Lync Alternative
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Without modification clients like that are generally a no-no in a corporate environment. It allows the users to add any accounts.
If you want services blocked, block the service. Using a client to block the service isn't very effective, they can just use a web client to get around that. And I've done that.
True but not all have web clients, and content filter's db of services aren't always up to date.
Basically all have web clients. Those that don't users can run non-installed clients to talk on. Basically, using a client of that nature just isn't security. Sure, it makes it less obvious to talk on other services, but it doesn't stop it in any way. If you want to stop it there are better ways. If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
Is it? I'd say the same for making it inconvenient if the goal is to not have it. What you want are people not wasting time working around things. Make them not do it or make them efficient. Don't make them inefficient but able to do it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
Is it? I'd say the same for making it inconvenient if the goal is to not have it. What you want are people not wasting time working around things. Make them not do it or make them efficient. Don't make them inefficient but able to do it.
If that were true we would be doing whit list only for websites. Though why even block Adult content? They can get around it. That's the logic you are using.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
Is it? I'd say the same for making it inconvenient if the goal is to not have it. What you want are people not wasting time working around things. Make them not do it or make them efficient. Don't make them inefficient but able to do it.
If that were true we would be doing whit list only for websites. Though why even block Adult content? They can get around it. That's the logic you are using.
With smart phones I really don't know why people bother filtering content (aside from downloads, etc) anymore. Interestingly, we cannot block adult content here because we run a lot of adult content web sites, so yay porn at work (tbh, when it becomes a job, you become desensitised to it).
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
If that were true we would be doing whit list only for websites. Though why even block Adult content? They can get around it. That's the logic you are using.
No, that's blocked. That's what I'm saying you should do if your goal is to keep them from it.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
Is it? I'd say the same for making it inconvenient if the goal is to not have it. What you want are people not wasting time working around things. Make them not do it or make them efficient. Don't make them inefficient but able to do it.
If that were true we would be doing whit list only for websites. Though why even block Adult content? They can get around it. That's the logic you are using.
With smart phones I really don't know why people bother filtering content (aside from downloads, etc) anymore. Interestingly, we cannot block adult content here because we run a lot of adult content web sites, so yay porn at work (tbh, when it becomes a job, you become desensitised to it).
This is something I've said before. Blocking stuff at work almost always serves to do nothing but make people inefficient. It doesn't make people work more, nor does it make them do their jobs better nor does it protect data leakage. It just makes people look at their phones all day.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
-
@thanksajdotcom Well that thing just sucks, don't base your opinions of Jabber on it, I beg you. I can't believe I'm defending Jabber, I spent 2 hours once explaining to project managers why XMPP was a stupid idea 14 years ago.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@thanksajdotcom Well that thing just sucks, don't base your opinions of Jabber on it, I beg you. I can't believe I'm defending Jabber, I spent 2 hours once explaining to project managers why XMPP was a stupid idea 14 years ago.
XMPP is quite good in my experience,.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
Version 10 of Cisco Jabber is a big improvement over version 9. It feels more like a real IM solution rather than a basic messaging solution now.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Sparkum said:
Sorry guys,
My bad, actually looking for the client side software.
Spark is the client for Openfire. Though it's quite dated.
Pidgin works too. I prefer it to Spark personally.
-
@IRJ said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
Version 10 of Cisco Jabber is a big improvement over version 9. It feels more like a real IM solution rather than a basic messaging solution now.
We have Jabber here and I use both Pidgin and Jabber for the same group chats. I can type a message in Jabber and send it and it will show up in my Pidgin as sent before I see it register in Jabber. Jabber is bulky and not very good. Pidgin with a Jabber server is way better than Jabber with a Jabber server.
-
...or whatever type of server Jabber uses.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
@IRJ said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
Version 10 of Cisco Jabber is a big improvement over version 9. It feels more like a real IM solution rather than a basic messaging solution now.
We have Jabber here and I use both Pidgin and Jabber for the same group chats. I can type a message in Jabber and send it and it will show up in my Pidgin as sent before I see it register in Jabber. Jabber is bulky and not very good. Pidgin with a Jabber server is way better than Jabber with a Jabber server.
Are we talking XMPP Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
-
@coliver said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@IRJ said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
Version 10 of Cisco Jabber is a big improvement over version 9. It feels more like a real IM solution rather than a basic messaging solution now.
We have Jabber here and I use both Pidgin and Jabber for the same group chats. I can type a message in Jabber and send it and it will show up in my Pidgin as sent before I see it register in Jabber. Jabber is bulky and not very good. Pidgin with a Jabber server is way better than Jabber with a Jabber server.
Are we talking XMPP Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
@coliver said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@IRJ said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
Version 10 of Cisco Jabber is a big improvement over version 9. It feels more like a real IM solution rather than a basic messaging solution now.
We have Jabber here and I use both Pidgin and Jabber for the same group chats. I can type a message in Jabber and send it and it will show up in my Pidgin as sent before I see it register in Jabber. Jabber is bulky and not very good. Pidgin with a Jabber server is way better than Jabber with a Jabber server.
Are we talking XMPP Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
What version of the client are you using?
-
@IRJ said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@coliver said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@IRJ said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
Version 10 of Cisco Jabber is a big improvement over version 9. It feels more like a real IM solution rather than a basic messaging solution now.
We have Jabber here and I use both Pidgin and Jabber for the same group chats. I can type a message in Jabber and send it and it will show up in my Pidgin as sent before I see it register in Jabber. Jabber is bulky and not very good. Pidgin with a Jabber server is way better than Jabber with a Jabber server.
Are we talking XMPP Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
What version of the client are you using?
-
@handsofqwerty said:
@IRJ said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@coliver said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@IRJ said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
Version 10 of Cisco Jabber is a big improvement over version 9. It feels more like a real IM solution rather than a basic messaging solution now.
We have Jabber here and I use both Pidgin and Jabber for the same group chats. I can type a message in Jabber and send it and it will show up in my Pidgin as sent before I see it register in Jabber. Jabber is bulky and not very good. Pidgin with a Jabber server is way better than Jabber with a Jabber server.
Are we talking XMPP Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
Cisco Jabber.
What version of the client are you using?
I noticed alot of improvement in that version. However, I am not comparing it to another solution.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Openfire. However because it uses XMPP it doesn't work as well as lync from two locations. For example with lync you could have a laptop and desktop and log them in at the same time and get the messages both places. Openfire doesn't do that.
You can, although it requires making a change on the server. We used it at my last job. We would have a person who could be at their desktop or mobile computer walking throughout the clinic and had to get chat messages wherever she was located.
Ah, here's the info: http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/141087-two-openfire-clients-with-same-user-id-can-i-get-a-message-to-both-at-once?page=1#entry-774097
