Lync Alternative
-
We use Cisco Jabber. It's ok and has the the lock (away) feature that you are looking for. It also integrates with AD. It's Cisco so it has more management than the average business IM platform.
-
@IRJ said:
We use Cisco Jabber. It's ok and has the the lock (away) feature that you are looking for. It also integrates with AD. It's Cisco so it has more management than the average business IM platform.
And much more expensive too. I can't stand that Cisco hijacked the term Jabber and put it on a product that competes with real Jabber/XMPP. Very poor taste.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
We use Cisco Jabber. It's ok and has the the lock (away) feature that you are looking for. It also integrates with AD. It's Cisco so it has more management than the average business IM platform.
And much more expensive too. I can't stand that Cisco hijacked the term Jabber and put it on a product that competes with real Jabber/XMPP. Very poor taste.
It was free in our situation. I am not sure how or why, but that is the whole reason we went with it. We buy in on alot of Cisco hardware, phones, and services so it may have been included with something else.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Sparkum said:
Sorry guys,
My bad, actually looking for the client side software.
Spark is the client for Openfire. Though it's quite dated.
Or Pidgin.
-
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
-
I connect to our Jabber server using Pidgin because Pidgin is superior!
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Sparkum said:
Sorry guys,
My bad, actually looking for the client side software.
Spark is the client for Openfire. Though it's quite dated.
Or Pidgin.
Without modification clients like that are generally a no-no in a corporate environment. It allows the users to add any accounts.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Without modification clients like that are generally a no-no in a corporate environment. It allows the users to add any accounts.
If you want services blocked, block the service. Using a client to block the service isn't very effective, they can just use a web client to get around that. And I've done that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Without modification clients like that are generally a no-no in a corporate environment. It allows the users to add any accounts.
If you want services blocked, block the service. Using a client to block the service isn't very effective, they can just use a web client to get around that. And I've done that.
True but not all have web clients, and content filter's db of services aren't always up to date.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Real Jabber or Cisco Jabber?
That and I'm also curious as to why it's not very good, are we talking about client, server, the XMPP protocol, what?
The protocol is verbose as hell, but that's XML for you, and at one point AOL was even toying with the idea of switching to XMPP for AIM, but that was a long time ago. In general though it is cleverly designed, but implementations are all over the place, I still have the XMPP gateway to OSCAR I wrote like 14 years ago, it was deployed only briefly and was mostly abused by teenagers with too much stolen VB6 code and time on their hands.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Huh? almost all unified communications is based of of Jabber/XMPP and SIP.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Jabber is not very good. We have it here and I don't like it.
Huh? almost all unified communications is based of of Jabber/XMPP and SIP.
I think he means Cisco Jabber, not Jabber/XMPP. But I'm not sure.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Without modification clients like that are generally a no-no in a corporate environment. It allows the users to add any accounts.
If you want services blocked, block the service. Using a client to block the service isn't very effective, they can just use a web client to get around that. And I've done that.
True but not all have web clients, and content filter's db of services aren't always up to date.
Basically all have web clients. Those that don't users can run non-installed clients to talk on. Basically, using a client of that nature just isn't security. Sure, it makes it less obvious to talk on other services, but it doesn't stop it in any way. If you want to stop it there are better ways. If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
Is it? I'd say the same for making it inconvenient if the goal is to not have it. What you want are people not wasting time working around things. Make them not do it or make them efficient. Don't make them inefficient but able to do it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
Is it? I'd say the same for making it inconvenient if the goal is to not have it. What you want are people not wasting time working around things. Make them not do it or make them efficient. Don't make them inefficient but able to do it.
If that were true we would be doing whit list only for websites. Though why even block Adult content? They can get around it. That's the logic you are using.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
Is it? I'd say the same for making it inconvenient if the goal is to not have it. What you want are people not wasting time working around things. Make them not do it or make them efficient. Don't make them inefficient but able to do it.
If that were true we would be doing whit list only for websites. Though why even block Adult content? They can get around it. That's the logic you are using.
With smart phones I really don't know why people bother filtering content (aside from downloads, etc) anymore. Interestingly, we cannot block adult content here because we run a lot of adult content web sites, so yay porn at work (tbh, when it becomes a job, you become desensitised to it).
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
If that were true we would be doing whit list only for websites. Though why even block Adult content? They can get around it. That's the logic you are using.
No, that's blocked. That's what I'm saying you should do if your goal is to keep them from it.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If you aren't going to stop it, might as well make it convenient.
That's a bad practice.
Is it? I'd say the same for making it inconvenient if the goal is to not have it. What you want are people not wasting time working around things. Make them not do it or make them efficient. Don't make them inefficient but able to do it.
If that were true we would be doing whit list only for websites. Though why even block Adult content? They can get around it. That's the logic you are using.
With smart phones I really don't know why people bother filtering content (aside from downloads, etc) anymore. Interestingly, we cannot block adult content here because we run a lot of adult content web sites, so yay porn at work (tbh, when it becomes a job, you become desensitised to it).
This is something I've said before. Blocking stuff at work almost always serves to do nothing but make people inefficient. It doesn't make people work more, nor does it make them do their jobs better nor does it protect data leakage. It just makes people look at their phones all day.
