Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Zulip Server 1.9: HipChat import and much more (zulip.org)
328 points by rishig 7 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 123 comments





We (the Recurse Center) have been using Zulip since early 2013, and it is the core of our online community. Zulip is excellent both for small teams (we use it for our team of 7) and big groups - we also run a realm with over 1,000 users posting 10s of thousands of messages monthly. I can't recommend it highly enough.

How do you handle high availability for Zulip? Last I looked that was a problem for it.

Zulip founder here.

It's definitely possible to run a Zulip server with essentially no downtime. E.g. the main zulipchat.com service has had approximately 10 user-facing outages with a median duration of 5-10 minutes over the last 5 years (there was one while we still only had a few hundred users that lasted overnight), most of them in the middle of the night. Happy to talk more about this for anyone curious; there are some fun stories (like migrating from MySQL to Postgres as our primary database technology with <30 minutes of downtime early in its development).

We don't have a public uptime SLA for zulipchat.com uptime yet, but we're happy to make them for individual customers (and I suppose we should add one).

If you're self-hosting, our commercial support offerings will help you setup your servers in a way that achieves your uptime goals; because Zulip is so stable, usually folks just go with a hot spare (our enterprise customers generally only report downtime related to server upgrades, which is usually avoidable).


We don't run our own instance; we're hosted by zulipchat.com. Perfect uptime isn't a priority for us, so I don't know what (if any) availability they promise. But we've had almost no downtime over the past five years, and we've certainly had less than the public Slack outages I've seen folks talking about on Twitter :)

I've said it before (so at the risk of annoying people ;-) I can highly recommend Zulip. We briefly used Mattermost (couple of months) before realising the Zulip threading model was a way better fit for us then what Mattermost offered. It might feel a bit odd in the beginning but after you've become accustomed with it you'll love it!

I love Zulip and wish it the best.

But this comment on the zuplipchat web site https://zulipchat.com/security/ feels like a pretty gross generalisation and detracts from Zulip's vibe IMO:

> With many SaaS providers, essentially all engineers have direct shell access to production servers storing user data. Zulip Cloud is different: only a small handful of security-trained engineers have access to production servers or to sensitive customer data.


Yikes, I'm not sure how "essentially all" ever got in there; it should have been "the majority of". And even with that edit, our practice is, where possible, to cite sources, and while there's a lot of anecdotal data on this topic, there aren't great published sources for this topic. So whether or not it's shockingly common for companies to have dozens or hundreds of people with shell access to production, we've removed the commentary on what other organizations do here, and just explain our practices.

I really appreciate the feedback!


We've been using Zulip for just over a week in xi-editor and related projects, and I'm thrilled. Huge improvement over the pastiche of IRC and Reddit we were using before.

Zulip founder here; I should add that Zulip hosting is free for open source projects: https://zulipchat.com/for/open-source/.

A bunch of other cool open source projects use it, including Python Core, parts of the Rust community, MariaDB, Coala, the Lean Theorem Prover, the HL7 standard, and many more.


How do you get the standard plan for an open source project? I don't see anything on that page or anywhere else, should we email the team for the bump?

"Just contact sales@zulipchat.com and we’d be happy to discuss your situation!" (https://zulipchat.com/plans/)

That's what I did. Thanks again to them, I really appreciate it.


I'm also using Zulip for Oil [1] and like it a lot :)

Reddit was OK for awhile... I dislike the redesign because there are bugs with code formatting, and because the latency is worse. And it seems like they couldn't really make up their mind visually.

Actually Zulip is one of the lowest latency web apps I've used in recent memory!

I also have problems following IRC because of the lack of threading.

[1] https://www.oilshell.org


Do you have any links you could share? Or are you using zulip for internal comms only?

I'd looked into Zulip a few months ago when it appeared on HN and it looks great to me. But this announcement mentions a new beta terminal client! That seals the deal for me! Love the idea of Zulip on a terminal: too good to be true for my organization at least.

I'd love to set this up at my part time workplace, but it's a forensics shop where the network is offline, and doesn't have email. Team is small (<20) so manual accounts would be fine.

