1,535 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 526 ms ] thread
gimp
Interesting. Granted, I don't use Gimp every day but I do use it regularly and the more I do the more I like it. Nothing is perfect, of course.
What do you use GIMP for? Also, have you given Glimpse a try?
It’s come a long way and slowly keeps getting better. Hopefully it’ll exit this list someday :-)

I wish I knew how to get design feedback to the GIMP team in a way that would be appreciated & that people might take action on. I also wish they’d rename it something like “Image Lab” so it would be easier to promote at work.

I keep meaning to do a full audit of their contributors list. I have suspicion that there's likely saboteurs from adobe doing some kind of open source espionage.

I would certainly do this if I was adobe.

Chrome
What is so bad fundamentally about chrome apart from the Google telemetry.
Memory consumption.
Genuinely curious, has this always been the case for Chrome or have the evolution of features brought this on?
What's stopping you from using another browser?
It is possible for Chrome to be better than all of the other browsers and still be the worst piece of software GP uses every day.

If you like the web, then maybe this does not compute for you.

That would change the brand in the answer, but not the spirit.
Not anymore but until 2012, it was Lotus Notes at my work. Hands down the worst piece of garbage I have worked with.
I consult to a company that uses Notes to this day. It pains me every time in see it opened up.
My jaw dropped. Unbelievable.
Android OS on my Philips smart TV.
(comment deleted)
I do not use it every day, but I’ve found the most difficult to be hands down DocuSign.
All calendar and todo list applications, on desktop, on mobile and in cloud.
The Google Productivity Suite (Docs, Sheets, Slides, Mail) apps for iPadOS.
Slack
agreed - it's a massive cpu hog for a basic chat client... it excels primarily at turning my macbook into a toaster
I would consider you fairly fortunate if slack is the worst piece of software you use.
I only use the web version. The native version is a resource hog (or was, when I last tried to use it).

The network connection quality on Slack calls seems to be very lacking compared to other call apps.

How is it possible that I have to spend perceptible amounts of time to search/view logs? I didn't ever have this problem in the 90's or 00's.
This one burns. Slack is excellent in so many ways, but it really wants to become a noise machine that drowns you in alerts and simultaneous demands for your attention.
You can snooze channels.
There are a couple issues I have with slack. Threads and message editing.
Jira
I almost said this, but... Jira is bad, but it’s definitely not the worst (in my experience).

It’s close though.

Don't get how people still use Jira. Linear is great https://linear.app
That's an easy one to answer. They don't support Linux or Windows yet.
(comment deleted)
It works inside web browser
SaaS-only is a pretty big difference alone.
Has anyone here ever met anyone who loves Jira?
love is a strong word, but when Jira is configured well, it can be a boon to productivity
Have you ever worked with SAP?
Agreed, accounting software in general is pretty disappointing.

Thats why i started building my own open source system.

https://godbledger.com/

Your software isn't any better. In many ways, it's far worse than SAP or Oracle/Netsuite, since it doesn't even provide a UI (and the issues most people have with SAP and Oracle is how their custom UI was configured. It can be as painful or as painless as your Integrations team makes it.)
SAP was the one that first popped into my head, quickly followed by Teams.

The SAP UI and UX are utterly ghastly - tiny buttons everywhere, hundreds of options, menus and pathways at every screen, and slow on top. It's just horrible to use. Even stuff like printing is ridiculously complex, way more than in a standard Windows app.

It gets a bit more bearable once you're familiar with whatever your area is - for example, you can type in a cryptic code to jump straight to the screen you want, and you eventually learn to somehow ignore the dozens of UI elements you don't need and focus on those you do.

On the dev side, you need to use ABAP, which is absolutely horrible - consultants can make a lot of money tho.

I should add as well, I've never used SAP HANA, so that might be more bearable.

If websites count: YouTube.

It's appalling how such a powerful company can keep so many things so bad for so long.

some years ago before youtube was googlfied, they had a different UI that I was fond of. Then google did a full makeover and degraded the experience.
Straight from the heart! Only yesterday I rented my first ever item on YT. An English movie, found with an English search query.

"Based on my location" they gave me a French dubbed version of it. No alternative sound track, heck not even subtitles.

I live in Switzerland, we have 4 official languages. I speak one of them: German. Not a word French. The proposed solution: go to apple and ask for your money back. Very poor experience.

Do not even get me going on the "want to use Premium for a month"? I've declined that offer at least 48 times. Did not want it then, do not want it today. Really a pity since there is a lot of cool (not sponsored or monitized) content.

Man, use ad blockers!
Easier said than done if you're watching YouTube on, say, a Smart TV.

Personally I'm very content with my Google Play Music subscription that also includes YouTube Premium. The music service is no different than Spotify (for me, at least) and I also get ad-free YouTube on all platforms.

I will say that paying for YouTube premium is worth for me. I hate ads so much.
No amount of paying for things beats the experience of a decent ad-blocker.
Ublock Origin would save you the ads.
Not on most mobile devices, or the native YouTube app on smart TVs.
I have ublock origin running on firefox on my andriod.
I assume you mean to ask Google for your money back?

It's funny because I have a client right now asking for some advice on how to design a localizable website that can guess default language and I'm realizing that no one has really solved this very well.

> localizable website that can guess default language and I'm realizing that no one has really solved this very well.

The first and most important step is to offer a very very big option up front and center for reverting to English.

This is an extremely annoying thing when traveling.

I've been trying to not assume an Anglo-centric audience, but it seems like this is a popular choice. Almost every major international site, just has English or region-specific English as the fallback.
Some little British or US flag in the corner works well in my euro experience. I learned to look for that pretty quickly spending time in Austria/Germany.
Or just a menu that lets them choose their language right there on the page somewhere. If you can automatically redirect someone based on their browser language, then you can add a menu with some language names and flag icons next to them too.

Either way, it must like rule 1 of UI design; even if you think you know better than your user does, let them override that choice when you get it wrong.

Personally it is a problem that I want to be left unsolved :)

Or rather the solution I would like is rarely used, I have only found it on some Amazon sites, where you can freely choose the country-level localization (via the domain) and the language-level localization (via a menu) independently.

It was an happy day when I was able to browse the German Amazon in English.

What’s wrong with honoring the language sent by the browser?
Don't. I mean it. It's the same things with assuming patterns about names or addresses. A lot of people work abroad. Choosing the language yourself _is not a problem that needs 'solving'_
> It's funny because I have a client right now asking for some advice on how to design a localizable website that can guess default language and I'm realizing that no one has really solved this very well.

Really? How about “guessing” that the client’s language preferences are those expressed in the Accept-Language request header?

No not at all. All I wanted was to watch the movie in its native language (or a language I could understand at least).

Getting my money back from google is impossible, according to google. Since they could not offer a solution to the language issue, they told me 4 times to complain at apple and try to get my money back from them.

Again: that was not my issue at al. The time it took to dialog with google support was 10 times as expensive as the rent for the movie anyway. I wanted my expectations to be met, was told that it's impossible, so I adjusted my exceptions when being offered to buy / rent from YT to zero.

