The more stars my personal GitHub repos have, the more likely the project was something I cranked out over a weekend to scratch an itch, and then more or less abandoned because it was good enough -- maybe even perfect for that specific itch?
Good software knows when to stop
31–40 of 304 posts
Re: Good software knows when to stop
#32Re: Good software knows when to stop
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if VC funding is a good thing. Good software is made by individual people, nonprofits, or privately-owned entities.
VC funding gets you paid, which is a good thing. Not getting paid is less good.
VC funding gets you enslaved. There's no such thing as free money.
Re: Good software knows when to stop
#34Link this to the Spotify product developers
Re: Good software knows when to stop
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Needs for actual survival and functionality do not out weigh needs for product manager promotions anymore.
The destructive forces (fire clearing deadwood) of the economy have been artificially suppressed for a long time. Most companies are zombie companies now. The US is an entire zombie economic zone.
That's what happens when you have nearly a decade of ZIRP & QE.
Money printer go brrrr.
Re: Good software knows when to stop
#36[deleted]
Re: Good software knows when to stop
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if VC funding is a good thing. Good software is made by individual people, nonprofits, or privately-owned entities.
VC funding gets you paid, which is a good thing. Not getting paid is less good.
But more and more, as a user, VC funding is a pretty good sign that either the product is shit or later will become shit.
Which is great because it means whenever I can I should go with the underdogs and SMBs.
Re: Good software knows when to stop
#38Link this to the Spotify product developers
Good example. Spotify today is noticeably worse.
Re: Good software knows when to stop
#39Definitely that, a finite scope is good and finished software is beautiful. But also, most of the modern software is in what I call "eternal beta". The assumption that your users always have an internet connection creates a perverse incentive structure where "you can always ship an update", and in most cases there's one singular stream of updates so new features (that no one asked for btw) and bug fixes can't be deco…
I moved to Obsidian after Evernote increased their subscription prices beyond the point I could justify and I think Obsidian is heading down the same path Evernote did. They keep adding more and more features to it when I wish they would call it complete and move it into maintenance mode.
For me, the turning point for Obsidian was their Canvas feature. That was a big move beyond the initial design of it being an excellent editor for a directory or markdown files that supported links and all the other cool things you can do with a basic directory of files and a few conventions. Nothing proprietary, nothing much beyond the directory of files aside from a preferences store. IMHO, Canvas and beyond should have been a new product.
If Obsidian was open source I would have been tempted to fork it at that point.
Re: Good software knows when to stop
#40> Ignore feature requests — don't build what users ask for; understand the underlying problem instead not quite in the same area, but this advice reminds me of blizzard and world of warcraft. for years and years, people requested a "classic" WoW (for non-players, the classic version is an almost bug-for-bug copy of the original 2004-2005 version of the game). for years and years, the reply from blizzard was "you thin…
This reminds me of Origin Systems and Ultima Online. The number of player-run shards over the years promising Classic UO gameplay and the number of player hours spent on them is enormous.