Am I reading the docs correctly in that email is absolutely required? I haven't checked thoroughly for this new release, but previously it was for missed message notification as well as account creation, if I'm remembering right.

It's not a for profit place, so I'm simply looking to self host, sans email, to make communication easier across the teams. Current solution is definitely inferior to Zulip!


We support this, it's just enough of a corner case that it's not well documented. If you don't care about missed-message emails, you can install the Docker image (easiest to setup when offline), and then use https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/production/authentica... with an Apache .htaccess file as the thing that sets REMOTE_USER.

Send a message in "#production help" in chat.zulip.org if you have trouble figuring it out, and I'll extend the docs until you can get it working.


Well, that's a great reply. Having read quickly through the docs, I think in particular the "Life of an Apache-based SSO login attempt" had enough information to clarify the process for me - until then I wasn't as sure.

I don't think I would have located this option while filtering for "works without email, and I'm okay missing messages". If it was present a year ago I definitely didn't. Very glad it's a supported corner case!


Yeah, the front-page documentation focuses pretty heavily on "you should setup email" because it helps folks in a normal environment successfully setup Zulip quickly and reliably. I'm not sure whether this use case is common enough that we should put it in the front-page docs, but possibly we should write something that Google will find...

I looked at Zulip vs Mattermost several months ago and, if I recall correctly, this was one of the primary reasons I went with Mattermost. I just wanted something I could spin up in docker on a vps without having to setup anything else (like an email server). Mattermost lets you generate "invite links" that you can just paste in a chat or text message.

The other really neat feature was having multiple "teams" on a single server.


Hi, I don't know enough about Mattermost to be sure I understand you correctly about 'multiple "teams" on a single server' but you can host multiple organizations (realms in zulip-speak) on a single zulip server https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/production/multiple-o...

edit: link updated to point to official documentation instead of github


That's neat, I may look at zulip again if I need to setup another server.

From a quick glance, the differences I see are: * In mattermost, different "teams" (or "realms" or "namespaces", whatever) exist on the same server (same url), and a user account that logs in will only see the teams they are assigned to. A single user account can be assigned to multiple teams (they appear on the left, similar to how the slack desktop app shows multiple server connections).

* Zulip requires a different subdomain for each "realm", and it sounds like users have to log into each one separately. It is not clear if the same account is shared between organizations or a user must have separate accounts.

So it sounds like Zulip's approach is separate, isolated "organizations", like slack, just hosted on the same server. Where Mattermost's approach is more like having separate, but integrated teams/groups/namespaces that a single account can be part of.


> So it sounds like Zulip's approach is separate, isolated "organizations", like slack, just hosted on the same server.

Correct. But Zulip does allow to import settings, profile picture etc from an existing account during signup if the email remains the same.


It's pretty cool that he included the output of

    git shortlog -ns 
in the release announcement.

I liked that too. But I prefer to hide merge commits using:

    git shortlog -sn --no-merges

Zulip has a rebase-based development workflow and doesn't use merge commits because in my experience, it produces a much more readable commit history (which is really important for understanding historical changes). We've been very happy with this approach. Some relevant reading on our version control approach for those who might be interested: * https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/git/overview.html * https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing/version-...

Doesn't using rebase generally mean you have to rebase on top of master and thus with your local branch you may need to git push --force ?

You rebase your feature/topic branches on top of master and then merge the feature/topic branch back onto master, enabling a fast-forward merge.

