Live data from Hacker News

Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

movingfulcrum.com

121–130 of 251 posts

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#121
Sorry, Prashant, you lost track of the plot of the story somewhere along the way.

(creator of FogBugz, here)

FogBugz won and Jira won, but they were playing different games.

I wanted to make software development better for programmers. When I started creating Fog Creek Software in 2000 programmers were treated like typists. They were not paid very well (my starting salary was $33,000). There was almost no thought around how software should be developed. Companies that scored high on the Joel Test[1] were almost unheard of.

The LAST thing I wanted to do was make another tool of oppression for management to impose gantt charts and deadlines and strict rules about who has to sign off on things.

I set out to make software development better for programmers by blogging[2] and by building a company that would be a great place to work[3].

In 2000 the only way to do that was to bootstrap it. With a team of four people we couldn't build anything complicated. We started with bug tracking software because at least we could touch one aspect of programmers' lives with our philosophy.

FogBugz was designed for smaller collegial teams of people that wanted to work together effectively and needed a clean and simple way to track issues using the smart workflows that small, professional teams like to use.

It was remarkably successful and profitable from 2000 to today. We've never stopped working on improving it, but we also have never abandoned the market of small collegial teams of smart people.

By contrast, Jira was designed as "Enterprise Software" with features to help managers impose specific workflows on teams. Selling Enterprise software is a lovely, profitable business and Atlassian has great success selling to large organizations who ignore FogBugz, but it's the opposite of what I wanted to do. Anyway Atlassian is going public with this enterprise software, good for them, I'm sure they're going to enjoy their well-earned private jets.

But FogBugz was the means, not the ends, and at Fog Creek our ambition was not to be the world's greatest bug tracker software company, it was to fix things for developers. So we kept plugging away at other ideas. Some of them were kinda dumb. Some were moderate successes.

Two of them, Stack Overflow and Trello, were huge hits and spun off into separate companies. Stack Overflow, thanks to Jeff Atwood's inspired leadership, has had more impact on making software development better for programmers than any bug tracker ever will. Trello has grown as popular in three years as Jira grew in 15 years.[4]

Neither of them would have been possible if we didn't have the cash cow of steady FogBugz profits. That's what bootstrapping is, folks! You build one thing and use it to build a bigger thing.

In the meantime I think the world has figured out that programmers are writing the script for the future that everybody is going to live in, so conditions have gotten better. In big cities employers are falling over themselves to invent new ways to pamper and delight their programmer employees, with the massages and the sushis and the dog yoga. We programmers built ourselves hundreds of amazing tools, from github to npm to ci tools, build tools, IDEs, code refactorers, etc. etc. that make programming a million times better than it was in 2000, and bug tracking is just a slice of that pie and not a particularly important or interesting one.

But that said, FogBugz is still very popular and very profitable and thousands of teams use it every day, and we're still reinvesting those profits in making it better and in developing new products to make the world better for developers, and even though it doesn't support pointy-haired micro-managers and doesn't allow you to create a custom workflow requiring that a VP-or-higher sign off on bug reports, there are still small, collegial teams of smart developers who have figured out that this is how they want to work.

[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html

[2] http://joelonsoftware.com/

[3] http://www.fogcreek.com/

[4] https://goo.gl/hTXXPG

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#122
I don't think it was Wasabi so much as Windows. You didn't have to use Wasabi to write plugins for FogBugz, but you did have to use .net. The kind of people who read Joel's blog run on *nix, and probably have some Java in their stack; if you give them a .war that runs on Tomcat then they know what to do, and if they don't know then there are plenty of open-source tutorials. If you're giving them a .net product to deploy on a windows machine, not so much.

I think the final chapter is yet to be written though. Trello is a joy to use, much better than Jira. And AIUI it's on a much more developer-friendly stack.

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#123
post #32

Seems to me Atlassian "won" because they had a actual sales team not because of "technology".

They won because they allow managers to be in control and authoritarians. I've seen more than 2 managers who take over JIRA and lock down permissions and create custom workflows and all of them insist on having swim lanes and 5+ columns. So to move one little ticket across the board took 4+ drags. If you have a heavy-weight process where people are actually signing off on things, then yes it makes sense. But otherwis…

We were on Fogbugz for many years, but eventually left to Jira because the Agile workflow is absolutely horrid.

