221–230 of 320 posts
Atlassian is cutting jobs because no new sane company wants to use their products. Confluence was once innovative but now has gone stale. Jira is a nightmare and is most ripe for the AI based replacement. Bitbucket is a neglected product that has lost ground to GitHub and GitLab. The writing has been on the wall for Atlassian for years.
I see. So AI is reducing the number of jobs in the tech sector because fewer people are needed to ship stuff (thanks to AI). And since fewer people are needed across the tech sector then we don't need things like Jira anymore because it can all be done on post-its or Google sheets or something, so there's no need for Atlassian accounts anymore. And Atlassian can now do more with less thanks to AI. I can't wait for At…
Agile itself is predicated on software being difficult to ship/expensive. It might not make sense to continue (waterfall might be better actually) The real problem is that company decisions will never be made as fast as software can be written (and rewritten) now.
Software is still "difficult to ship/expensive". Code is very cheap now. Any kind of non-slop software is still expensive.
You'd think they could just use AI to make Jira not take 5 seconds to create a ticket. Linear does it instantly. Just use AI to create a SPA version.
I see. So AI is reducing the number of jobs in the tech sector because fewer people are needed to ship stuff (thanks to AI). And since fewer people are needed across the tech sector then we don't need things like Jira anymore because it can all be done on post-its or Google sheets or something, so there's no need for Atlassian accounts anymore. And Atlassian can now do more with less thanks to AI. I can't wait for At…
I think these companies should be pivoting to something where tasks/issues are the places you write the prompts for the AI, or augment the prompts that devs use. It's a big shift though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Layoffs because of AI make no sense to me. That's because these layoffs aren't about AI. They're about firms that overhired and Wall St is (finally) having a sobering moment of their (profit) growth potential.
This line has been repeated ad nauseum for years at this point. How long does a "sobering moment" last? Two years? Five? Ten?
On a more serious note, at this rate, probably 10 years. I guess it's similar to drinking. You can get drunk in 10 minutes and be hung over for much longer than that.
It turns out that org charts are VERY resistant to letting people go, even when the executives push very hard.
Where are the most popular alternatives to Jira?
Atlassian is cutting jobs because no new sane company wants to use their products. Confluence was once innovative but now has gone stale. Jira is a nightmare and is most ripe for the AI based replacement. Bitbucket is a neglected product that has lost ground to GitHub and GitLab. The writing has been on the wall for Atlassian for years.
i agree that their products are quite stale, but a lot of that is cuz they're so deeply entrenched in enterprise workflows in a way that's incredibly hard to displace. switching costs for jira alone across a large org are brutal. could an AI native competitor eventually eat their lunch? sure. but "no new sane company wants to use their products" is a stretch when their customer count is literally still growing double…
source?
I don't get the atlassian backlash on HN JIRA is just fine, gets the job done. Its not slow like the on-prem. Jira cloud version is fine.
The cloud version I used was slow and riddled with bugs. Entire views sometimes just refused to load or render, or something.
Did it "get the job done?" Yes, in a literal reading of those words, I suppose it did, but anyone who understands the amount of work that a modern 2.4 GHz CPU should be able to do per unit time would not think highly of it.
Nowadays … my company uses Linear … which, while it does have a sleeker, more modern looking UI … is nobody able to make a good bug tracker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Agile itself is predicated on software being difficult to ship/expensive. No, the opposite; it is predicated on software being cheap and easy to ship, but hard to correctly anticipate the needs for. > It might not make sense to continue (waterfall might be better actually) Waterfall, not agile, is predicated on software being difficult to ship/expensive.
Imagine doing AI development in waterfall. You spend weeks writing your prompt, when you think you have it perfect, only then do you submit it to the AI. Then you wait a week or so, and see what it produced, expecting it to be exactly what you wrote. Or, do you tell it the basic functionality you want, test it out, then add feature after feature that you want, sometimes dropping them and sometimes adding new ones tha…
the problem with this is long term maintainability. it works - and the engineer understands how it works - but a) the AI does not prioritize cleanup/organization/naming, and b) there's a blind spot/boiling frog type of phenomenon that can prevent the engineer from spotting the growing problem. the codebase becomes recognizable only to them. the engineer sees all features working, all bugs fixed, 90% test coverage, and submits it for a PR.
the engineer tasked with reviewing the PR will treat it as slop.
Is there a site that can be used to track which companies have done layoffs thus far because of AI-adjacent reasons?
We don't really know, if the layoffs are because of AI.
https://www.thelayoff.com/ - This site is a discussion forum, some fake information before the actual layoffs.