> I live in Switzerland, we have 4 official languages. I speak one of them: German.

What about English? Your post seems to be perfectly idiomatic (for this kind of forum) English.

Edit: This is very embarrassing. I had thought English was one of the four official languages.

I understood it just to mean that they speak only one of the four (and plus an unspecified number of other languages).
The UI is bad, but the most frustrating aspect of YouTube is the continuous struggle between creators and the automatic copyright strike system. Nearly every single large YouTuber I've subscribed to has had some experience with a false copyright claim interfering with their platform at one point.

It feels like YouTube actively doesn't want creators to grow a community on their platform.

YouTube is between a rock and an hard place, on one side creators expect it to be a reasonable platform on the other side legacy media will attack it with a viciousness proportional to how much it is not a shitty place for creators.

Until they stop siding against the creators they will never escape from it.

It must be tough for a struggling startup like Google to afford lawyers. With their free cashflow they barely spring for 100,000 or so.
Use invidious instead. It's a frontend to youtube without the bullshit. Not all videos work (only the ones that allow embedding) but most do. I've got my browser to redirect all youtube.com URLs to invidious and all twitter URLs to nitter and it's made an enormous difference. Experiencing software that works for you and not against you is a remarkable feeling.
Android

I have a computer in my pocket but I am not allowed to do even the most basic stuff I would like to do with it. Like using a shell to work on my files, use git for version control and to sync to other machines, use vim to edit text ... the list goes on forever. Heck, I cannot even easily backup all of my data. Like the contacts for example. No way to read the files in which they are stored.

Do you actually want to do those things on the go without a full size keyboard?
(comment deleted)
Not sure if you're joking or just ignorant. The computer in your pocket is not made to do any of that, similar to how the computer on your desk is not meant to make phone calls or count how many steps you've walked or tell you that there's a car accident 500 meters ahead.
Hi, we try to be neutral or friendly here on hn.
i think what he meant was that it would be easy for it to do these things, but Android doesn't let you do them.
You can work on a shell, (and even have a full GNU/Linux installation) with all standard tools using Termux.

Also, rooting your phone gives you access to all files, but I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea.

The question is how trustworthy you consider the guy who made termux. And if you would trust them to have full power over your operating system. I prefer more popular and proven providers like Debian.

With rooting it is similar. You usually give full control over your machine to "someone from the internet" who provides you with the root mechanism.

> The question is how trustworthy you consider the guy who made termux.

Termux is open source. I fully agree with you on the one that provides the rooting mechanism, as I believe that's normally closed source.

> Termux is open source

Good luck on reading and vetting all that code.

And then installing Android Studio (It is a beast!) to compile the code into an APK.

And don't forget to repeat the two steps every time there is an update.

Classic example of why companies need product managers to decide what problems to solve instead of leaving it up to the sysadmin.
check out termux. it's a command line on android
> Like using a shell to work on my files

As others have mentioned, Termux is Free and Open-Source. You mentioned trust, but considering Termux is already open source, I'm not sure how the author could gain your trust.

> use git for version control and to sync to other machines

You got me with git, but Syncthing might solve the same problem for #2 - there's a FLOSS client available on F-Droid as well :)

> use vim to edit text

I'd assume Termux has a vim package, meaning you can stay open source for the entire stack. If it doesn't, then my mistake.

> I cannot even easily backup all my data. Like the contacts

Ignoring using a carddav server for to have them backed up all the time, you can easily back them all up in vcard format via Simple Contacts - an open source app availble on F-Droid.

Hell, for the most part you can completely disable whatever you want, root or no. ADB can disable everything you don't want to run, including all the way down to Google Play Services. I can verify that, as I've done it myself on my BlackBerry KeyOne.

It (mostly) can all be done, it just takes a little bit of looking. Like anything else with modern computing, the fun stuff is hidden away, and all we're presented with is the glossiest interface the OEM can shove in front of us.

If there's anything that actually cannot be done via FLOSS software, I'd honestly love to hear it, because I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

Workday. There's not even a close second.
I wish I could force the Workday CEO to fill out expense reports 8 hours a day using his own software.

I bet the software would improve pretty quick.

I don't know how true this is, but I once complained about how unintuitive and difficult to use workday is. I was told, as bad as it is, it's considered best in its class.

I'm not knowledgeable enough, but are there alternatives to workday and are they actually worse?

Yeah, great question. Netflix, as you might already know, are sort of famous for being progressive in lots of ways, including & especially HR.

I asked a couple friends who work there what they use, and sure enough, the answer was Workday.

While there are definitely better alternatives at smaller scale (i.e. Zenefits), at that scale, the only ones I know of are Oracle, SAP, and TriNet, which all sound even worse.

Workday was fine in my opinion the couple times I had to use. The localization was actually really great!

Was able to fill addresses and contact information in the UK and Western Europe and it accepted the local formats and documents. I wouldn't be surprised if most competing tools are plain broken, for example requiring an address with a state which is nonsense outside of the US.

Yes. My previous company had a homegrown system previous. As bad as workday is, it was an improvement.
Stuff that you'd expect to be a lot better like objectives and reviews seem to involve a lot of scrolling and very little of it feels natural. You can sort of smell whatever the internal framework is leaking through into the UI.

We've been moved onto Workday and I hate it and I suspect I'm going to hate it even more as I've just picked up a people management role so I will be spending more of my life dealing with it.

Reminds me of K2 process automation which while it has a lot of value[1] forces the UI down particular routes which can be very sub-optimal for the end user.

[1] Whenever I used it I felt like I could have written the small bit I was interested in less time using lots of alternative technologies, but the amount of time to add all the other bits and pieces like reporting and retrying of process steps would kill you longer term.

`git`. I mean, its so popular that you get used to it eventually but the commands never make sense or map well to the mental model of what you're doing. And "getting used to it" is a seriously low bar for software IMHO.
People who champion git, how do you counter this?
What makes git different than other cli tools like grep, sed, curl, etc?
- I have to interact with it much much more often

- I have to be a good user of it. I can get away with knowing a couple flags for these tools

- Git is inherently stateful. I can iterate on my grep-ing/sed-ing/curl-ing and try random stuff, but git operation can be destructive or leave me in a state I don't understand and do not konw how to get out of

(comment deleted)
I don't champion git, but it is sort of the least worst SCM overall. I'm a graph thinker so that aspect never gave me much trouble, but the CLI is a seriously weird jungle of odd naming, based limitations¹, do-all commands with flags changing the entire command out for a different one and poorly written manpages.

I'd also like to point out that the concept of not having the history local (as in CVS, SVN and some of the still-used commercial SCMs), but only on the special sanctified server, feels seriously weird and extremely limiting to me.

¹ The by far weirdest one is --set-upstream specifically (intentionally?) not working if local and remote branch names don't match, so "git push repository branchLocal:branchRemote -u" doesn't make "git push" work if you are on branchLocal. It feels like that's half the point to have that option in the first place. But nah.