Is this a common workflow? Googling suggests almost religious feelings about this.

it comes down to whether you want your version history to reflect the true version of development's history (merge), or a simpler, doctored version of history which reflects the final deliverable (rebase). advocates of the latter, myself included, argue that it eliminates noise and tells all the story that needs to be told -- and that the original history can be preserved by not deleting the feature branches. others argue that changing your parent commit is dangerous and occlusive.

i think the core of it comes down to the UX for "git log", which attempts to display history linearly when in fact it absolutely is not. ask yourself: what is the _contents_ of a merge commit? if you know git well, you know that the merge commit contains everything from the feature branch... and that the feature commits you see when you run "git log" on master are actually not on master at all. so the rebase strategy makes master truly linear to match the tools and reduce cognitive load.

however, the rebase strategy does introduce new possibilities of tool-driven bugs and requires more rigor. this article has a good run-down of the risks:

https://medium.com/@fredrikmorken/why-you-should-stop-using-...

the classic example of a rebase pitfall is:

a) you branch from master,

b) on your feature branch, develop a feature utilizing dependency x,

c) meanwhile, on master, another developer removes dependency x,

d) you rebase back on top of master -- there are no conflicts, and things look good, but the build is completely broken.


Anecdotally, I feel it's less common than merge commits. There are plenty of places driven by the "Merge Pull Request" button in GitHub and that's the default functionality.

In personal projects or those with fewer developers, I prefer rebase + FF merge for a clean history. I don't really feel the need to see the merge commit in the master branch history.


Yes, it's common for open source projects. I've used a rebase workflow for feature branches in Apache projects and others.

It takes a little more work for each contributor but leaves history on master very clean.


Warning: If you don't also squash the entire topic branch, then you will sometimes break git bisect with this workflow.

Yes. The default GitHub-recommended workflow of having contributors do `git pull` to integrate their changes an easily result in a confusing spaghetti monster history even if the contributor only has 1-2 commits that don't merge conflict with anything.

For this reason, most major open source projects use that part of the workflow (asking their contributors to rebase their PRs on top of master and never use `git pull --merge`), even if they plan to merge the commits into master via a merge commit.

(The Git documentation is very aggressive in discouraging force-pushing of commits, but that advice is intended for a public repository, like the main zulip.git repository, that others might pull from. Obviously, we don't force-push to zulip.git, but if you're using Git right, you should be force-pushing to your fork when you fix a typo in one of your commits.)


I'm a matrix - really via riot client - user, but never used zulip...Can anyone cite 1 or 2 big benefits of using zulip over matrix clients? I'm genuinely curious.

https://zulipchat.com/why-zulip/

For me it's Zulip Topics - they make it very easy to organize the communication. You have channels and they contain topics. This is one of the most useful features of Zulip.

Most features of all chat clients (riot, slack, mattermost, rocket.chat, zulip) are pretty similar.


last large discussion of Zulip (6 months ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16863675

We looked at it briefly, but the number of components make it look more of a tech demo than a product meant to be installed on-prem.

Redis, Postgres, Rabbitmq and Memcached just to run a chat?


> more of a tech demo than a product

It is neither a tech demo nor a product, it is a mature open source project.

In fact, in my mind tech demos tend towards having fewer mature components.

> Redis, Postgres, Rabbitmq and Memcached just to run a chat

That set of dependencies seems quite normal to me for a mature project. Mastodon (the most popular open-source-twitterish-thing) has a similar set of dependencies, and is also effectively just chat as you say.

Discourse, a popular open source forum, is also basically just chat, and has a similar set of dependencies.

In the case of zulip, you can even use a hosted version and avoid running anything yourself.

I don't understand why its totally normal set of dependencies turns you off so harshly. I'll happily take a project using redis/postgresql/etc instead of trying to build its own versions of those baked into the binary because components like postgres/redis/etc have great documentation, tooling for metrics and monitoring, etc... If the project bakes its own stuff in itself to avoid taking on dependencies, I doubt it will either be as good or as easy to manage.


IMO it would be nice to have scaled-down implementations of caching, queueing, etc. for "small" installations of self-hosted apps to reduce the number and complexity of dependencies. But first there would have to be a market for self-hosting.

It took us 10 minutes to run a production-ready Zulip server. The installation script handles everything without any issues.

https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/production/install.ht...

> just to run a chat

Don't overlook the fact that this is a scalable and stable solution used by many companies with thousands of users for each instance. I would have my doubts about the project if it wouldn't use those components.


I certainly believe it’s scalable, but I have a hard time seeing the need for two caching products, a queue and a db just to get it to start.

