161–170 of 260 posts
It's kind of amusing to me how the pendulum has swung, and we're now producing OS X-only developer software. But then, I'm an oddball who works on Windows as my shell with the real work happening on a headless Linux box via SSH and Samba for 99% of my development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you resolve 'executable' files in your VM? I've not been able to run node apps because executables end up getting stored in /node_modules/, but if that is on a windows share, no executable flag is stored. Resolving the FS differences has always been the biggest pain for me using windows as the core OS.
Just put a samba server on the virtual machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a thought: I sort of agree with the fact that "pay to use git in a more advanced way" is a bit of a slap in the face to new users. For me, what I absolutely love about this is the quick view of changes in a commit. My usual workflow for this is 1. git log --oneline --graph 2. Copy commit hash to clipboard 3. git show or worse 3. git difftool ^ which is clunky as hell, and made worse that difftool operates on a s…
Thanks for the kind feedback! > So my suggestion is: remove ALL the modification features from the free version, release it as a separate app called "GitUp Viewer" or something, and then sell the version that is actually a git client. Hmmm... but wouldn't that be exactly the same problem of "slapping users in the face", except now with 2 apps? There aren't that many options to distribute desktop software: 1) freeware…
I work at an organization with a lot of developers who first learned to use git through SourceTree. As far as they are concerned, "what SourceTree can do" is the entirety of how git works. While this is probably not great overall, I do think it is the experience of a lot of newer git users or people who aren't used to a CLI.
I also work at an organization where it is difficult (mostly just annoying I guess) to get software purchased. What I am afraid of is a bunch of people learning to use git through GitUp, and when I ask them to rebase something, they say "I can't because I don't have the pro version." Or even worse, some organization saying "we won't buy this for our developers because the free version does everything we think they need to do."
IMO, responsibly managing a git repository requires using a wide variety of the tools that git provides. Creating a situation which artificially categorizes those features into "essential" and "advanced" is bad for people learning git, because they probably should be learning those advanced things sooner rather than later.
I guess my vote would be (4) paid with trial, falling back to "view mode only" at end of trial.
It's kind of amusing to me how the pendulum has swung, and we're now producing OS X-only developer software. But then, I'm an oddball who works on Windows as my shell with the real work happening on a headless Linux box via SSH and Samba for 99% of my development.
There's no market for this sort of thing on Windows. The vast majority of development that happens on Windows takes place in either Visual Studio or Eclipse, and those developers prefer tools that integrate with their IDE rather than be standalone.
I think there's definitely a decent market for this sort of thing - I've had plenty of conversations locally that end with "Wow, I'm so glad to get away from Visual Studio for this"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- "This will change your life as a developer" - "The Git interface you've been missing all your life has finally arrived." How can those possibly be factually correct brags? Edit: Looking in to swisspol's real world profile... I must admit he's achieved so much that he probably does have the right to brag, so this may all be a moot point anyway ;)
Hey, it's called promotion and marketing, don't read too much into it ;) And it's not far at all from what a number of GitUp users are saying themselves: https://twitter.com/GitUpApp/favorites .
http://profitseduction.com/are-you-afraid-to-make-a-bold-cla...
>>Requires Mac OS X 10.8 or later Apparently it is not the interface I have been missing... Having a Git tool not available for Linux is blasphemy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I was coming here to post that Git is already painless. It's a tool you are intimately using if you're doing anything other than Hello World projects with your team; it doesn't seem too much to ask to actually learn how it works. And once you know it's painless. Edit: I was thinking about it a bit more and it's actually one of the least painful tools I have ever used on a computer...
I don't think I'm in the minority of those that know how Git works and still find it one of the most painful tools out there. The interface should be designed with UX in mind, and Git's CLI wasn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 I was going to make a rather sarcastic comment that this is for "professional engineers", but is OS X only. Ubuntu on a VirtualBox on Windows for me.
How do you resolve 'executable' files in your VM? I've not been able to run node apps because executables end up getting stored in /node_modules/, but if that is on a windows share, no executable flag is stored. Resolving the FS differences has always been the biggest pain for me using windows as the core OS.
- SSH to linux box with node on it
- Edit files via Samba/CIFS from windows box
- Run node/iojs via nvm for the project on linux
- ???
- PROFIT!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is wrong for charging money for a product you spend time developing that people want to buy because it provides them value?
There's nothing wrong with charging money for a product. You can charge money for a product without it being proprietary software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could someone comment on the main complications on developing something like this for both Mac and Linux? From my point of view, they is so much common ground, comparing to a Mac/Windows support, that I'd strive for an application to cover both! And that's not something that you could always decide after launching the first time, you need to have it in consideration during design...
The GUI systems are utterly different, so, for a GUI tool like this, you'd have to write the front-end twice. I don't think OS X and Linux are especially closer to each other than either with Windows when you're in that department.