I've never felt that the commands don't make sense or that they don't map to my mental model. Actually I don't understand that complaint. It's not like I set a mental model prior to learning git and expect git to follow it. I base my mental model on git while learning it, so of course it's going to map it. That's what learning how to use a software entails.

If we're talking about inconsistencies in git, the only one that comes to mind is how diff's `...` behaves like log's `..` and diff's `..` behaves like log's `...`. I.e. if you want to see the changes of `git log a..b` as a single diff, you'd use `git diff a...b`. If you want to see the changes of `git log a...b` as a single diff, you'd use `git diff a..b`.

It maps very well to my own mental model? I'm not arguing that the parent poster doesn't have the problem that they say they have, but it's a problem I do not have and haven't encountered very much with new users after explaining it to them?
I assume that people who find git extremely difficult are unwilling or incapable of learning the internal data model. I think if you want to have distributed source control, there is a minimal complexity that exists. I also previously used cvs, svn, and perforce, so maybe that affects my opinions; I strongly believe git is a huge improvement over all of the aforementioned.

Note I think git could definitely be easier to use, and the reuse of eg checkout to switch branches and revert a dirty file to either staging or the most recent commit is a bit strange. But calling it uniquely bad is silly, imo obviously.

For working software engineers, I both think -- and recommend to juniors -- they must invest the effort to learn an editor, git, and at least one language + toolkit deeply.

I think that the most important goal of our profession is to find and implement high-level concepts so that our users don't need to worry about tiny details.

As an example: when I buy a back-up hard drive from a typical brick store like Costco, the "back up hard drive" is abstracted away: I don't need to study the USB timing diagrams, or worry about the details of how the magnetic domains are imprinted on the spinning disks, or really any of the chemical details of the surface coating.

This abstracting away of details is AWESOME. I can buy a $150 disk drive after spending less than a minute considering the purchase.

Git, on the other hand...

Let me give a real-life example of where real-life git and real-life published work flows don't work: you can go into GitHub.com, and make a project. And you can write code in Visual Studio, and save it up to your new git project.

Unless, of course, when GitHub.com recommended that you add a license. The instant you add a license, the project isn't "empty", and once the project isn't "empty", you can't trivially push your new Visual Studio project up.

The fix for this is to delete your GitHub.com repo.

I bet you'll reply and say, "that's just real-world problem! I only want to hear about theoretical problems!" -- which, IMHO, is one of the problems my profession faces. Real-world problems are ignored in favor of theoretical ones.

> I bet you'll reply and say

Maybe don't imagineer what I would say based on poor evidence.

Because (1) github doing that is kind of dumb (though (1a) how often do we make new projects?), and (2) we're discussing git as used for source control, particularly the commands. That's distinct from using github as a remote.

The idea is perfect, if it weren't for those meddling humans
A programmer doesn't have to know the IR (intermediate representation) of their compiler to write code and they shouldn't have to know the internal data model of git to store code.
The internal data model is not too bad, the problem is that the commands are overly complex with too many edge cases and options
I've never had problems with git "not mapping" to my mental model of what I'm doing, so maybe you could help expand on what that means. But I've run into two categories of people that struggle with git

Novice developers that just haven't taken the time to learn more than three basic git commands. Their lack of knowledge is the problem 99.9% of the time, but they don't know enough to know they are the limitation, and they blame the tool instead

Old developers that come with a mental model of another VCS and either cannot or will not change their mental model and continue to be frustrated that they weren't consulted when git was designed

A third category may exist, but I have not met these people IRL

Git tooling has improved dramatically and papers over most of the confusing parts. The biggest flaw by far is the opaque command line rules. There's a reason "how do I undo a commit?" has >20000 votes on StackOverlow instead there being like "git undo" or something obvious like that. There's dozens of Qs like that because it's so far from obvious. A lot of git purists in the early days insisted on uselessly complex workflows (rebase this and bisect that) despite adding little value. And the general concept of staging a commit isn't very useful either.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/927358/how-do-i-undo-the...

Supposing you have an accurate mental model of what git does, the odd thing is that many of the most common commands don't correspond to simple operations on that model.

Most notoriously, 'checkout' and 'reset' have a number of very different behaviours depending on the shape of the parameters you give them (which is why they've very recently added 'switch' and restore').

And some things that ought to be primitive operations don't seem to have any simple command at all. For example, if I have branch 'wip' checked out, and I'd like to advance branch 'dev' to point to the same thing as 'wip' without changing the currently checked-out files (even temporarily, because I don't want their timestamps to update).

And the preferred commands for managing the per-branch and per-remote push and fetch and merge settings have changed so often that I gave up years ago and just edit .git/config directly.

This. A lot of the responses in this thread seem to conflate git commands with the git idea. The idea, which is to model a tree of files as a set of objects that contain metadata pointing to content-addressable files, is a very good one. The commands are very bad.
I hate the Hole Hawg story with a passion. Firstly, because it's wrong: the story say things like "it's a cube of metal" and "the handle is not ergonomic".

But look at pictures from the maker. It's not a cube, and the handle is in fact ergonomic. Indeed, I would hope that a drill used by expert for hours every day would be 100% designed to make their jobs easier, and that includes not given them crippling injuries. And it's 100% purchasable from Home Depot. And, looking on Amazon, it's half the price of a truly expensive drill.

But there's another level at which the story is bad. The story feels like a story about gatekeeping: either you're one of the special people, or you're a useless homeowner. Either you have big problems, or you shouldn't be here. Either you've dedicated your life to drilling holes, or you're not welcome.

So, I read the story, and it sounds like both an exciting story of a newbie learning that some profession has unexpected depth. At the same time, it's also a story of a person who wants to be part of the special exclusive club.

I read the story and still cannot decide if you're for or against git, because "It's so powerful that will gladly drill a hole through your wall, and even your foot, if you don't give it its full due respect" is definitely not a characteristic I want for a system managing my source code.
For 99% of git, I'm happy with GUI tooling in the likes of VS Code, Visual Studio and Rider - it's clear, and it works great.

It's only very occasionally that I have to drop down to a command line to fix some kind of merging snafu - if that happens, I'm guaranteed to have to Google it, but at least I'm also guaranteed to easily find a solution on StackOverflow.

GitHub desktop works really well too
Yes, I used to use it before VS Code came along, and before VS improved their tooling, and before I switched to Rider. Github Desktop was probably the first good git GUI I ever used.
My use case is simple enough. Git provides a list of checkpoints I can rollback to. I generally squash over merge, and I use vimdiff to resolve conflicts. I know every command I need to do those things. What's complicated to learn?

If you want a coherent mental model of git, just do https://learngitbranching.js.org/ and never look back.

I just use a decent GUI with all the use cases I need: SmartGit does it for me. Totally recommend
Honest question: Which bits don't make sense?

For me it's the other way round, git clicked way faster than other systems.

The philosophy of git is fantastic, it is its unending collection of quirks, footguns, and inconsistencies that irritate people.
Git has a very clean and simple data model. Unfortunately, this nice model often has very little bearing on how the `git` CLI works; it often takes things that should be simple operations and confuses or complicates them in various ways.