Do you think robust software should also have a demo packaging, that somehow swaps out all the queuing, caching, database etc. for something else just so that it is super easy to spin up?

No?


Well, it’s not fewer components regardless how you package it. Running docker compose wasn’t enough to get into a fully configured system to be able to evaluate it even.

Do you remember the problems you ran into? I'm evaluating zulip with the help of the docker container (1.9.0-rc2) at the moment and docker-compose was enough to get it running.

Unfortunately not. It was a while ago, so I might have been unlucky with the version I tried. I believe after half a day of struggling to get it working, I got to the point where I was required to setup an organization or something like that and quit at that point and spent some time trying to remove everything.

How is a basic database, cache and queue too much?

It's not, but couldn't Redis do what Memcached and RabbitMQ are doing?

I could see an argument that Memcached is redundant, but it would definitely make sense to me to throw in a queue with some richer queueyness for a chat app

As I commented here [1], one of my biggest issues with Zulip is that the mobile apps don't have a "jump to most recent" feature, and whenever I open the app I have to manually scroll past hours (or days or weeks, since I dislike opening the app so much) of old conversations.

Has this been fixed/improved?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17623592


The mobile app does a "jump to the first unread message" by default, which is the same behavior the web app follows. If you don't want to read through all the messages in the current stream you can press "Mark as read" and then the app will be jumping you to the latest messages. Would that improve your navigation flow in the app?

How does it compare to mattermost?

The answer is pretty similar to that for Rocket.Chat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18401587

With the addition that Mattermost is open core, not fully open source.


Exactly.

We're looking at paying for Slack and mattermost seems to offer most of what Slack does and is something that would be pretty easy to run. It's slick. Well documented and installs nicely in a container.

Has anyone here used Mattermost?

https://mattermost.com/


Not sure if this helps, but we were evaluating Mattermost and are still evaluating Zulip at the moment. Our users pretty fast had a tendency towards Zulip, while I've had a slight preference for Mattermost from a ops view.

We only have/had a short eval phase and our use case is a small raceengineering team with 40 people at the racetrack, independent of internet access. So a very particualar use case, and our needs might not cover you needs.

Zulip pro

* Threading model (can't value that high enough)

* All messages overview, no matter what stream they were written in

* Zulip community at chat.zulip.org with direct contact to the devs. Tim Abbott the lead dev helped me out in a issue with a user login (haven't used the Mattermost support so can't compare)

Zulip con

* Most ops work has to be done by a python script manage.py, API has room to improve

Mattermost pro

* API

* haven't measured but the UI felt smoother, faster

Mattermost con

* you have to pay for Enterprise features

Both have great docs and a docker deployment


We have been using Mattermost happily for 4 months give or take.

Our use case is basic chat features with some integrations for a team of around 40.

We run it in a t2.small instance along with another tool. I only had to manually restart it once, which is fine by me.

A postgres backend and S3 storage is most welcome and makes it very simple to manage.

My only complaint would be that the config file is not included in the postgres database so you need a separate routine for its backup. (If anyone from Mattermost reads this, please just include it in the database)

It could also handle importing multiple emojis for us Hipchat castaways.


We've been using Mattermost (I have not used Zulip but it looks superb) for about a year. The UI/UX of the desktop and mobile apps is a bit kludgy but functionally it was a breeze to setup, runs on a very low-cost instance, and has had 100% uptime. And most importantly, we're in control of our data unlike cloud-only offerings.

Have you tried out Zulip? You may find the user experience pretty compelling. It's an entire alternative interface to the slack or IRC-style of chatrooms, and it's OSS and documents how to make it containerized.

Not yet.

Both mattermost and zulip look well worth it for saving quite a bit of money over slack for a fair sized company though.

The responses from people here are really interesting.


The one good thing about not having an on-prem Slack is communications after your company network goes down.

The one good thing about having an on-prem Slack is communications after the Slack network goes down.

That's why you should run both.

Or print out all your conversations.

And the same in reverse is true, our comm channel has gone out several times due to slack being out of our control and going down. IMO this is a wash.

