> There has been a lot of discussion about which video chat software to use
instead of proprietary ones
Indeed, because contrary to proprietary ones they are not fed on us by huge
marketing resources, so we need to share and spread the information about
their mere existence, but also about their individual details and about our
own experience with them. That does not mean that all existing groups of
people on the planet and elsewhere who have decided on a given available tool
now suddenly have a compulsory injunction to switch to free alternatives. We
need to talk about them if we wish to be able to use them one day. If no one
talks about them on this forum, then where?
And yes, all networking tools have powerful network effects, hence the
necessity to carefully examine them before adoption.
> Even when a group does agree to switch to a new platform, the unity is
never recovered. There are always outliers who remain on the old medium. This
is a problem regardless of software license.
True. People massively "migrated" from Mumble to Grumble (or whatever)
without asking minority members for their opinion. And before that from
you-name-it messaging app to you-name-the-next-one, most often both
proprietary. This is common to all platform migration, not specific to
proprietary-to-libre switching, and I agree this can come accross as an
annoying pattern of tech evolution. Maybe that's where federated porotcols
will help most.
I sometimes feel that the current all-out push for online-only
admininistration has a similar taste of letting people out of the way for the
sake of some majority preference.