For example, say you’ve just made a commit, and then realized that wasn’t what you wanted to do so now you want to undo it. This can be described under git’s data model as “set the current branch to HEAD^ and discard the orphaned commit, leaving the working tree alone.” For some reason this is a “reset” operation (the same command you’d use to unstage a file, an otherwise unrelated operation) and you have to decide if you want to do a “hard,” “soft,” or “mixed” reset. If you get it wrong you’ll have to go grovelling in the reflog to get your files back.

To be fair, this situation is improving; the recent introduction of the switch and restore subcommands has helped to disentangle the especially overloaded checkout and reset subcommands, for example. But it’s still harder than it should be to convert a mental image of what you want done into the appropriate (series of) git commands, and vice versa.

I agree git is not user friendly. But there are 2 solutions, that are pretty low friction

1. There are great cheatsheets online that you can just print out and keep on your desk.

2. Write a user friendly cli wrapper on top of git (i think there might already some projects out there)

Even though what you're saying is controversial I strongly agree with you. The number of time I had to Google things wrt is git is insane.

Unfortunately whenever somebody asks what could a better option there are generally no answers except keep at it and you'll get used to it.

I have observed vastly different opinion of git among people for whom git was the first vs, and people who were using svn or cvs before. The former is mostly fond of git, and the latter highly critical, mostly I assume because the concepts don't map the same way.

While I myself think I am pretty familiar with git cli, I don't really use the cli anymore, since intellij covers all the features in a much more intuitive way. e.g staged edits, rebase.

SVN is so dead simple to learn and use. And while I see the benefit of DVCS it hasn't really had much impact on developer productivity. The tools around are just so much more sophisticated than what we had for SVN. And I kinda miss being able to checkout subfolders directly.
Haha - I've used mercurial almost exclusively for maybe ten years, and the biggest share of my points on Stack Overflow is from a question I answered about a confusing part of git.
Do you have any regrets with sticking with mercurial instead of hopping on the git bandwagon?
I only regret that the young people who come work with us are learning something that's nonstandard.
People who criticise git fall into two categories:

- Those who have never used Clearcase, Perforce, or any other enterprise monstrosity.

- Those who have and suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

Because other things are worse git can't have problems?
The problem addressed by git or any other serious version control system is complex. Any seemingly simple solution will be severely limited, even if it does some particular things reasonably well (e.g. Subversion).

Git offers the flexibility to let each person work the way they prefer, even (to a large extent) on large shared projects.

With some wrappers and hooks, you could quite easily cripple git so as to emulate most any simple VCS. The aforementioned enterprise products barely work at all, so replicating their non-functionality might require more effort.

It being flexible is not the reason for all criticism of git, and simple wrappers don't fix all its issues. (and even if it were, "you need wrappers and hooks to work around its pitfalls" would be a completely valid criticism)
Perforce is fantastic and I'll take it over git any day.

Clearcase I agree was a POS.

> I mean, its so popular that you get used to it eventually but the commands never make sense or map well to the mental model of what you're doing.

I don't really find that to be the case in normal use at all.

I had this problem until I spent time to learn the underlying data structure of git. Everything pretty quickly fell into place after that (git checkout still has too many jobs IMO).

The git commands do not abstract over the internals, they pretty much just provide a direct interface to them.

Windows servers in the cloud.
Without a doubt: Websphere.
I worked with WebSphere (version 5 maybe?) many, many years ago. The admin console was seemed like it was designed to increase confusion. Eventually a consultant I was working with tipped me off that there was a scripting interface, which came bundled with Python (Jython). This made administration so much easier once I got the hang of the APIs, since I could just automate/script things.

I have no idea if this is still possible with modern WS.

LinkedIn.
Totally agree. LinkedIn is dumbest ux sitting on a gold mine of data
I don't use it anymore luckily, but from a couple years ago: Xcode!! Unstable, baffling interface decisions, very poor on features and the features that are there are unreliable. By far the worst IDE I've ever used.
Agree. On 2020 that thing doesn't even have tabs for the open files.

Xcode is one of the most obvious evidences of Apple's despise and contempt for programmers (others being crappy documentation, frequently deprecated APIs, appstore with authoritarian rules, etc).

Yeah and when it's updating some includes you can type faster than it'll show the new characters. That always really messes with my brain, when I press a key but a different (previously typed) character shows up instead.
> By far the worst IDE I've ever used.

xcode is a total pain, but i would have to say eclipse takes the cake imo...

I'm not a big fan of Microsoft but Visual Studio beats Xcode hands down. It's slow, unreliable, the code completion is abysmal, refactoring support is poor and the documentation is half hearted.
I haven't used Xcode much personally, but it automatically shoots up to the top of my hate list on account of the fact that it's a mandatory 20GB hog just to use the iOS Simulator. In my particular use case (React Native + Expo development), attempting to manually prune the installation files of SDK packages I will never use (e.g. Watch) somehow breaks the simulator.
Android.
What is so bad about "Android", as in stock Android?
Mobile devices have insane potential, but we are essentially stuck with Google's design choice monopolies, rendering the OS consumer-friendly but a terrible experience for power users.

What's worse, there is no viable alternative to it, though some tries have been made.

The default Android phone comes with loads of bloated and useless apps that spy on you. Unlocking bootloader, installing a custom ROM, installing all your favorite apps is a long and painful process (some vendors take weeks to approve your unlock request).

All of these, in the name of a platform which is'open-source'.

the latest versions of android has virtually all data collection options enabled, and virtually every app from the keyboard to the phone app is trying to phone home constantly. Google has become increasingly privacy hosile and they're trying to get as much information as possible from the end user.

You have to make an effort to get ROMs without GAPPS and even then, Google is making changes to the OS prevent things like MicroG from succeeding.

Skype (Windows)
I agree with you, but raise you with Skype for mac.
I feel neither of you might have tried Lync for mac, it beats skype hands down.
Skype is now shit everywhere because it's the same Electron-based garbage.

Back in the day Skype used to have a beautiful, native Mac client.

From the point of UI / UX, I cannot think of a worse software than Skype (all platforms including Android).

It's always a hard struggle, effort and suffering to make a call to a phone number, even if this phone number is in the contacts of the phone, or has been called before.

Adding to that, when Microsoft acquired Skype, they were offering to merge the Skype and Live accounts, which I agreed to, which rendered my Skype account unusable (with credit on it and lot of contacts registered).

The. Worst.

Operating systems and browsers in general
Microsoft Teams.

I am forced to use it (work) and it is missing really basic features that messenger software had in the 1990s like Push-To-Talk, real multi-window (even with the recent "pop-out" functionality), and its UI is all the worst modern trends. You cannot extend it or fix these issues (e.g. plugins, custom CSS styles, etc).

Plus it is buggy, I keep not getting calls/messages/etc, and every time my computer sleeps/wakes it sits in offline until you open the main window from the system tray. Those are year+ old bugs.

While it is often updated[0], the Team's priorities leave a lot to be desired. Adding new gimmicks and tie-ins while ignoring the dilapidated state of the core software itself for two+ years now.

[0] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/what-s-new-in-mic...