Anybody knows why this over rocketchat?

Zulip has a thread based Instant messaging model which helps facilitate multiple different conversations in the same channel without losing track / context.

More on their homepage - https://zulipchat.com/


What is the advantage of threads over just more specific top level channels. e.g. in their example why not #annual-summit-name-tags etc. One immediate thing slack does wrong is it makes channels too hard to make and destroy and leave and join, but if that was fixed... What is the advantage of the nesting?

zulip ends up being a bit like e-mail where you can add people to threads and they immediately have the history. I've used mattermost, not slack, but that basic model fixes a lot of issues I have with mattermost.

A more specific slack channel (and I assume mattermost channel) is a thread that you can add people to any time and they will immediately have history. Or put in the inverse, a Zulip thread that is too general is a channel with information overload and becomes useless. Does the nesting have intrinsic value over simply more top level channels?

Mattermost has threads inside channels as well, but they end up underused since posts need not be to any specific thread.

The idea is you subscribe to a channel, but then any post to the channel needs to also have some sort of logical subject.


Right, in my view it's important that every message have a topic/thread. The reason is that you spend most of your time/effort in a busy team chat tool consuming other people's messages, and that flow is a lot more efficient if you don't have a giant "catch-all" bucket of unthreaded messages about fundamentally different things to wade through in order to find what's important to you.

Zulip, used well, ensures that the messages are partitioned into different conversations, so you can easily do things like skip to the bottom of a long thread to see if it ends in a satisfactory resolution, without missing the unrelated question that you need to answer.


Judging from the zulip.org server it looks like there is a need for a chronological topic decay feature.

Zulip founder here; I'm curious why you think that?

Here's our thinking. Topics within a stream are ordered by the time of the most recent message. We keep the complete history, both of messages and topics, because it's useful for search and following up on things. Personally, I regularly reply to a conversation whose last message was a month or more ago to follow up with new information (often after getting there from one of the permanent links in our issue tracker). Because the context is all there and available with just a single click on the topic, I find it to be a really nice workflow.


Hi there! I just started using Zulip (first-time user) looking forward to migrate off Slack and unfortunately I've been really disappointed. In Slack I can just load the website and begin typing into whatever channel I'm at (or use 1 click to select the right one if it's not the current one). In Zulip, it seems there's been a deliberately goal of explicitly designing it to be excruciating painful. For some reason Enter doesn't work by default (in which chat system is Enter an unfamiliar command for sending?!), and then I always have to press 'R' or click something to reply to (which often takes multiple clicks and several seconds)... why make things deliberately complicated/painful without even an option to turn off this 'feature'?

Slack and Zulip are implementing pretty different communication models.

In Slack, most messages are a single line, and are very real-time. E.g. if a channel is getting 100 messages a day, and a conversation starts in the morning, you're not going to try to engage with that conversation even that afternoon.

In Zulip, communication is asynchronous by default. This has a lot of secondary implications; e.g. it means that by default you can assume people will see your message, rather than just the people that check in the next few hours. This means you can have substantive discussions on the platform, and the medium correspondingly encourages more multi-line, thoughtful posts. So we've currently decided that having to type an extra letter to compose is worth the tradeoff.

As an example, not having compose open by default allows us to use single letter keyboard shortcuts for navigation.

In any case,

* You can enable "Enter to send": https://zulipchat.com/help/enable-enter-to-send

* Private Messages (called DMs in Slack) in Zulip work the same way they do in Slack, with an open-by-default compose box.


Thank you for the reply!

If this is the intention, then I'm baffled at how you intend your product to be used. Your advertisement of Zulip is completely at odds with... its fundamental principle? What I mean is, your website says "Zulip combines the immediacy of real-time chat with an email threading model", but it seems you're explicitly designing away the immediacy and requiring people to spend significant time thinking about what to type and clicking around to find the appropriate thread to reply to, just like with email. It can't function as a team chat system if it doesn't facilitate instant messaging -- "chat" systems are designed pretty much by definition to allow instant communication. (Like what "chatting" meant, before computers were around.)

What you really seem to have is a shared-inbox email service -- kind of like a mailing list, but in a shared workspace, which would produce something that's more close to the exact opposite of your description... something like: "Zulip combines the deferred/asynchronous model of email with the shared-inbox nature of a mailing list".

So here's my question: what do you expect teams to do when they actually need instant communication with the rest of the team? Do you expect them to have another (actual) chat system in parallel for that, or do you intend a model where you intentionally insert obstacles to make that viable somehow? I'm not talking about stuff you'd put in a email, so I'm not talking about something like "Let's discuss item 2 on the design doc. I think it would be better to approach the problem by doing X, then Y, then Z. This benefits us because Y helps us with Z and [blah blah]." I'm talking about stuff where there is something urgent going on and immediacy is the #1 priority, like "can s/b urgently cover me here I gotta run" or "what's up w/ the projector in C13?? I have a meeting" or "who's covering the slot rn? s/b's waiting" -- you know, the day-to-day stuff where the extra 10 seconds finding the right topic to reply to and the extra O(minutes) trying to articulate an eloquent email-like message for your team is going to tick everyone off (especially outside clients etc.) rather than please anyone. This kind of immediate communication is what teams need instant messaging systems like Slack for -- if your software is explicitly designed to discourage it, what do you imagine continuing to fulfill this need after teams switch to Zulip -- another parallel Slack?


Got it, thanks for the concrete examples.

I think the short answer is that there is some learning curve to using Zulip, but once that's done, sending messages like that takes essentially the same amount of time it would in another product.

The actual extra actions are:

* up to one extra keystroke to open the compose box

* typing a subject line like "projector C13"

You wouldn't have to search for a topic to send a message like that; you would just start a new topic. And "what's up w/ the projector in C13?? I have a meeting" would still be a perfectly fine Zulip message.

And then on the receiving end, you actually save a bunch of time.

* There's a simple keyboard shortcut ('n') to see the message that just came in.

* The fact that there's a subject line means that everyone sees "projector C13" and decides if they're a person that can respond to that, even if they aren't caught up on the rest of the channel.

* If someone does respond, you can see that they responded to your message, and not to some other conversation that's going on in the channel. That makes it easier to keep an eye on the conversation while the rest of you is improvising a solution.


> I think the short answer is that there is some learning curve to using Zulip, but once that's done, sending messages like that takes essentially the same amount of time it would in another product.

The thing I don't get here is you have two competing claims/goals, both of which I could buy in isolation and in fact agree are perfectly reasonable goals, but both of which actively contradict & fight against each other. On one hand you believe it'd take the same amount of time as before if people would only learn to use the system as designed (which I'll take at face value here), but on the other hand you say "the medium correspondingly encourages more multi-line, thoughtful posts". Writing more thoughtful messages and coming up with subject lines by definition requires more time... how can it not?


I agree that on the benchmark of time-to-send-a-message, Zulip is slightly slower than Slack, which is in turn slower than just putting the whole company in a WhatsApp group.

But the end goal is not sending messages, the end goal is getting the person who knows about the projector to see your message and respond, for you to see that response, etc.

In a moderately sized company, Slack is better than the WhatsApp solution, since you can direct the message at roughly the correct set of people, by spending the extra time to choose a channel. In turn, those people are more likely to get the message in time to act on it, because the message won't be buried under tons of messages meant for other people in the company.

Zulip takes that a step further, by adding subject lines to messages. The same tradeoff applies.

I think in the end the question really is how much more work it is to add the extra signal. The best case would be you could send messages like in WhatsApp (no subject line, and every message goes to the entire company), and read messages like in Zulip (subject lines, and with channels limiting audience). For both Zulip and Slack, the premise is that we can drive down the cost of adding the extra signal to low enough.


I'd like to respond to another point you raise, in addition to what rishig said (which I agree with):

> you say "the medium correspondingly encourages more multi-line, thoughtful posts". Writing more thoughtful messages and coming up with subject lines by definition requires more time... how can it not?

