better job and give notice when you get an offer.

> How does it need a gig of RAM all day?

Electron.

Now, an electron app doesn't have to be terrible. The tech makes it really easy to make turds, but if you spend the time optimizing it, it can be very good. See VS Code for example.

I think Microsoft should acquire the company that makes VS Code and let those guys teach the Teams devs how to do it.

Oh wait ...

MS Teams is virtually never an engineering decisions it seems. That's not a C# vs Java debate or Visual Studio vs JetBrains - not even comparable. Your argument about flexibly is moot in the context.

Before we lose ourselves in abstract generalities that don't mean anything, let's focus on the thread: communication applications.

If you're comfortable working at a place that mandates Teams because it makes management's life easier, then you shouldn't have any problem adapting to new tools. You also shouldn't expect management to tolerate risky ventures; they have already signaled they do not tolerate non-compliant communication software. Therefore, you shouldn't have any problem doing the mediocre work that management expects out of you. That's ok! We all need to know where we stand in the risk/reward spectrum and using sub-optimal tools is a signal that you're operating in a low-risk environment.

However if you are operating in a high-risk environment, like a startup, then you should be opinionated about everything because every decision influences your chances of success or failure. Using Teams instead of Slack may prevent you from hiring the talent that recognizes the signals of mediocrity.

There's a wide space between a tool being "not your preference" and being painful and frustrating to use.

I said I’m extremely picky, but the list of things I would be OK using is much longer than the list of things I would not work with unless circumstances forced me to. Maybe I should have also said I’ve learned and/or dabbled in/used Python, Ruby, C, C++, Java, JS (server-side and client-side), CoffeeScript, TypeScript, and Elixir. I currently have a strong preference for working with Elixir (and fortunately that’s what we use at my day job), and on the other hand would actively avoid a job that required more than a trivial amount of C++, Java, or server-side Node.js. I would be OK with the rest (and probably also Rust and Go, although I haven’t learned enough to be sure). For code hosting, I prefer GitLab and am OK with GitHub (for now at least). For tasks/issues I’m OK with Asana or GitHub and only avoid Jira. For IDEs I prefer Sublime but would be OK with whatever. For OSes, I prefer GNU/Linux, can live with MacOS for now (but the experience is degrading rapidly), and only really avoid Windows.

I totally believe we should normalize devs having requirements for what kinds of jobs they will consider (including tech stack and tools, but also industry, company size, culture, location, etc). Especially if we’re OK with companies having wishlists which are often far longer and more rigid.

Also, for what it’s worth, I speak/write English and Arabic natively, and have a genuine desire to learn Spanish, Kurdish, and Japanese.

I went from a company that used Google Hangouts, which is like using pen and paper relatively speaking, to trying to use Slack. Slack wasn't official, but it was an allowed form of communication. People who didn't have the vested interested just couldn't figure it out. So while I preferred Slack, having to hold everyone's hands through basic functionality was awful.

Now I'm at a place that uses Teams. I don't think Teams is perfect, but I feel like Teams gets extra hate just because it's Teams. The best feature in my opinion is the group thread feature. Having people able to start a threaded conversation by default gives a lot of granular control over what notifications I receive by default.

Exactly, if my chat, my email, my git server, etc. are unpleasant it will make my workflow unpleasant and so will my job as whole. I have changed jobs due tooling being a pain before.

I'd never quit on the spot though, I'd silently search for another job.

Zoom was amazingly batshit better than the competition (mainly gotomeeting) for actual conference calls because of how easy it was for someone who had never used it to start (which we later learned was because Zoom was pulling all sorts of clever bullshit to avoid installation dialogs).

Once you're past the onboarding/installation hurdle, they all start to blend together.

If you're google, Microsoft of Amazon it's moot because you're eating your own dogfood. But regardless I think it's a myth to think that because a company has a lot of profit they won't pinch pennies. Every team has to aggressively manage their budget. If you have 40k employees then $5/mo adds up pretty fast.

As a sysadmin who has had the displeasure of working on window server, this experience is consistent across most Microsoft products. Random forums, one guy asking for info but he doesn't work for ms, just knows a lot. Makes you wonder how he learned that in the first place.

I think it's probably a variant on https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-ear...

As soon as the M1 dropped, Apple just stopped giving a shit about Intel Macs. The whole OS is slow, janky, and appears to have driver bugs on Intel.

It's so bad it makes Slack look lightweight. Which is a real accomplishment.

720p, 4GB in 2019?

Silicone is a polymer of siloxane which makes rubber-like substance such as silicone oil, silicone grease, or silicone caulk.

Silicon is an element often used in semiconductor manufacturing.

Neither Apple or Intel manufacture silicone in any major quantities.

UI glitches, threads not scaling past a certain amount of comments, frequent undesired logouts, weird jumbled ordering of messages on the mobile app that eventually sorts itself out but leads to hilarious misinterpretation of conversations...

The worst part is how the phone app will scroll to the middle of the thread when I open one. I can understand how scrolling to either the top or bottom of the thread might make sense -- but who on earth wants the middle?

