181–190 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just put a samba server on the virtual machine.
This would be my vote, too. Let the VM be the self-contained dev environment, with your desktop just being a thin client to get to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be my vote, too. Let the VM be the self-contained dev environment, with your desktop just being a thin client to get to it.
It seriously concerns me how many enterprises have this problem; clearly, devs want (need?) *nix boxes - why are we still being given Windows boxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to make an application closed source to have in app purchases. Look at mobaxterm [ http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/license.html ] It is licensed under GPL version 3. It has a free version and a professional version which cost $69 per user. This does not break the GPL. You may already know this but it seems like a lot of developers think open source mean Free as in cost. [ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sel…
Wait, so I just bought MobaXterm (it's awesome just wish the UI was cleaner and faster) - I can go hand out copies to anyone I wish, legally? I don't want to do that, cause I'd prefer they get more money, but it's neat to know. (I'll double check the license of course.)
I realize this is a pretty broad question, but what is it about Git that people find painful ? Could be Stockholm Syndrome on my part, but I have a pretty hard time understanding why someone can't spend a week getting up to speed with a tool they intend to use for years to come.
Because it may not be for enough years. I've used CVS, SVN, Git in less than 15 years. I still have clients on SVN because Git is too much to get to grips with.
> what is it about Git that people find painful?
Why is there no built-in 'tree' command? I am lost without my .gitconfig and the aliases I have set up to give me a visual view of the repository.
Also, the difference between HEAD^3 and HEAD~3. I have muscle memory to do what I need, but for more occasional tasks I am searching StackOverflow.
I haven't used other DVCS so I don't know if the pain points are Git, or they're the complexities that DVCS brings. I look forward to the next (r)evolution in source control, when I hope we have power but more human-friendliness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression Qt has been maintaining their Cocoa styling well. Has that changed? I haven't actually tested Qt software on OSX in about three years.
Even with the Cocoa styling, Qt based applications always seem to feel weird or out of place. Things like button placement, toolbars, things of that nature just don't "feel" right.
That said the most annoying thing about Macs is how much I'd love to be able to use one, even at their current price point they seem a good offer to me, - but after three years of trying to either adapt me or the Mac I have given up :-/
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…
When you download a free app, and then you discover that you need to pay for some features: That's a slap in the face.
When you download a trial of a paid app, and then you discover that you can get pretty far with the features of the free trial: That's a pleasant surprise.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having just (involuntarily) switched to a Mac at work, I can also attest to the fact that Mac users tend towards impulse buying software... The fact that I have to buy software to get proper window management and a good window switcher makes me furious. App-only switching makes no sense to me. I just want to pull up the last window I was looking at, I don't want to have to think about whether it was in the current ap…
>Most people in the office have spent $100 on software that just customizes the OS, not even considering the other dev tools that they purchase. What's your point? Most people have spent >$100 on going to a theater to watch movies, which is arguably a much worse way to spend money than improve your workflow. Windows has much worse window management than OS X, and so does Linux. Just because the info is there, doesn't…