I think the key here is that you can write more multi-line, thoughtful posts, and they come through and sustain a real conversation much better than they do on Slack or IRC. But when that's not what's called for, you can also write super-quick short messages too.

For example, a few months ago the Zulip developers gathered in one place for a week to hack together. We had a stream (~channel) for the event, and one frequent topic in it was "schedule". A lot of the messages there were like "@all dinner's ready" -- dashed off on a phone, notifying everyone in the group, so a lot like sending to a WhatsApp group.

But other messages on the same topic were things like the next day's schedule or some detailed logistics, sent from a laptop with a real keyboard. It was helpful to have those details in the same thread as context above the quick right-now updates.

Other topics contained a variety of side discussions, some consisting of quick short messages ("found an X, who lost it?"), others detailed and thoughtful. A lot of those would have been lost in the noise in a Slack channel or a WhatsApp group, or would have added noise to make the other conversations hard to follow, or both.

And it was extremely helpful that all of the above was in the same system that we use all the time for in-depth technical discussion and other collaboration.


The list of topics is too long to scroll through. For example, under general on zulip.org. A better UI would be if it just showed a few that it thought you might be interested in, and had autocomplete-type search for others.

I agree that the "more topics" thing takes up too much vertical space after just one click to see deeper history.

We actually just had a discussion of it last week; the issue created from that is here: https://github.com/zulip/zulip/issues/10786


Am I the only one that just can’t stand the way zulip looks?

I really don’t understand it myself, since it looks more or less the same as other apps, but my instinctual reaction is still ‘yuck!’.


The first time I saw it I had the exact same reaction. Using it I encountered two things:

- The UI looks better the more streams you are subscribed to

- The UI just "works"

I'm still not sure if the UI works because it is not distracting me with good looks ;)


For me the most severe lacking feature of Zulip vs Slack is that you cannot mark messages as unread.

New to Zulip. So is it sponsored by Dropbox now after acquisition of Zulip Inc.?

On the bottom of the page, it reads:

  Tim Abbott is the lead developer of the Zulip open source
  project. He previously was CTO of Ksplice and then Zulip
  Inc. (before it was acquired by Dropbox).

Yikes, we haven't updated my blog bio in a while. Fixed to remove the confusing reference to Dropbox (which no longer has any formal involvement in Zulip); http://zulipchat.com/history has further context for anyone curious.

As far as I know Dropbox has no connection to Zulip now. Zulip was initially started as a company, which was acquired by Dropbox several years ago. Dropbox open sourced the code, and Tim (one of the Zulip cofounders) later left Dropbox to focus on running Zulip as an open source project.

The acquisition happened 5+ years ago.

Here’s an Techcrunch article from Mar 17, 2014 [1].

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/17/dropbox-acquires-zulip-a-s...


We are heavy Slack users. We tried Zulip. No one in the team liked the ergonomics of Zulip and how difficult it was to integrate. Just for threaded discussions we felt the switch was not worth it. It didn't stick and we stayed in Slack.

Might want to look at https://twist.com/home

It seems a bit like a slakey zulip to me, though I haven’t had opportunity to use it yet.


No self hosted option :(

As someone who follows technology closely, I find it a bit frustrating that chat is making such little progress, and that for our communication we've essentially moved from federated email to silo-based chat solutions (which is hardly a feature), and lock-in that comes with these. How is "IT" going to save the world if we get stuck like this as a profession? I suspect one problem is that at universities there is no credit to be earned from coming up with a chat protocol that can serve us the coming decades, and hence we're stuck with solutions from corporations and their inherent problems ...

But of course that's not to say that there is anything wrong with the quality of the product being promoted here.


For what it's worth, Zulip is one of a few projects to support federated chat. From the linked document:

"Zulip now has an IRC bridge powered by matrix.org"


Yes, they probably support email as well, that's not the point.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

(not saying this is the case here, just that it shouldn't be a concern)


We looked at it, wanted to like it, but for self-hosted there were problems with app notifications, something that plagues most self-hosted hipchat replacements (except for xmpp).