+1 for Teams. Video calling actually works great, but gods the UX is appalling! It's just so confusing and inconsistent.

As you said too, the whole thing is buggy. Sometimes screen sharing doesn't work unless you reopen the app, for example.

The wiki feature is crap (at least the web version, I haven't tried the desktop version of the wiki) - formatting is a mess, markdown support is practically non-existent, it's buggy as hell, and so unbelievably slow.

If they had a feature freeze and concentrated on overhauling the UI and fixing the bugs, it could actually be a great product... but as it is, it's loathsome.

The screen sharing one has bitten me a couple of times. I record live classes for students, and we've had occasions when someone who was away goes back to the video and it's a black screen with me nattering away as if they can see it :/

That said, apart from the shitty embedding support and their channel management, I REALLY like Stream and using it for a video lesson platform. The captioning is quite good even for my fast talking, Aussie accent and jargon.

Ah yes, I noticed the live CC recently! I tried it out in a conf call between myself (very Scottish accent), a Swede, a Norwegian, an Indian and an American - it really was amazingly accurate for everyone!

That said, beyond novelty I'm not sure how useful a CC feature is.

Some of my students tell me I talk too fast, so it can be helpful for them to review content, and I've had quite a few students with varying degrees of hearing impairment. Pretty useful in my field.
Massively helpful to me, a deaf person.
And at least on macOS screen sharing doesn't work with a German keyboard layout. Neither the German nor the US keyboard layout modifiers work correctly. At least it is enough to bootstrap a better remote desktop connection.
The desktop wiki feature is awful, but it's awful in the same way that any of the pseudo-markdown for setting in teams is awful. The WYSIWYG editor constantly doesn't recognize backtick monospace formatting, or is overzealous in hijacking the cursor when you are trying to type adjacent to monospace formatting. The enter key seemingly arbitrarily makes either newlines or continues to the next section. I've spent a few hours writing wiki entries this last week and it does not spark joy to the point where I wonder if anybody who works on Teams wiki functionality actually has used it.
That problem with the enter key making it jump around sections is there in the web version too! A few weeks back I spent a lot of time compiling a wiki, and that combined with the lag of the web version absolutely drove me nuts!
I noticed earlier even if Teams is switched 'off' in Startup Apps it'll still run when Windows starts unless you tell it not to under settings in the client
To kill the Linux version you need to run "killall teams" in a loop because it keeps trying to respawn itself
I miss ICQ.
I miss the heyday of IRC. I'm aware there are niche communities still thriving on it, but I miss when it was the primary real(-ish)-time chat option.
+1 for MS Teams. I am forced to use it at work, too.

Terrible audio focus on a single speaker, it really forces you to speak like on these old CB radios where you had to say "over" every time you were done talking.

The single window UI follows the mobile-first trend but is awfully inefficient on my three monitor setup, even more so with screen sharing.

Plus, our admins lock the whole MS Office 365 down so that there are no APIs or third-party plugins allowed. Data in it is just trapped.

Such a waste of human potential.

>Plus, our admins lock the whole MS Office 365 down so that there are no APIs or third-party plugins allowed. Data in it is just trapped.

To be fair, that's a feature from team's perspective. If your admins are worried about sensitive data leaking out at all, and refuse to have a whitelist of approved 3rd party integrations, then that's on them. Imo it's a good thing to allow admins to do.

(comment deleted)
The feedback from our users has been that the audio quality is amazing. Sounds like a hardware problem to me. Perhaps you are one of those annoying people who won't wear a headset in a conference call, so we all get to hear your background noise?
You're getting feedback from users right now and it's not amazing. It seems that this one of the longest (negative) threads about a single piece of software in this topic, second only to git which is turning out to be HN's version of the Crusades 7.0
Teams is utter shite. Especially if you're forced to use the web version (because linux). This goes for all of Office365.
There is desktop version for Linux. It is still web app, probably wrapped as Electron app, but it integrates a bit better than plain web tab.
Windows version is also a Web app in electron
Yes but ms gov cloud is unfortunately not supported.
It is wrapped in Electron, but as other siblings have said, so are the Windows and Mac versions.

I use the Linux one and it actually works surprisingly well. Video calls, screen sharing, etc.

However, for some reason, if when you start Teams the mic is unplugged, it will never detect it if plugged in afterwards. I often use it on a desktop pc without a built-in mic, and I only plug my headphones in case of a call. 100% of the time I have to restart Teams.

Oh, and as others have said elsewhere, it's painfully slow. There's a constant sort of lag about it. For example the highlights changing in the chats list when moving the mouse on top of them...

Rearrangement of messages in channel based on threads, forcing replies that weren't in thread out of order.

A UX that encourages replying out of thread because it's too darn confusing.

Unable to quote messages on desktop, but you can on mobile.

Unable to be signed into more than one Team. Have they never heard of consultants? At one point last year I had 4 separate Teams I needed to be signed into. Microsoft's solution have different Chrome profiles (Yep, Chrome, not Edge) for each one. My laptop only has 16GB of ram, so that didn't last long...

Super unclear UX around document viewing. I open a file in Teams and if I have write access I am instantly saving all changes. So many times I've shared a document for feedback and then had to recover the original version from Sharepoint because people changed a lot of things without Track changes on.

Based on Sharepoint. 'nuff said.

> Rearrangement of messages in channel based on threads

Wait, what? Do threads move when they get replies or something?

Yup. Straight to the bottom of the page. Did you know, they're pushing it into schools? Every time a student asks a question, all other students lose track of which pieces of work they've still got left to do.
I don’t think putting all the work for students to do is seen as the use case for teams channels - it’s for chat and discussion.

If you are trying to get students to do work, maybe use something like planner, sharepoint or any of the other myriad of tools actually designed for collaborative working rather than chat.

The intended Teams place for these things to be is either Assignments or the "_Content Library" section of a Class Notebook. Both of them are harder for teachers to use than a channel called "homework" (or just the main channel; creating a channel is hard, too).
Why not one channel that pushes work and another that is for questions?
I think this is actually a useful design feature - if the thread didn’t move and it was up in the message chain and I wasn’t tagged in a message then I would miss it, but as I want to still read everything in the channel, the fact it comes to the bottom of the channel means I see it.
Apps like Slack solve this by having a dedicated “Threads” channel where you can see new messages in threads you’ve participated in. There’s also the concept of an “Activity” view where you can see recent activity in a channel, if I recall correctly. There’s no need to re-arrange message order or rewrite history to draw attention to new messages. Worst case, just insert a message visible only to you with a link to the thread when updates occur.
Makes sense, but all that is a design trade-off.

If you do it like teams does then you don’t need an activity view and a dedicated threads channel.

I've use Teams every day in education for a couple of years now.

My favourite file access "feature" of Teams (I verified it was in fact working as intended, at least until the pandemic and the warts started getting more obvious) was that class teams had read/write access by default for all files in a team. This meant every student in a class team could modify what you uploaded by default. Of course fixing this required opening up the team in Sharepoint and fiddling with permissions, totally something every teacher is expected to figure out right?

