71–80 of 132 posts
1. It's fast. All interactions are instant.
2. It looks great from top to details.
3. It's quite complex. The information architecture is confusing.
Ultimately we decided to go back to GitHub Issues because we spent too much time on clicking and finding things. Hope they fix the UI hierarchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not as simple as that. ‘Talking’ doesn’t create a reference where you can see what’s been done yet, and of course people leave teams or get sick etc. so there are many reasons to want to see what was and wasn’t completed.
On a small enough scale, 'talking' does work. So do post-its etc. If kotlin2 sticks to those small enough scales, they can indulge their preferences. Bigger organisations have more and more need for structure.
so question if someone from Linear is reading these, which I assume they are: The site says shortcuts for everything. That's nice. But one of my biggest gripes is accidental actions with no indication on what you just did. If I have the app open in one window and don't realize I have focus and just start typing will it just start doing actions? Is there a way to disable these? Clickup does this to me a lot and its su…
I have been programming web for nearly 15 years. I, too, have issues with needless complexity, but I also dislike how (many) senior folks want to pretend that simple HTML/CSS is all it takes to build anything and all the coders using modern stack are stupid enough to ignore that.
I get the appeal of ticketing, I really do. But ultimately, it's a form of control. ICs can't be trusted to figure out what to do on their own, and can't be bothered to talk their team for guidance. And management needs dashboards to track progress. I get it. But I don't want to work on a team where such things are necessary.
OK, we are firmware developers who use JIRA in a very advanced way with our clients, and we gave it a go and I just came back here to give the team some feedback because no doubt they are watching this very closely. The killer missing feature for us is that we can't define different issue types. For example, we would typically have issue types like "Requirement", "Bug", "Signal", etc. with different icons and use chi…
1. The reason everyone hates Jira is because, over time, it has essentially become all things to all people, yet it doesn't solve the needs of any individual group perfectly. It actually has a huge, ginormous feature set, and part of the difficulty is figuring which settings or set of features are right for your team.
2. The reason Jira has become so difficult to replace is because nearly every team of moderate complexity uses some subset of features that aren't replicated in any other tool.
So, to the point, I hope that Linear doesn't implement your requested features (not exactly, but I just hope they are extremely judicious in which features they add). Or, rather, I'd just point out that Jira got to be the way it is because they basically implemented all the features. I think a good competitor will necessarily have to hit that sweet spot where they have 98% of the most critical features (especially startups/new companies), but will ruthlessly not add features that will lead to bloat and complexity.
This is extremely convenient for us as our issues are often discussion threads. I’ve rarely seen this mirrored in other ticketing systems. But then with 1 IT person (Hi), we are not quite the normal customer of such systems.
[0] DoneDone V1, which has an atrocious search function and questionable email notifications, can’t remember what our issue was with their current version V2 https://www.donedone.com/