I'm all for dogfooding, the only meaningful difference between slack and Teams to me, is the search for actual information that I know I've encountered in the past (it's easier on slack IMO), and the awesome way to interact/thread with conversations in a natural way.

Video-conferencing wise, I always have more problems with slack than with zoom/teams.

this already happened to some extent. the “blessed” way to develop github is in vscode (from ms), using codespaces (from ms), running on azure (from ms). vim/emacs users can use the terminal (although the codespace and port forwarding, at first, had to be done via vscode exclusively) but your entire toolstack needs to be installed each time you launch a new one.

collaborating with anyone at ms already meant you were using teams to some extent.

(former github developer)

This way they also don't send all their internal company communications to a third party, which would be extra stupid when you have your own in-house conferencing software to use instead.

I mean... it's a pretty hard sell to say "Hey boss person, can we use our competitor's software to discuss company business?"

My team also used Slack when I joined and were eventually required to move to Teams. We aren't forbidden from using Slack, I'm in multiple Slacks collaborating with various OSS projects and foundations every day.

I suspect they’re not replacing Slack’s video capabilities with this move. They are replacing Zoom’s.

Not sure, I dont work at Microsoft, but if my company did 70% of what slack does, sometimes significantly better (IAM). I would too, want my employees to use my software, and with that raise problems and make it better.

I understand the frustration of some people, but this is by no means something oppresive at all. A lot of companies use "X" office suite, and use zoom for calls , etc. It's okay for everything to not be centralized, always.

Slack's video conferencing is archaic compared to something like zoom (maybe not teams), but out of all of the video conferencing tools, slack is the worst.

Slack video conferencing was absolutely awful and one of the main reasons we switched to Teams a couple of years back.

Is it better now?

There seem to be plenty of commenters combining Slack and Zoom so seems not. That's a redundancy right there that Teams solves.

Slack [video] Huddles didn't cut the mustard for them?

edit: ahh i see "inter-company". yeah, Slack huddles start to suck when guest accounts/other Slack instances or externals get involved. got it.

On what operating system?

Meet does not require a desktop client to work reliably (it does, however, require a Chromium browser).

Zoom really tries to bury the browser link. First it says the meeting has launched, which it won't have if you don't have the client installed, then it tries to prompt you to download the desktop client, and only then does it reveal the web join link.

Our security team has banned the installation of Zoom after some of their issues in 2020.

Your definition of broken is likely different than the GP.

Likewise, I don’t particularly like it but it’s fine. My biggest gripe is nonexistent official Linux support - I hate having to use a package maintained by one person on GitHub to get a desktop application for Linux, when this application is so critical for my day to day. But besides that it works fine.

Teams is minimally usable, but its pretty much worst-in-class for…everything it does. It’s two compelling selling points seem to be (1) that “nobody every got fired for buying IBM” now applies to Microsoft more than IBM, and (2) moreover, users don’t actually buy Teams qua Teams, they get a Microsoft 365 subscriptions for some of the things where Microsoft has not-worst-in-class solutions, and Teams comes along for the ride, and its hard (for decisionmakers who do meetings–which, perhaps for this reason, are the least inadequate feature of teams–and have underlings to do most of the hands-on work) to justify paying to get something good when you have something you’re already paying for that fills the same 30,000’ bullet-point description.

And #1 is probably an even more compelling selling point if your company is a subsidiary of Microsoft.

It works mostly fine. It doesn't have the prettiest interface, for example message editing is not great, and search is not great (though it got better than 1 year ago that was unusable). Anther stupid thing is that handling multiple organizations (for example if you are added as external collaborator to another company Teams) is basically broken, you don't receive messages from one if you don't switch to it most of the time.

Sure there are systems that work probably better but Teams is fine, also the alternatives either don't have all the features of Teams or they are difficult to use/setup. A pro of Teams is that if you already have Office365 is mostly well integrated with the other tools (mail, calendar, Office, AzureAD authentication) and you have to manage accounts only in one tool (I can from the horrible AzureAD administration console create a user and it has a mail, Teams, Office, and can login into the company computers).

To me the reason to have Teams is just that you don't have to introduce another tool, have another account, etc. Of course if you decided to use GSuite instead of Microsoft one makes perfectly sense to use Google Meet, but GSuite doesn't yet have all the feature of Office365 and it's more expensive, and like it or not you have to deal with .docx documents when interfacing with other companies.

On a Mac, I got stuck in some sort of loop that prevented me from joining any calls, and even uninstalling the Teams app didn’t fix it. I had to use my iPhone for every Teams call, and sometimes the Teams web app.

We also use it every day.

That said, I feel like I know a lot of devs who think there are a lot of things that are unusable (or the equivalent). Everything from Visual Studio to the display on their iPhone to modern cinema and science fiction in general to In-and-Out burgers. As a general rule, I discount their take on pretty much anything.