Micromanagers can screw anything up - you can invent some pretty insane workflows using the FogBugz workflow tool, if you want to :)

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#124
post #54

Couldn't disagree more on the integrated wiki point. Issue trackers with integrated documentation pages (wikis or otherwise) make it really straightforward to generate docs as a byproduct of working on tickets, or to resolve support requests by linking to the docs. Eventually you will want an external documentation tool, but Atlassian doesn't have one that's any good (Confluence is by far the worst wiki-like applicat…

Really? Have you tried using the Fogbugz wiki? I will take Confluence any day over that slow bloated POS.

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#125
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They set a project delivery date and you just have to hit it. Do you find that this really works out, in practice? Joel has argued[1] that the only schedule worth anything is the one set by the developers themselves. Management can set relative priorities (X is twice as important as Y), but trying to force a faster deadline on the developers is like trying to make your Linux box run faster by renice-ing every process…

absolutely in enterprise SaaS. beginning with Salesforce.com downwards you have vendors releasing on a fixed schedule. your valve is scope, but even that is fairly fixed as customers drive what needs to get released when (not "stupid" managers).

Frankly the valve is often quality. Quite often something ships on a date. That something is usually crap.

In order to get schedule to change, you'd have to convince salespeople to do something. They are generally the ones doing the convincing.

In order to get the features to change, you'd have to get a product manager to give up what they want to build "because of technical reasons". That doesn't happen often.

But if the product ships with the new features on the agreed upon date, the only people hurt are the developers and the customers. Most people in the business who pretend to care about the customer experience are perfectly happy to do this because it gives them a big club to wield over the engineering team in future iterations.

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#126
Did Fogbugz really 'lose'? It's not as if bug tracking systems are a winner-take all market with strong network externalities. Granted, it did not 'win as much' as JIRA, but that's not necessarily a loss. One of the cool things about many businesses is that they are positive sum games. Maybe FogBugz works better in some niches and still generates a nice living for the people who work on it.

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#127
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've used both, and I can only imagine your complaints about JIRA's UI are due to how it's been configured for your use. Exactly. There are some companies that go so overboard with Jira customizations that a single "create new issue" requires hitting page down three times to get to the end. And they arrive at that by adding a field here for the QA team, a field there for the Sales team... In the end, you get a mons…

Right and now think about who is going to control the JIRA install: the manager or VP or CTO. Fogbugz's interface prevents this kind of crazy customization and thus it acts as a defense against the craziness. For a custom workflow with Fogbugz you have to grab a plugin. To get my manager to install a plugin for JIRA took weeks (and I still never got access to the REST API or approval for one plugin months later). So…

Managers find a way. They will just use (or invent) another tool that lets them do it how they want. Now you have two tools, and some poor schmuck (or the developers) will get stuck with the job of keeping them in sync.

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#128
post #110
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They set a project delivery date and you just have to hit it. Do you find that this really works out, in practice? Joel has argued[1] that the only schedule worth anything is the one set by the developers themselves. Management can set relative priorities (X is twice as important as Y), but trying to force a faster deadline on the developers is like trying to make your Linux box run faster by renice-ing every process…

>> They set a project delivery date and you just have to hit it. > Do you find that this really works out, in practice? Of course it works. You just redefine the project (or parts of the project) as you go, shrinking (or occasionally growing) the scope. There's nothing wrong with a fixed delivery date, provided you can adjust scope and/or resources (to some extent) to compensate.

That is not my understanding of what most large companies do. Over and over I talk to people who have to deal with fixed dates and fixed scopes. The common outcomes seem to be:

1. Wait until the date is close. Redefine scope in a panic so that success can be declared.

2. Wait until the date has arrived or is past. Have rounds of tears and/or shouting; pick a new date and scope, often as illusory as the first.

3. When the date arrives, ship whatever terrible garbage you happen to have and declare victory. Spend the next N months "fixing bugs", which mostly means "finishing half finished features".

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#129

On the other hand, I wish bitbucket were more popular compared to github. It doesn't seem like they invest much into bitbucket, as some silly issues have persisted for years. Have they given up?

Nor true - we have been investing quite a lot on Bitbucket. Check out our most recent blog post: http://blog.bitbucket.org/2015/09/22/1-in-3-fortune-500-comp...

Re: Why Fogbugz lost to Jira

#130
Has anyone had experience with Redmine [1]? It's quite easy to use and extend via its plugin system, but I don't see many people who have encountered it in the wild.

I think its horrendous out-of-the-box look-and-feel detract heavily from its appeal. Nowadays I'd probably lean toward Gitlab, which seems to offer much of the same but appears much more modern.

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

Post reply on HN