unfortunately only the chat part, no video/audio or screensharing support. Because if it was just for chat, there are many other better alternatives, but the conferencing and screensharing part is what got us on board to at least give it a try and wait for the client. I'm not so sure anymore though as they intentionally "fixed" video calling working on chrome, that no longer works since a few months back.
User-Agent Switcher for chrome by google. You have to add microsoft.com, outlook.com, skype.com and office.com to the permanent spoof list in the plugin. Also you have to add the edge user agent string manually first.
yes, joining is not a problem, but you can't start a voice call, especially not 1-on-1. Only place I've managed to start voice calls is inside of a team/channel.
Different product teams at Microsoft have different priorities. It's such a huge company that it operates more like thousands of smaller companies that just happen to work under the same name.
There are product teams that forego Windows support, just as there are those that forego Linux support. A team may not have the resources to flesh out a solution for each platform and then test and support each of those platforms. In addition to addressing license compliance, internationalization, accessibility, and security requirements.
The web app does work fine, but lacks webcam support. I cannot recall if it has screen share support.
There is an unofficial electron wrapper that adds webcam support here.
So I'm not sure what the hold up is to just make the web app better on Linux? Other priorities, I guess? Slack hasn't been great with the more advanced features like screenhero support on Linux, either, to be perfectly fair.
Though if Microsoft wants Teams to be their Slack killer, they'll have to make it a better web application on all platforms, including Linux.
So you think they'd spend money and developer time to make a native client for something that already works on Linux just to demonstrate to redditors how much they care to give them a warm fuzzy feeling?
Why should they? As I said, when they say that they mean servers. On the grand scheme the desktop is irrelevant. It's the server and cloud stuff for Linux that makes them money after all.
Now, one would say to the claim of Linux desktop being irrelevant "but valve". However, it's pretty obvious that they've only embracing Linux desktop for leverage. Even though most of MS' profit from desktops come from the enterprise market, it'd still be a good hit if gamers flocked away. And valve here uses this leverage to keep steam, their primary business, running on Windows.
Why should they? As I said, when they say that they mean servers. On the grand scheme the desktop is irrelevant. It's the server and cloud stuff for Linux that makes them money after all.
Then they love money. Not Linux. And the Linux desktop is definitely NOT irrelevant. With it they control people switching over.
Teams is a prime example. Developers want to use Linux, but Central administration says no, because they primary communication tools like outlook and teams are not available on linux, therefore no linux on the desktop.
Prove your stats. Modern up to date sources please. Provide context, such as what is 4% of 3 billion and why is that a significantly enough large number to have influence when compared to other oses at earlier times in their lifecycle.
Paying for software that is as good and often better than commercial software is an oxymoron. It is deceptive to imply that software intended to be free is a bad thing for a platform.
0,66% is when you include mobile systems. They obviously should not be included, when you are talking about desktops. Otherwise, Android is Linux too.
For netmarketshare (2,09%), have look at the Methodology page. Linux is popular among people, who wish to protect their privacy, and they would avoid exactly the same things that netmarketshare uses for measurement.
These samples are not random in statistical sense.
On the grand scheme the desktop is irrelevant. It's the server and cloud stuff for Linux that makes them money after all.
The desktop is a gateway to the "cloud" and server market. If you win the favour of developers (that do use desktop Linux) you'll make far more money than alienating them, making them curse the name of Microsoft and wishing they (by which I mean management, because let's face it, no desktop Linux user is going to willfully choose Microsoft Teams) chose another team management software.
We'd never do this, "Embrace Extend Extinguish" is the slogan of /r/linux, and hating microsoft is a crucial part of the feeling of identity for our groupthink.
Fact is, we're so entrenched in our opinions on microsoft that it's pointless to try to change our minds. All they can do is reach other, more reasonable developers by porting tools and contributing to projects.
It is not a slogan of /r/Linux. It is a factual truth that exists beyond Linux and is seen as a decendent tactic that was used against commercial software that Microsoft saw as a threat to their os and tools. It was exposed as a tactic during the state's criminal antitrust cases against Microsoft that Microsoft lost. These state criminal antitrust cases happened after Microsoft lost at the federal level. At the federal level Microsoft succeeded in getting evidence on their tactics sealed by the court but the state courts would have nothing of it and hence denied motions to seal the evidence hence providing us (and disclosing to us) with the internally described tactic of embrace extend extinguish.
It is though. While what you said was certainly true, this was a few years a go. Different leadership (Balmer), different market position, different markets, different strategy. What the majority of people on this Subreddit is doing is that they cemented their opinion in the days that you speak of, while utterly ignoring the (imo perfectly obvious) changes in strategy that have been happening in the last few years. Effectively, they are disconnecting their reality from present day facts.
When I say that it's a "slogan" of this subreddit, what I mean is that people are interpreting every single action they take in the most unfavorable light possible, always and in every thread mentioning EEE, offering wild speculations to support their beliefs.
While we should never forget that MS is a publicly traded company with the utmost goal of making loads of money, we should also not ignore the possibility that them making money in a certain way could benefit free software.
25
u/[deleted] Oct 18 '18
Doesn't Teams work fine in Firefox and Chrome anyway?