Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#241

Post by ironmagma » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

Beltalowda wrote: post #224

ironmagma wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It implies a major problem in their org is/was pesky developers working on things that weren't assigned. Why weren't those things assigned? Bad PMs who don't care about the pain developers feel? Not enough developer freedom? The fact that the roadmap is completely disconnected from what's actually important for the business/developers? It's a product for developers; the developers should know better than anyone what…

"Work on what you think is important" is a fantastic policy with the right people, especially if your developers are also users of the product. Where it falls down is when the team grows and the "not right people" get added to the team. I've seen developers work on just completely the wrong stuff, and their entire salaries was 100% pissed away, or in some cases, even more than 100% because they added net-negative val…

Yeah so in other words, this just says they're bad at hiring the right people. Which I'd contend is a red flag...

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#242

Post by KronisLV » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

dingleberry420 wrote: post #166

jdmg94 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been making software for almost 10 years and password manager/notifications/responsiveness is not dependent on the platform that's why we have web standards.

You clearly haven't been paying attention, then. It's easy to spend decades making crappy software.

> It's easy to spend decades making crappy software.

But here's the important question: are the problems that are caused by ignoring the aforementioned differences enough to prevent people from being able to use your software? Or, conversely, are they enough to weigh more heavily than the functionality that you provide for your users?

Because somehow even Electron based software is pretty popular in the desktop, oftentimes looking and feeling rather different from most of the native software. But apart from nitpicks and rightfully complaining about those annoying inconsistencies, does it really matter enough to spend resources towards fixing them?

I can't think of that many inconsistencies that caused web applications to be unusable across different platforms altogether, apart from IE not supporting certain JavaScript functionality back in the day and non-transpiled (to say, ES5) codebases breaking altogether. But look and feel related things have hardly been as important.

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#243

Post by wildmanx » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

Diggsey wrote: post #66

jchw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Gitlab is a web platform. It's pretty easy to test how it's going to work on different platforms without needing full machines. Heck, you can even just get Microsoft Edge binaries on macOS and Linux if you want to test Edge. But failing that, VMs are pretty sufficient.

Tell that to the FE devs who add `overflow: scroll` everywhere and don't spot the problem...

A solution is to have somebody in each FE team with a "that's what the masses use" device. Screen-wise, CPU-wise, RAM-wise, network b/w wise. And let them use it as a primary dev device.

Doesn't sound sexy, no. Compensate them royaly. And make clear that they are superstars just by having this work environment. Then keep listening to what annoys them with whatever you are building, and let them fix it.

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#244

Post by Xylakant » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

jupp0r wrote: post #193

Xylakant wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub for example does have desktop apps that allow using GitHub for less CLI-inclined folks. This allows integrating people that are not primarily developers into your GitHub-based workflows with less hassle, and fosters collaboration across those boundaries. Git for windows is also notoriously different when it comes to edge cases, so in Gitlabs place I‘d be absolutely happy to have developers that use that OS as…

It’s somewhat rare for developers to be willing to do that though.

Absolutely, that’s why I believe you shouldn’t put up more obstacles than absolutely necessary if someone would pick windows.

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#245

Post by Beltalowda » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

ironmagma wrote: post #241

Beltalowda wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Work on what you think is important" is a fantastic policy with the right people, especially if your developers are also users of the product. Where it falls down is when the team grows and the "not right people" get added to the team. I've seen developers work on just completely the wrong stuff, and their entire salaries was 100% pissed away, or in some cases, even more than 100% because they added net-negative val…

Yeah so in other words, this just says they're bad at hiring the right people. Which I'd contend is a red flag...

Unfortunately I've never worked anywhere that wasn't bad at hiring the right people beyond quite small companies. In principle however, I agree.

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#246

Post by Wowfunhappy » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

Diggsey wrote: post #66

jchw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Gitlab is a web platform. It's pretty easy to test how it's going to work on different platforms without needing full machines. Heck, you can even just get Microsoft Edge binaries on macOS and Linux if you want to test Edge. But failing that, VMs are pretty sufficient.

Tell that to the FE devs who add `overflow: scroll` everywhere and don't spot the problem...

What's especially nuts about this to me is that macOS supports static scrollbars! System Preferences → General → Show Scroll Bars → Always.

Or, leave the default settings in place, but plug in a mouse with a physical scroll wheel.

So it's not even that they're only using one platform, but they're only testing the platform with default settings with the default hardware. And we're not even talking about an obscure setting buried three levels deep, it's right there in the general pane!

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#247

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

wyldberry wrote: post #213

Xylakant wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow the link to the model in their page, it selects the default version with Windows 11 PRO. You can explicitly choose Ubuntu, but it‘s not the default. My point here is „acquiring the license for a windows based laptop is a non-issue if you‘re willing to spend the 70USD it costs.“.

The problem is generally less the individual pro license and the associated enterprise licensing costs that come with managing said device in Azure AD/InTune.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#248

Post by Jcampuzano2 » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

azangru wrote: post #194

Diggsey wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the FE devs who add `overflow: scroll` everywhere and don't spot the problem...

This can be fixed by toggling a single MacOS setting to make the scrollbars always visible so that FE devs can feel the pain they are causing to their non-Mac using customers. Can be included into onboarding process. No need for a real windows machine just on that account.

This is one of the first things I always turn on with a new Mac. And I always encourage everyone on my teams to turn this on because otherwise it goes completely unnoticed until we get that huge surge of issues and product being angry because Windows users complain about it.

But I also place the blame on design teams. Most design teams I've worked with also doesn't account for this in anything they create. They usually only design for: 1: the latest macbook pro; and 2: the latest iPhone.

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#249

Post by mmis1000 » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #128

Diggsey wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the FE devs who add `overflow: scroll` everywhere and don't spot the problem...

God yes, I hate how all FEs have tunnel vision on MacOS nowadays. Our sign-up flow had godawful scrollbars both horizontally and vertically for the longest time but they didn't notice because they're all on retina display Macbooks instead of what the bulk of our users will be using.

Macos do have a option to always show scrollbar. And I think this is a pre-requirement to enable that if you ever care about what your user may actually see as a FE.

Besides that, there isn't actually obvious different between firefox/chrome/edge on macos/windows.

The most problematic one is actually safari(which is on mac only). If you dev on chrome and use on firefox or vise versus. You usually get a "mostly work with minor visual different". But safari… will give you a fail and are't even usable. It is outright the modern age ie.

Re: Microsoft Windows is prohibited at Gitlab

#250

Post by celdon25 » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

awinder wrote: post #184

celdon25 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Due to Microsoft Windows' dominance in desktop operating systems, Windows is the platform most targetted by spyware, viruses, and ransomware. That may be true, but a much higher proportion of downloaded Mac software lacks code signing. Opting in to that as a developer on the Mac will carry a lot of risk of kafkaesque deactivation and, and most don’t want to deal with that. On Windows, on the other hand, it’s like g…

I can’t remember the last time I allowed an unsigned app to run on Mac, I can’t even think of examples recently where I’ve gone “oh **, this thing is unsigned?!”. I’d love examples of high quality apps without a basic codesigned certificate, maybe we have a disagreement over the term “quality”. “App Store apps are garbage” is also kinda rich, it’s not windows, the Mac App Store is the go-to source for distributing Ma…

> I’d love examples of high quality apps without a basic codesigned certificate, maybe we have a disagreement over the term “quality”.

We're not talking AAA rated, but Kdiff3 and Zenmap should qualify.

> the Mac App Store is the go-to source for distributing Mac apps at this point.

I wouldn't say the verdict is in yet.

https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/09/setapp-mac-developer-survey-r...

> There’s some examples of popular apps not on the MAS but they grow fewer by the year.

Well, yeah, the success stories have the budgets to handle compliance issues, and to manage risk appropriately. Apple will also be more lenient with large publishers for a number of reasons. I wasn't talking about popular apps, I was talking about apps that make me productive. Things made for power users. Popular isn't a concern there. But if BigCo doesn't allow me to install it, that's a dealbreaker for me working there. Experienced that in 2010 when working for a Fortune 50. One approved text editor, one approved browser. The productivity apps I use are not on the app store. They are signed, but chances are that a locked down Mac will require App Store installations only, while a Microsoft configuration would be more optimal.

For the record, I DO prefer a Mac for productivity. But when it comes to security, Microsoft wins. Or even better, Linux (though Microsoft is giving it a run for its money with W11)