When did you look? https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/production/mobile-pus... has been available for over a year, so self-hosted has the same notifications experience as Zulip Cloud.

It relies on Zulip's central notification service, so not entirely self-hosted.

At the bottom of that link[1] you can find instructions on how to send notifications directly from your server, but it involves recompiling the apps (which is hardly Zulip's fault).

[1] https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/production/mobile-pus...


Yes, this was covered under our evaluation, I appreciate it's not your fault.

For what it's worth Zulip was at the top of our list when we evaluated hipchat replacements. Happy to look at it again if you ever will have direct notifications.


What zingmars wanted to say is that it's not possible to have "self hosted" notifications without recompiling the Android and ios Apps.

If anyone has tried G Suite Chat, it looks like they've added "threads" at some recent point but the UX has some ways to go.

I also recommend RocketChat

https://rocket.chat/



What is your affiliation with RocketChat?

Rocketchat or Zulip? Did somebody try maybe both?

I did. Also mattermost and matrix. Few years ago. Ended up with matrix instance. But it really depends on specific scale and usecase.

From what i remember - Rocketchat was based on meteor, which seemed dying at the time + it was computing hungry and clients were especially hungry. - Mattermost worked for a time but you were not able to get mobile notifications without paying for license (not sure about now). Sounds suprising but it was just problem. - Zullip too many dependencies and complicated install.

Matrix is more of a standard than anything. The first server implementation is called Matrix Synapse written in python twisted. I had it running without issues on 512mb vps for 30 people org with SQLITE. When you need bigger scale Matrix has some go and rust server implementations, you can also use postgres etc.

I guess you should start with what scale you need and what features you need and go from there.


So the matrix guys created a new product/company called https://www.modular.im

It's basically hosted Slack-using-riotchat/matrix.

Very cheap too. Most of the other open source providers (incl Zulip and Mattermost) almost cost the same as slack.


> When you need bigger scale Matrix has some go and rust server implementations, you can also use postgres etc.

Only Synapse is usable though. Dendrite (Go+Kafka) is getting there, but Ruma (Rust) seems to have been stalled waiting for the programming language to stabilize.


This is true. Its been some time i really checked so i assumed that maybe Dendrite might be already somehow ready.

Sorry for incomplete info.


How well does the Hangouts integration work? I found it involved too many steps when using Hangouts in Slack

It's pretty simple: There's a button you can click at the bottom of the compose box that generates a new Hangouts video chat link; once oyu send your message, users can click the link to join.

> too many steps when using Hangouts in Slack

What are the steps involved? For us, it's "tap the phone icon in the top right".


Title is somehow linking to the blog instead of the actual product page (https://zulipchat.com).

Because it's an announcement of a new version. Not that hard to figure out.

I mistakenly assumed there wasn't a paid offering.

So it's becoming clear that the only revenue model going forward is open core model.


It looks like the paid edition of Zulip is the same as the open source version so it's not open core. Of course if Zulip becomes too popular then we may see AWS GroupChat followed by a license change...

AWS already has Chime. They don’t need anything else.

Zulip supports itself by selling hosting (at zulipchat.com) and support contracts for on-prem installations. Everything is a part of the open source project; no proprietary add-ons.

They have that?

Whaaat!? I who always thought irc was the on-prem Slack alternative. Its a pretty cool thing that recently got created (around 1988). Try it out! Will blow you mind straight out of the water tbh. There's even some public chat rooms you can hang around in.

IRC: No code-block formatting. Can't even receive messages when you're offline, out of the box. No message delete/edit. No built-in file hosting, must upload elsewhere and link it. No drag-and-drop. No real ergonomics in general. Way behind on community-building/-management features. Only particularly liked by the sort of person who considers tweaking their .conkyrc as a Friday well-spent.

I hang out on freenode every day. But I have higher expectations of chat in 2018 when it comes to what I would choose for an actual organization. So does everyone else.

IRC isn't blowing anyone's mind. Especially that first time they try to reply to someone but their message is never received because the other person closed their laptop.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: