Lync Alternative
-
@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
-
Regarding Spark - that is one clunky, heavy client. Isn't it Java based? In any case, it often slowed our computers down, and we switched to Pidgin. I didn't really like Pidgin a lot better as a whole. It needs to be modularized for specific use IMO.
Although it worked really well, it didn't encrypt the passwords if you saved them...i.e. stashed as cleartext in the user preferences file. For that reason, I had a script that would clear those settings upon system logon. It was the lesser of the two evils (by far). Spark had SSO going for it, so there was that.
-
@Rob-Dunn said:
Regarding Spark - that is one clunky, heavy client. Isn't it Java based? In any case, it often slowed our computers down, and we switched to Pidgin. I didn't really like Pidgin a lot better as a whole. It needs to be modularized for specific use IMO.
Although it worked really well, it didn't encrypt the passwords if you saved them...i.e. stashed as cleartext in the user preferences file. For that reason, I had a script that would clear those settings upon system logon. It was the lesser of the two evils (by far). Spark had SSO going for it, so there was that.
If spark was made into a VB.net application it would be a much better client. It seems like they've abandoned it though. It even requires a specific version of java.
-
Well .NET, no need to be VB
Now that .NET is available more places that might actually work too. -
@Rob-Dunn said:
Regarding Spark - that is one clunky, heavy client. Isn't it Java based?
Yeah, it is ancient and pretty much no one using OpenFire has used it in years.
