This is very opinionated. Jira is a massive mess that can be strangled into doing practically anything. Projects are clear enough for small organisations and teams. This isn't obvious to me. Who's...
Their two major non-enterprise ships in the past five years have been: Projects (2022), which I would describe as a solid iterative improvement on GitHub Issues that is still strictly worse than Linear and Jira
This is very opinionated. Jira is a massive mess that can be strangled into doing practically anything. Projects are clear enough for small organisations and teams.
I’m not well equipped to prognosticate here: all I know is that this is not the tool of the future, and whoever replaces GitHub will have a narrative arc of incumbency displacement that will feel obvious and trite in retrospect.
This isn't obvious to me. Who's to say whether there will be a better tool or interface? Many unix utilities have been fundamentally unchanged for decades because They Just Work™ which keeps users happy. There are already plenty of different tools and interfaces for version control.
Even projects that are technically done get reimplemented in rust, for example. But comparing something like cp with GitHub doesn't really work. One is maintained by the community for the...
Many unix utilities have been fundamentally unchanged for decades because They Just Work™ which keeps users happy.
Even projects that are technically done get reimplemented in rust, for example.
But comparing something like cp with GitHub doesn't really work. One is maintained by the community for the community and the other is maintained by a business worth hundreds of billions for profit. I don't have anything to back this up, but I feel like large corporations can never stop iterating and adding/removing features.
The community has no significant incentive to change things just to change them. People within corporations have to have something to show for all their work, and "I made sure the thing that...
The community has no significant incentive to change things just to change them. People within corporations have to have something to show for all their work, and "I made sure the thing that worked last year kept working without any fuss." doesn't get anyone a raise.
The author talks about two things. Core functionality and innovation. As far as core functionality goes, there are already good alternatives out there ranching from established (gitlab) to newer...
The author talks about two things. Core functionality and innovation. As far as core functionality goes, there are already good alternatives out there ranching from established (gitlab) to newer alternatives like Forgejo (which is used by code berg). Both offer a very solid core experience, Forgejo even more so as it actually focusses on the core.
As far as innovation goes, if it looks like that psychedelic trip of a landing page Pierre has, I'll have to pass. I think part of the issue with Github is "innovation". Which has led from it being a very solid git forge with good core functionality to a bloated monstrosity. One with too many POs trying to cram in more functionality just to have their teams meet certain innovation metrics.
When it comes to core functionality, I feel like people forget about more primitive options. Both cgit and git web are more than reasonable for solo devs who just need a remote repository...
When it comes to core functionality, I feel like people forget about more primitive options. Both cgit and git web are more than reasonable for solo devs who just need a remote repository (technically just git with no web interface is fine, but that's a whole new level of simplification). I fall into the category of people who don't need a git forge, just a git host. I used Sourcehut for a long time, but I started having access issues (I couldn't pull changes from digitalocean droplets for some reason) so I set up extra remotes with GitLab. Now GitLab feels way over-featured for what I need, and most of the features recommended by other solutions feel the same to me.
I know that many teams and organizations actually use the CI/CD offerings and everything else that goes with them, but I do miss seeing less heavyweight options come up. Maybe it's because basic git servers are a "solved" problem, but I do find it interesting that every few years a new forge pops up that mostly forks an existing one for philosophical reasons (Forgejo is a fork of Gitea, which is a fork of Gogs) while I don't see the same happening with cgit, git web, and similar options.
I am honestly not sure why you would. It is a YC funded startup so it will most likely go down the route of enshitification at some point. The fact that their landing page is just... well......
I do not like their website but I am trying to overcome my initial reaction.
I am honestly not sure why you would. It is a YC funded startup so it will most likely go down the route of enshitification at some point. The fact that their landing page is just... well... special and not at all indicative of what the product is makes it an even worse sell.
holy cow their website is awful. i’m surprised by the presentation (negatively). if you didn’t already know what the website was for, there’s no way of understanding just from the landing page.
holy cow their website is awful. i’m surprised by the presentation (negatively). if you didn’t already know what the website was for, there’s no way of understanding just from the landing page.
This is very opinionated. Jira is a massive mess that can be strangled into doing practically anything. Projects are clear enough for small organisations and teams.
This isn't obvious to me. Who's to say whether there will be a better tool or interface? Many unix utilities have been fundamentally unchanged for decades because They Just Work™ which keeps users happy. There are already plenty of different tools and interfaces for version control.
Even projects that are technically done get reimplemented in rust, for example.
But comparing something like
cpwith GitHub doesn't really work. One is maintained by the community for the community and the other is maintained by a business worth hundreds of billions for profit. I don't have anything to back this up, but I feel like large corporations can never stop iterating and adding/removing features.The community has no significant incentive to change things just to change them. People within corporations have to have something to show for all their work, and "I made sure the thing that worked last year kept working without any fuss." doesn't get anyone a raise.
The author talks about two things. Core functionality and innovation. As far as core functionality goes, there are already good alternatives out there ranching from established (gitlab) to newer alternatives like Forgejo (which is used by code berg). Both offer a very solid core experience, Forgejo even more so as it actually focusses on the core.
As far as innovation goes, if it looks like that psychedelic trip of a landing page Pierre has, I'll have to pass. I think part of the issue with Github is "innovation". Which has led from it being a very solid git forge with good core functionality to a bloated monstrosity. One with too many POs trying to cram in more functionality just to have their teams meet certain innovation metrics.
When it comes to core functionality, I feel like people forget about more primitive options. Both cgit and git web are more than reasonable for solo devs who just need a remote repository (technically just git with no web interface is fine, but that's a whole new level of simplification). I fall into the category of people who don't need a git forge, just a git host. I used Sourcehut for a long time, but I started having access issues (I couldn't pull changes from digitalocean droplets for some reason) so I set up extra remotes with GitLab. Now GitLab feels way over-featured for what I need, and most of the features recommended by other solutions feel the same to me.
I know that many teams and organizations actually use the CI/CD offerings and everything else that goes with them, but I do miss seeing less heavyweight options come up. Maybe it's because basic git servers are a "solved" problem, but I do find it interesting that every few years a new forge pops up that mostly forks an existing one for philosophical reasons (Forgejo is a fork of Gitea, which is a fork of Gogs) while I don't see the same happening with cgit, git web, and similar options.
Has anyone used Pierre that can explain why I should be interested? I do not like their website but I am trying to overcome my initial reaction.
I am honestly not sure why you would. It is a YC funded startup so it will most likely go down the route of enshitification at some point. The fact that their landing page is just... well... special and not at all indicative of what the product is makes it an even worse sell.
It's also named after the one Stardew Valley character I hate, so that's hard no from me altogether. No, really.
It seems like people keep talking about it like it is a good thing, even though from looking at it I find it hard to believe.
holy cow their website is awful. i’m surprised by the presentation (negatively). if you didn’t already know what the website was for, there’s no way of understanding just from the landing page.