zlacker

>>isodev+(OP)
Thankfully nothing like this is in Jitsi Meet’s TOS: https://jitsi.org/meet-jit-si-terms-of-service/

It never ceases to amaze me how companies choose the worst software!

>>_ddzr+6c
How does Jitsi handle 500-person+ conference calls these days? This is the killer zoom feature - it looks like Jitsi can handle up to 500 now. https://jaas.8x8.vc/#/comparison .

That's personally not enough for many remote companies. So if we're going to have to have Zoom on our machines anyway (to handle an all-company meeting), why not just use it for the rest?

>>ebiest+hh
Are 500-person conference calls actually productive? Surely the number of speakers in any such meeting will be a small percentage of listeners?

>>donalh+pj
It's useful.

It's more of a large-scale broadcast situation. Think of large corporate town halls, town council meetings, etc.

>>CorpOv+Uj
You can just have a conference call with the 5-10 speakers and use broadcasting software to stream it to the audience, why do they need to be in the conference?

>>Gasp0d+ol
Live Q&A is a nice feature.

>>pclmul+qm
Conference for the speakers + unlisted livestream on YouTube could handle that, using chat for Q&A.

>>dotnet+jn
Chat lags for 5-120 seconds depending on livestream settings, writing is much slower than speaking, does not always convey the question as well as sound, and is close to impossible to do on the go.

>>yeputo+Pp
They allow substantially less than 5. Tho trying is indeed slower for most people.