591–600 of 680 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the model is simple and intuitive I nearly spat out my drink. Git is many things but those aren't the first two words that would leap into my head.
Git model is simple. What is complex is the hundred features and commands it provides on top of that model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also Fork: https://git-fork.com/
I'm really curious - why do people want a graphical git client? The command line exposes everything, and the model is simple and intuitive. I work in a very large monorepo, so it's not like I'm working in a git tree that isn't complicated.
I'm a big fan of the way JetBrains sells their licenses. Like a lot of software companies nowadays, they only sell licenses on a subscription basis. But with a very customer-friendly clause of where if you pay for a subscription for 12 months you get a perpetual license for the latest version of the product when you initially subscribed. And then after paying for any particular version of a product for 12 months, you…
True; that's the only subscription model I find acceptable for software that hardly changes in meaningful ways. For example, I refuse to upgrade Git Tower to version 3 as a protest against fournova's new licensing. Up to that point, I was a loyal customer and product advocate, basically buying every upgrade anyway, but by my own choice. Instead, I'll be on version 2 "forever", despite all its flaws. It was even worse…
We want to make sure that Tower can stay a high-quality application in the long run. This means we want to constantly improve the application, add new features, fix bugs, and help users with great customer support. To be able to do that, we need a steady and reliable source of income. The thruth is: for us - a small, self-funded business - a recurring revenue model from a subscription is the only sustainable way to survive.
A model where the user gets to keep the last version after she stops paying for the product does not work for a small business. If you have a team of 1,000 employees like JetBrains, you might be be able to afford this. But not a 7-person team like ours. For two reasons:
(1) First, it doesn't provide the steady and reliable source of income that we depend on. It's the old one-time payment model of the past - which we tried and which did not pay the bills for us in the long term.
(2) Second, and maybe more importantly: very quickly, there are lots of different old versions of the product out there. People want bugfixes, documentation and support for their version, no matter if they're currently paying or if they don't anymore. With a 7-person team, we simply cannot do this. We need to focus all of our painfully limited time on _one_ version and make sure to improve that one.
Most of our users make a simple calculation: "Can Tower help me or my team save some time or prevent some mistakes?" Over the course of the next 12 (!) months, even 1 or 2 hours or a mere handful of mistakes would make this worthwhile. If so, Tower has _easily_ paid itself off.
We offer a free and fully-featured 30-day trial that will help you answer this question for yourself - without any risks or commitments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Git model is simple. What is complex is the hundred features and commands it provides on top of that model.
Thats exactly wHat GUIs are good for. Make infrequenlty used features and options accessible.
I'm also genuinely surprised that people use GUI for git. For merge I understand, but for all other tasks cmdline is easier and faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also a big of of their products, and pay for a persnal subscription for Rider, ReSharper, DotMemory, DotTrace and DotCover. Rider is absolutely stuffed with features, and is way more stable and performant than Visual Studio. I also like the way your renewal gets cheaper every year, as a kind of loyalty bonus. I honestly had no idea they were making so much revenue - very pleased to see it though!
does Rider have Edit and Continue now? That's the one selling point that keeps me on Visual Studio.
I always found the Edit and Continue function in Visual Studio to be flakey: often it would say it wasn't "allowed" with the type of project I was using, or it took minutes to apply changes when it did work, or it crashed while applying changes... Rider got Edit and Continue 1-2 years ago (I think), and it's been completely reliable in that time!
I agree with many of the other posters: JetBrains has succeeded because their products are generally awesome, and I am a happy personal subscriber. People should especially remember what the Java IDE landscape looked like when they first came out with IntelliJ: using IntelliJ after using NetBeans or Eclipse was like using Google for the first time after being familiar with AltaVista - it was just a night and day bett…
I'm an outsider fan. I've attempted to use IntelliJ on multiple occasions, but it just can't really compete with Eclipse as far as my requirements are concerned. But the competition from and innovation in IntelliJ has no doubt made Eclipse better (and modern Eclipse is kind of awesome and just keeps getting better).
Before that, for doing vanilla maven + Java projects Eclipse was awesome and generally running circles around intellij in terms of performance, which is still something that is off by order of magnitudes in Intellij and something I miss a lot.
Intellij users are always surprised when I bring that up and say it is fine on their machine. And then I point out that 5-20 seconds to run a unit test after a 1 letter code change is obscenely slow compared to Eclipse because it finishes incremental compilation a few ms after you lift your finger and is ready to run your test. Intellij attempted to integrate the Eclipse incremental compiler but it is not used by default and generally not that well integrated. Their compilation strategy depends on a lot of caching, which is hard and frequently gets in an inconsistent state (i.e. your IDE lies to you about things compiling or not compiling), which is why people routinely rebuild their whole project, or worse invalidate caches and restart (a top level menu option because it needs to be).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True; that's the only subscription model I find acceptable for software that hardly changes in meaningful ways. For example, I refuse to upgrade Git Tower to version 3 as a protest against fournova's new licensing. Up to that point, I was a loyal customer and product advocate, basically buying every upgrade anyway, but by my own choice. Instead, I'll be on version 2 "forever", despite all its flaws. It was even worse…
I also switched from Tower when they introduced subscription pricing. My current git setup: - Git Fork for committing, pushing - P4 Merge for resolving conflicts (it's not a pretty app, but the fantastic feature set more than makes up for the non-native look) - GitUp for reordering, editing and splitting commits - Command line for the rare things the GUIs can't do None of those cost money and I don't understand how t…
I think that because it seems they founded a company "Fork" which inevitable will need to make money eventually.
edit: I'm of course willing to pay some bucks for great software if it's a fair pricing model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You get the latest version you subbed to. So if you subbed last in 2018, you get that version. If resubbing j. 2019, the 2019 version. Also every year the price goes down, so you pay less and less.
That's misleading. Each year has multiple point releases. You don't get the latest point release. My PHPStorm subscription expires in less than a week. In order to continue using it (without re-subbing), I have to downgrade from 2019.3 (current release) to 2018.3 (the release available on the date I subbed). Software that is one year old. Similarly, the JetBrains site says my WebStorm subscription expires in around 1…
Rather, I thing it is right thing to do - to pay some recurring cost for the software we use and to let the developers of that software to make their buck.
We are too accustomed to get everything for free at the expense of someone else.