Is Teams great? No. Its better than what I used before it though, and its probably gotten better faster than just about any other piece of software I've used. I struggle to generate any outrage at all about it one way or another.

If I get a message on Teams and bring the window forward, the text box isn't active so if I start typing a reply nothing happens. Now I need to use the cursor to select the box. So fuck me if I tab to Teams to reply to a message.

When joining a video/audio meeting, even though the "Join" button is colored like it's active, hitting enter will pull up some part of the audio or video config instead of joining the meeting.

Messages will remain "unread" until a tab is selected and then clicked in. I have to interact with the fucking tab with the cursor before it will recognize I read a stupid message.

These UI issues are amateur hour shit. I run into them dozens of times a day because my fingers are on the keyboard and I like to use keyboard shortcuts. Using Teams requires not just a mental context switch but a physical adjustment to simply send a reply or just mark a message as read.

This is all besides Teams spinning up my fans with 300% CPU usage for reasons.

This comment and the grandparent both ring true for my and my experience. When using Teams as basically an IRC replacement it worked fine and didn't have any serious issues, when folks started using it to try to host meetings across sites and share interactivity it really struggled unsuccessfully.

I agree with Jacques that all the pieces (except for high speed networking) were in place in the last century I expected this to develop more than it has.

Given the stuff that ML can do TODAY, it should totally be possible to give the "presenter" a view of the audience where you use a combination of the pre-computed model for people's faces, and a client doing pose estimation from the web cam. If I'm looking at the presentation on my screen, that information should allow the presenter's view to see me looking at them. If I'm looking away it could show me looking down or something. If I leave and go to the bathroom or something it could show my seat being empty. Similarly, raising a hand should present on the speakers screen as my raising my hand in the audience, calling on me with the mouse should unmute my microphone until the presenter moves the mouse/pointer off my face in the audience.

Early, EARLY, on in the Java group the idea had been worked on to provide a "visual environment" for doing things, and of course "Snowcrash" came out at the same time and everyone was doing their own "metaverse." I was looking at the problem and realized that to be successful we'd have to emulate some of the physics that keep us sane in group settings today. (like everyone can't hear everyone else talking in a room usually). David Rosenthal did a study for NIST, as I recall, on the network implications of something like the metaverse and concluded that it would take a terabit of network connectivity to "host" a live concert in the metaverse with the same "feel" as being there in person. (so everyone gets a view from their POV, voices travel 10 - 30' in a cone from the direction of the mouth, sound from the stage follows the acoustics of the modeled room etc. And then that analysis is followed by trimming things out to reduce bandwidth until you reach the "present day" bandwidth numbers and describing that reduced experience. He got back to Zoom like meetings with something like 1mbps/10gbps for the participant/network ratio.

So summarizing; Often people approach the problem without realizing the complexity of what they are trying to do, in part because meetups/communication in "real life" has so much of the complexity taken care of by physics and the fact that you learned what worked as a toddler before you could think so it just "is" in your brain. Stepping outside of that mindset requires deliberate effort. There are likely opportunities here that are not being exploited because of this mindset.

I tried hiding a channel once

that was it, there's apparently no way to ever get it back unless I can remember its exact name (which I can't)

I learnt my lesson

Teams has been fine enough for me. Video connects instantly, audio drop outs are rare and the "mute incoming video" setting is a god send (when your cat is kissing you its butthole is pointing at me).

I only use Teams on an iPhone or company-issued Windows laptop, and almost exclusively for calls within my organization. Maybe some of the issues crop up on Linux and/or reaching outside of your LAN/VPN?

The Linux version of Teams was very broken for ages, but instead of fixing it, they dropped it.

So much for the cross platform Microsoft.

If you're a company of 10 or 20 people, you won't notice the problems. It starts to break at medium-sized business scale (anything over, say, 100 employees). You start to notice limitations in the UI/UX but also just constant bugs in calling functionality, split meetings, super laggy large meetings, slow navigation, and broken search.

It just feels like it wasn't built for serious scale from the ground up, like some after-thought Todo List app that was thrown in with Office 365 to tick a checkbox.

Ah good point, yes, framerate can be an issue, but I've long ago decided to not worry too much about the video but to concentrate on the audio instead, I have a much lower tolerance for audio drop-outs than for video issues.

> Nobody was ever fired for picking Microsoft

This was about IBM. From what i know, IBM does some interesting things (from a HW perspective).

OTOH nothing MS does is interesting (except maybe as a challenge in network filtering)

I scanned the replies to see if this comment specifically had been made. Thank you.

> I also think MS is quite capable of and does produce good software be it their own OS, Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code, Word, Excel, Flight Simulator etc. etc.

All i can say: good luck using it.

I did not have, any.

I hate to say it, but, my experience with Google chat was better. It was around 2016 so maybe they haven 't implemented web 3.0 stuff yet.

Yes, agreed that is a nuisance. But fortunately that is just a click, it gets a bit frustrating when there are > 10 participants and when people join late.

They tried to setup a meeting to go over it but no one was able to join because Teams was broken