Not really a software feature, but their update rollout style is awful as well. Announce features 4-8 weeks in advance of rolling out patches. Inconsistent rollouts, so my home desktop might have the latest feature patch, but my work laptop won't (I was around 4 weeks out of sync at one point). Manual checking for updates won't apply the latest patches. Meanwhile their consultants in education are crowing about all the new features or bug fixes.

I actually like some of the feature set, and it's very useful in an educational setting now they've brought some of the new features online (3 months later than would have been useful for the pandemic lockdown in my part of the world, but oh well), but enough frustrating elements that I'm constantly supporting workmates in its use.

+1. I don't actually have too many complaints about the features, other than perhaps that the download management is intrusive and inconvenient, but it's SLOW. So SLOW. It's mind boggling how much CPU it uses and how much it stutters when merely typing.
We switched over recently too and it suffers from trying to be all things to all people.
+ 1. While in a chat if I open a voice call with that person, it creates a new instance with the chat frame closed. If I want to navigate into a channel and open a file, if I go back to the discussion the file is closed, I need to navigate again. It should have multi-window, multi-tab capabilities.
I actually like the UX of Teams' chat more than the other common chat services. Main reasons:

  1. There is whitespace between messages
  2. My replies are a different color and right justified
Most of the other common corporate chat apps just look like a wall of text to me.
The worst thing about Teams is that for no reason they’ve decided to roll their own notifications framework on macOS that doesn’t respect Do Not Disturb settings. That’s the absolute minimum a notifications system should do: stop appearing when told to.
Spark, the email client, has this same problem on iOS. When I go for a run I DND my iPhone but Spark keeps sending notifications. I ended up deleting it and settling for gmail on the phone, but in actuality, I resist doing any email on my phone because the gmail app is so terrible. Maybe it’s a “win”.
Odd, that generally isn't possible in iOS. Perhaps you're running into some strange iOS bug or behavior quirk?
And is considered a full fledged “window”, a decision bringing a whole host of annoyances if you have multi screens and/or do window management.
Same on Windows. Doesn't use Windows 10 notification system. This means sometimes I get a proper Windows notification and at the same time a message and instead of the two notifications to be stacked they are overplayed on top of each other.
There isn't anything that gets me so flustered throughout the day than this.

I would turn these banners off, but as far as I can tell, there is no way to get badges to show up on the icon (only other cue to remind me people want to talk to me) without these banners.

I really wish there was a 3rd party client that was all native that I could use. Teams is definitely the worst part of my software stack.

On MacOS there is. I've remove teams from my mac so can't verify the exact setup, but in the notification settings (in teams) you can disable the banners but not the notifications altogether. I think the badge in the dock icon will be the number of new items in the activity panel.

But yeah, notification management is basically a pain in Teams. Not sure if it's still the case, but even on Windows 10 it would use its own notification window instead of the system one...

i truly hate when a colleague at mentions the entire department in a channel. my only choice is to leave the channel or continually be annoyed by the notifications. in general, i also am disliking the context switching from these type tools.
And sometimes the notification window is just a white box until you click on it.
Recently switched to Teams and Outlook. When sharing my screen, I instinctively dismiss notifications. It took me a week to realize that the single button on Outlook notifications (MacOS) is not “dismiss” but “delete”!
Don’t forget posting a link rarely embeds properly. Posting a YouTube video doesn’t show a player like practically every modern chat platform.

Oh and the most insulting part is how they treat its users like children. You can use giphy to embed a gif but if you search for any “bad” words it says no results. Search for fuck, and it hides them. Everyone using it is an adult, why apply this conservative boomer “nO sWeARIng alLOweD”?

To top it off if you instead copy paste a giphy url it doesn’t embed that properly either!

For the last bit, giphy basically lies to serve ads and tracking. A giphy .gif URL is not actually a .gif, or an image file even.
> Everyone using it is an adult,

It's the primary platform for entire schools, now. Whoopee. So you're going to get lots of new child protection features (that fail at their intended purpose) added.

Like many others, we were also forced to use it at work, hard to pick the worse part of Teams but a big one is how slow it is from the time I click the "reply" link until I can actually type a message. So many times I click, start typing and then I notice it missed about 4 to 5 letters, and I don't even consider myself fast at typing. Oh, and how you upload a file/image, need to wait until it is fully uploaded but after that you still need to click the "Send" button to actually post the file. It's definitely an enterprise kind of app, one that makes sure you take forever to do anything.
There's also a very noticeable lag on mute/unmute, that causes others in a conversation to miss the first word or two that I say immediately after unmuting. The workaround is to wait a second or two before speaking, but I've used VoIP and video back in the MSN Messenger days, on a far less powerful machine, and it didn't have that problem.
How about when you [alt/cmd]-tab to it, it shows you a blinking cursor in an input field, but no matter what key you hit, you can't type in that field without clicking on it?

Infuriating.

I always forget this. And then if you send the same file to someone else it overwrites the file but the first file and the first person can no longer access it? And then you realize it’s not just a file but a share point link? Yeah that will surely work next year when you need to Go back and double check something.
Don't forget Outlook randomly crashing due to the Teams "add-in" failing, and Teams thoughtfully reinstalling and re-enabling add-in whenever it gets updated.
As a recent Teams user, I don't know if Teams is bad on its own merits, or if the conception is just enough different from Slack that I can never quite figure out whether a feature exists and where it's hidden.

Generally I don't have much time to mutter about Teams because some Atlassian monstrosity is busting my balls.

It's both.

Everything from WhatsApp to SMS to Slack has a unified list of chats. Teams does not.

Teams is wrong.

Company switched to it from Slack recently for cost cuts. Generally a huge downgrade of user experience: channel threads are mess to read after a while of being away; no way to lookup/mention other users in private chats; chats and channels is like two separate apps- constant switching between them; activity feed is not always up to date; messages once red on desktop are still left in notifications on mobile; chats list is dynamic - very easy to choose wrong chat by mistake; code snippet editing is unintuitive.
Code snippet editing is awful in Azure for all the same reasons. Inserting code and then going back to normal text is like trying to exit vim for the first time.
I hatE Teams.

Search is broken in it and if you scroll back a few days on a conversation it just stops loading messages...

It's just awful.

Scroll down and up again to get it to trigger loading more. You'll lose your place, though, because it will immediately jump, then unload what it just loaded…
I've never felt that anything has captured the essence of what it's like to use Microsoft's software better than the URLs Teams generates for meetings scheduled via Outlook. Why use something like Zoom's 9 digit meeting numbers when you can have a 250+ character url complete with long seemingly random strings and a url-encoded JSON object?

The plugin will try to hide this behind a "Join Teams Meeting" hyperlink, but on more than one occasion I've had the link converted to plaintext, leaving the recipient with no idea what they're supposed to do. So every time before sending a teams meeting from Outlook I have to extract the mess of a URL and manually paste into the location field.

It’s weird how OneDrive does the same thing. Why not use the Dropbox and gdrive method of some uid? Obviously a super long url with paths and query string variables is better, right?

Microsoft is pretty cool with training though. During the training they said this wasn’t an issue because the url gets converted to the file name on display. And we’d only ever want to paste urls into outlook or teams, nowhere else.

Can someone explain why Teams is so totally unable to interoperate with anything else, to the point where you can’t save messages, you can’t export chats, and you can’t even print them! The lock-in is intense.
That is a bit of a strange statement. There is an API, there is an app store full of the Trello's and Jira's of this world. Chats copy and paste or share to Outlook just fine for me. You can even use Flow to save all of your chats... literally anywhere that has a connector. The lock-in is imaginary.
How do you copy and paste chats without having to go back and expand all “show more” links (potentially hundreds of clicks)? Even then, I can not get it to reliably select more than a page or two.

Apps are not allowed in my corporate deployment.

I’d settle for “save to PDF”.

I've created a simple bot that posts memes in our chats/channels and '1337' every day at 13:37. The teams API is incredibly bad and illogical in most places. You just can't make a Slack-like bot for Teams, because of how limited everything is. Not mentioning breaking changes in their SDKs(like literally recently message .Text started putting some weird random bytes in front of actual message that broke all regexes for us), 3 different types of conversations that you handle differently and an overly complicated way of adding bots to your teams/conversations. Add to that and incredibly slow Electron app with bad UX, typing lag and around 2gb constant ram usage and here you go, worst chat application I've ever used.
Nobody would use it if porting out was easy
Tell me about it. We moved from Slack to Teams to cut costs. Common story.

Leaves a LOT to be desired.

1. The UI took the fun out of well, whatever, Slack was/is. For some of the common interest channels at work, I see less people going to them.

2. I'm in a group where we frequently need to share images (mostly plots) among the members. Sometimes they just disappear. Yes. You upload an image during a conversation, come back to it a few min later, its not there, and the person at the either end of the chat hasn't seen it either. Guess what OS I'm on: Windows 10 Pro.

Because of this I've resorted to using the web version of teams occasionally, which doesn't seem to suffer from this issue.

3. This one is actually baffling: when I try to upload an image in 2 different conversations (one after another), the second one complains the file already exists. This is during upload.

4. Inconsistent UI: did you know you could reply to individual messages from the Android app for Teams? Doesn't work on web or the windows desktop client. So when I am catching up on a conversation, I occasionally switch to the mobile app to reply to specific messages.

So that's my workflow: the Teams website opened on my laptop browser for most of the messaging, Teams running on mobile, in case I need to reply to specific messages, and Teams running as an application on my laptop for video/screen sharing calls.

5. You cannot specify a Download folder. Yes that's a thing in 2020. [1]

But, yeah, "costs". I miss Slack.

[1] https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103-public/su...

(comment deleted)
> when I try to upload an image in 2 different conversations (one after another), the second one complains the file already exists

That's because, bafflingly, it uses a local directory-cache for files. Think of it as the "Downloads" folder for a browser. Any time you upload, Teams will try to save it to your local cache first; if it finds the old file, it will whine like that.

Any time you want to upload a file, you should really not do in Chats but in Channels, which have a separate area for each Channel (backed by Sharepoint). Except in some companies (like where I'm now) people for some reason use Chats almost exclusively instead of Channels, so the whole thing becomes awkward: go to the channel, upload, get the link, paste the link in chat.

I guess it could be worse, it could be AOL.

you should really not do in Chats but in Channels, which have a separate area for each Channel (backed by Sharepoint)

people for some reason use Chats almost exclusively instead of Channels

The fact that there even needs to be such a distinction is itself a problem. They're both conversations, except with some slight differences? That's just asking for confusion.

This sounds as dumb as the Excel ‘you can’t open two files with the same filename’ limitation.
Thank you for explaining.

If anything, this points to poor use-case study and/or execution. There is a case for channels and for individual chats: details of how files upload happen should be dealt with under the hood.

Frankly, it feels odd even talking about this issue; we are discussing file uploads, worth a few kBs, in a messenger. This really, really, shouldn't be a problem :-)

5. You cannot specify a Download folder. Yes that's a thing in 2020.

Considering that browsers have also adopted this "modern stupidity" for a while, I'm not so surprised, but the lack of a "Save As" option definitely perplexed me the first few times I've tried to download something --- clicking Download and expecting at least a choice, but seeing "download complete" makes me think where did it go!?!?

The response to that feedback item is baffling, but it's definitely not an uncommon thing for a big bureaucracy like MS. The actual code change probably takes minutes, but the mound of process associated with it causes these sorts of anti-decisions to occur.

Sadly the decision to switch products is usually made by the finance side and stuffed to the tech side, and tech side VPs/Directors are happy to enforce that because they don't use Slack/Teams very often.
That's true. And that is also probably why things mightn't improve soon - if the only metrics MS tracks is Teams adoption, I'm guessing its looking good right now. If they aren't counting how many of these cases are "frugality-driven", they are going to be blind to the UX problems.
My biggest annoyance with Teams is its shitty search functionality. You search for a topic you discussed with a colleagues a few weeks ago. It'll show you the direct hits, but there's zero way to jump to that point of the conversation and see the context, the message before or after.

It's so infuriating.

I once had to scroll for 30 minutes to find a critical piece of information because of this. I could find the time stamp of a related message but needed the context. So I just had to scroll. And scroll. And scroll some more.

Mind boggling that continues to make it past UAT.

Teams is absolutely awful. I also have all the crashes, undelivered notifications, shitty UI, but whatever, that's par with Microsoft.

I have an issue where if there's any sound in my room in a meeting, it reduces the volume of someone else talking to me even if my mic is muted. My workaround is to only keep one earbud in and constantly listen for cars driving past outside so I can crank up the volume in advance. So Teams is literally painful to my ears.

Using a headset with a physical mute switch on the mic could solve that problem.
I am going to go against the grain and say I rather like Teams. Video calls work really well. Voice calls are clear. Screen sharing occasionally doesn't work as some have noticed, but restarting the call seems to fix it. It is so much better than Webex though. I think it is still suffering from the teething troubles of trying to bring so many things under one umbrella, Sharepoint (which already had groups), Skype for business, Onedrive and chat. This has created some quirks which will need ironing out.

The killer feature really is that it is a dream to deploy for admins who already had AD. I pushed it by group policy and sent an email telling people to log in with their existing Office credentials. I can't remember what I did with macs, I think I may have just told users to grab it from the appstore.

Think of all the admins faced with having to move their whole company to home working with no notice for Covid-19, you can see why Teams is an app that has found it's moment. Teams has been the saviour of many companies during the crisis. I'm sorry but minor UI niggles (which I personally don't find problematic) just pale into insignificance.

I've been using Teams for some work and I also agree that it's pretty good. I really like the integration with OneDrive/Sharepoint so you can build up a project of files. Using remote files on local instances of MS office products is seemless and super easy to do. Of course, the version control isn't as good as something like git, but my coworkers are not familiar with git and don't have any interest in learning it. So at least with Teams I can have my work live on a Team's folder/repository thing so anyone else at my job can access it when they need to, complete with version history!
Some of the skepticism around here might be a bit outdated. I tried Teams about 4 years ago and found it bad; I was recently forced to use it again and now the experience is fairly pleasant overall. I don't understand why they split "Chats" from Channels though - or rather I have suspicions about causes, I just think the better way forward (from an UX perspective) would have been to keep everything in Channels.
I think it’s to allow companies to enforce official communication channels. Channels are official, chats are unofficial. I think it works but they should be on the same pane. I forget to check channels for days sometimes.
Dunno why but whenever I see this I get a bit angry:

>The killer feature really is that it is a dream to deploy for admins who already had AD.

So I understand what you say as: it is nice for admins to deploy and the usage issues for the users are the cost of it, but thats none of your problem because you are an admin. Well okay.
Good for chat channels.

Tries to be a central repo for all of your business docs.

Chews RAM like it’s its prime directive.

Can’t actually find the centralized doc unless you magically remember the channel or team where it was originally shared.

UX is actively hostile and so inefficient.

You cannot extend it or fix these issues (e.g. plugins, custom CSS styles, etc).

It's probably possible to mod it, given that it's Electron, and definitely easier than doing same to a native application, but the relative lack of configurability is certainly irritating.

The amount of RAM and CPU it uses is also ridiculous even in comparison to Slack, which was already pretty bloated.

(I wonder if any thirdparty clients have been created --- at least two exist for Slack, but I haven't looked for Teams.)

I've also been forced to use it, and have considered doing some RE and writing a Win32 native one to show MS what it should've done --- if anything I expect they should have plenty of Win32 programmers who know how to do it --- but like many others, have too many things to fix and not enough time for them...

I've been forced to use Microsoft Teams recently. After using it once the app decided it's no longer connected to the Internet. Every other program seems to have no problem figuring out that I'm connected to the Internet, but somehow Microsoft Teams is like "Nope"

This is on Windows computer too, like, how do you guys not know how to detect an Internet connection on your own operating system?

We use Skype internally but some people have started to use Microsoft Teams.

At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, these Microsoft Teams meetings never seem to have a dial-in number (my laptop microphone is horrible). If I try to use my computer's microphone to speak, it asks for camera permission at the same time. I don't want everyone to see me in briefs, just listen to my voice. So it's apparently either share my video and audio, or just be silent. I've been choosing to be silent.

I've spent the majority of my only two Teams meetings trying to figure out these issues. I never had a problem with other apps like GotoMeeting, Zoom, or Discord, or even Skype (also owned by Microsoft)

> So it's apparently either share my video and audio, or just be silent.

Maybe in the past, or on some clients only. On the Windows client you can currently operate camera and mic independently and choose how to respond to each calls (with video or audio only).

We have users on remote desktop machines but the microphone/sound doesn't pass through. IT's "solution" was to install the app on your phone and use that for talking and your computer for viewing. Yay.
The lack of a common 'chats' list shows that nobody who used it has ever used another communications tool.
I've been using Teams at college for over a year now and at work for a couple months. It baffles me that there are simple, obvious bugs that have remained all that time.

For instance, on the Windows desktop app, the word "I've" gets marked as incorrectly spelled. When you click on it to see the spelling suggestions, it suggests "I've". Clicking on the suggestion does nothing and it continues to flag it. This has been an issue in the app for over a year and I refuse to believe that the developers are unaware of it. It's a very common word to be typing.

Another problem is sending files or images. You have to wait for it to finish uploading before it will let you send the message. Not only is it pretty slow (I would estimate 1MB/s, whereas Discord uploads at my full 12MB/s), but sometimes it won't let you send for a couple seconds even after it finishes uploading.

A couple months ago Teams added read receipts, which is really nice, but they don't always work. My work has them globally enabled and everyone is on the latest client, yet each person only sees them for certain other people. I don't see them for anyone, but my coworker sees them for about 50% of our staff.

Notifications are also buggy. Teams will just randomly decide to not give you notifications for messages or calls. I've missed multiple messages in Teams for days because it never alerted me. I had to actually open the specific chat with that person before I saw the message. I've gotten into the habit of checking Teams every 15 minutes because of this. Teams for Android also seems to send notifications a good 30 seconds before the desktop app does, so I usually keep my phone on my desk solely for Teams notifications.

I would also like to point out that Microsoft built a general-purpose notification system into Windows, yet Teams uses a completely custom notification system. This completely baffles me as they aren't even following their own company's best practices.

> For instance, on the Windows desktop app, the word "I've" gets marked as incorrectly spelled. When you click on it to see the spelling suggestions, it suggests "I've". Clicking on the suggestion does nothing and it continues to flag it. This has been an issue in the app for over a year and I refuse to believe that the developers are unaware of it. It's a very common word to be typing.

The spelling situation gets better than this. You're actually forced to use the Teams one. For example, on MacOS, text fields get "free" spelling and grammar by the OS, which honour whatever settings you've configured. Of course, Teams doesn't use MacOS text fields, so they're on their own.

I live in France and so use French in Teams, but I absolutely hate having programs in several languages so all my programs are in US English. If I set Teams to use English for the interface, guess what language it uses for spelling? I'm still looking for a way to tell it in which language to check spelling, but we'll have probably switched to the next shiny thing until this happens...

Sometimes I get signed out, because of VPN/WiFi issues.

It'll have a little text prompt at the top with a Sign In link.

But if I join a meeting, and I'm signed out, I just get a generic error message. It's like they didn't even code to check that I'm signed in when trying to join a meeting and advise me. Sometimes I have to restart the app after signing in to make the meeting link work again. Just feels janky.

I also had to mute it because on my budget work-provided laptop the Windows 10 notifications for every one line message take up a few inches of my screen which is pretty annoying when I'm working.

Their video is downright buggy. Some users just can't share their screen with me while others can. I've tried "resetting" the video by disabling incoming video and then reallowing it, but that just freezes the video.

Audio is frequently bad too when people speak alternatingly. The new speaker has 2-3 seconds of muffled audio until they're clear again. Especially annoying when speakers rapidly change and all you get is semi muffled audio all the way.

Also the inability to respond to a specific message on desktop has baffled me. It seems like a basic functionality in chat software these days but teams only decided to give it to mobile? Just... Why?

And many emoticons have been renamed or simply removed. Why reinvent the wheel ?

While I'd very much wish to put anything Atlassian up front and center, Microsoft Teams is simply way more in my face. I have to use it for communication, and it's a huge pain use. It's huge, bloated, and more importantly; extremely slow and unresponsive. I'd have a hard time suggesting a worse chat application when including all that have ever existed.
When we were forced to try it you couldn't even customize keyboard commands. Most applications with multiple views/tabs will have something like cmd+1,2,3 to switch between the tabs. On OSX it was some RSI inducing combination you couldn't change.
MS has adopted the release-early-and-let-user-test-it policy since years ago. I remember that Power BI was barely usable (missing a lot of basic features) until late 2018/early 2019.

They also adopted the seeming good policy to ask users to vote for future bug fix/feature requirement, which of course leads to more feature release than bug fixing. But then this is the norm of software development nowadays so I really don't think anyone can change it.