101
Self hosted Teams alternative? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm looking for something that can do chat, video calling with support for guess links and chats. I need it to work in the browser so I can send people a link to a chat session. Bonus if it has a simple mobile app and calendar integration.

Anyone know of something that isn't Nextcloud Chat?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well if "it shouldn't take much", then it shouldn't be hard to find a solution, right?

I'm now wondering why you're here asking this question if you fully understand what you're asking about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It’s not hard. Just Teams but self-hosted. Free would be ideal.

    /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Right? I just want to self-host something like Google and all their services, but free. It also has to run on an AMD K6-2 with 1GB of DDR1 RAM and under 20GB for storage. Please don't ask me any questions, I know exactly what I'm doing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's actually not that hard. (Well it is, media and networking are hard, but)

    I think the problem is that when people search for something better than Teams (or any other software), they confuse "better than", with a mostly nonexistent "best". In doing so, they skip over the way every single thing people suggest is "good enough".

    Like, following this thread, we went from "I want a teams (voice/video/chat) alternative" to "Yeah I don't like Jami because it leaks metadata." How did we go from wanting a teams alternative, to wanting privacy with no metadata leakage? Those are very different things, and you make tradeoffs if you take one set of feature over the other. If you just add "no metadata leakage" on top of your current wishes, then you are probably going to be disatisfied with every option given.

    Or "Firewalls and hole punching!" (implying a p2p architecture) and "depends on peers being reliable" (being frustrated with the pitfalls of a p2p architecture). Again, wtf? Of course there is software that is both p2p and client server, but that is hard and tradeoffs will end up being made, even purely in what the developer spends their limited time on.

    This person just needs to get out of their head, whip up deployments for every software (or suite if there is more than one) mentioned in the thread, and pick the one that looks the nicest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent