211–220 of 251 posts
Also Atlassian products are multi platform. Whereas fogbugz is windows only for the server side. That is a deal breaker for many.Additionally unlike Fogbugz Atlassian products are DB agnostic.
Huh? We've been running Fogbugz on a Debian server with a MySQL database for years and years. Fog Creek may encourage Windows now but it still runs on Linux just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may have arrived at this view now, but it isn't believable that you never saw them as direct competition with you. For example http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/07/20.html makes it clear that you were adding features so that people wouldn't have to switch to "THE AUSTRALIANS". Which is a pretty clear reference to Atlassian.
The whole quote you're referring to: FogBugz 7.0 will include a long list of simple improvements that will make life dramatically easier for people trying to get things done, especially when they want to do things just a wee bit differently than we do here in the Land of the Fog. Every little feature will be a delight for somebody, especially that person who keeps emailing us because he can't believe that the feature…
It could be argued that Trello will eventually be larger than either of these products, so I don't think the story has been completely told. I've used Jira as a manager in both a large and a small installation and hated it both times. It feels like 90s bug tracking system with huge forms and intractable workflows. With that said, Spolsky (although I think a lot of his writing is fantastic) rarely addresses his mistak…
http://help.fogcreek.com/fogbugz-release-notes
And now just recently there was a little bit of activity, like that they now offer a VM of some kind with the new version. But I think we can't use that because it is the expensive, unlimited user license and they must install it somehow and plugins would still be gone, which we depend on.
And for all of this there is little to no communication.
The stop of "Kiln for your Server" was also done extremely quitely.
But in the end, accountability is the reason why you're being paid that salary, not knowledge of framework APIs or algorithms.
Embrace that responsibility and process, don't fight it.
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 dep…
>"The kind of people who read Joel's blog run on nix, and probably have some Java in their stack"* I'm afraid you're really off-base there. Spolsky is a MS alumni and his core followers have always been people living in the MS ecosystem. The forums he kept for a while were overwhelmingly populated by people talking of VB and then .NET. StackOverflow was clearly dominated by .Net questions for the first few years. His…
What do you mean by core followers? You underestimate his influence.
I haven't worked in the MS ecosystem in my 15 year career across six companies. I've regularly seen his book around and his writing is referenced from time to time. I'd go so far to say some of those environments I've worked in and some of the people championing his work have been somewhat anti-microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every JIRA product has it's own special markup. I can never remember how to write code into comments or titles. It literally changes from product to product and yet all of the products orchestrate together so that if you do happen to use Stash, JIRA, Wiki, etc all together, then you encounter as many different markup languages as there are Atlassian products. It really is hellish. I hope there's some good reason why…
So far as I can tell, they did have one common markup syntax for all applications... but then Confluence users wanted a WYSIWYG mode, so Confluence now uses an XML-based format internally, and Stash is a Git tool and 90% of the Git ecosystem loves Markdown, so Stash had to use it too...
Markdown embraces HTML, and so a WYSIWYG mode based around HTML is compatible with Markdown.
Markdown's weaknesses for table design, image insertion, and complex layouts is all handled by HTML and WYSIWYG tools that edit that directly.
That would have solved the Git scenario, and the Confluence scenario, whilst having a single highly predictable markup across all of their platforms.
The problem really stems not from these problems being addressed per product as if they existed independently of all other products. But that's a terrible approach, as few people buy just Confluence without JIRA or Stash, people buy Atlassian because a consistent suite should work better than many myriad tools that don't quite know how to interop. Atlassian's strength is the consistent and integrated approach, so the UX should be focused on strengthening that.
2. Profit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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)." OK someone has to call bullshit on this. I started as a lowly software engineer straight out of school at the same time. I started at 70K (east cost, not NY). You lost me right at the beginning there and any desire I might have had to go through your wall of text e…
OK someone has to call bullshit on this. I started as a lowly software engineer straight out of school at the same time. I started at 70K ... Joel started Fog Creek in 2000, but began programming professionally much earlier than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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)." OK someone has to call bullshit on this. I started as a lowly software engineer straight out of school at the same time. I started at 70K (east cost, not NY). You lost me right at the beginning there and any desire I might have had to go through your wall of text e…
It's fairly sad that the "script for the future" is (partly) being written by people who consider a mere 665 words a "wall of text" that is OK to comment on, but apparently too long to read.