[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch 2.0 survey followup
From: |
Talli Somekh |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch 2.0 survey followup |
Date: |
Mon, 1 May 2006 13:25:24 -0400 |
(snorts out of nose) Sorry, I find that difficult to believe
without the name of the company. (Looking *very* quickly over
Perforce's web page, it looks like ClearCase without dynamic views.)
fair enough. while i don't feel comfortable in betraying the name of
the company, i will say that they were on the earliest and remain the
largest adopters of FreeBSD for their entire system architecture,
which happens to be among the most trafficked in the world.
furthermore, PostgreSQL also considered gnu arch but passed because
of the lack of windows support.
I will agree that if Tom wants to use Arch 2.0 to feed his family,
then Windows support is critical.
I won't agree that Windows support is critical for GNU software.
there are so many GNU applications that are used in a windows
environments, let alone proprietary unices, that i'm not sure what
the target OS should be. that's not a criticism, only a comment has
changed a great deal from its quite focused technical roots.
i suppose this echoes Andy and Tom's comments.
Umm, sure, if that's what you think.
allow me to reveal that i'm not a hacker. i'm not even a manager.
more of a marketroid/saleperson. in my first-hand experience trying
to sell gnu arch, a baroque UI and lack of windows support were major
limitations. in my second hand experience hearing about competitions
in which gnu arch was a candidate for corporate or community
adoption, a baroque UI and poor windows support were major limitations.
if these were limitations that caused major degradations in
performance or functionality then they certainly should not be
candidates for inclusion in arch 2.0's feature set. instead, their
presence would be major bonuses that would set the application apart
from what is currently in the market.
at the same time, i do not advocate an unreasonable GUI or that the
system be written in C# and distributed with the entire .net
framework. that would be nuts.
From my experience in a rather large software development company,
my managers don't really care to use a version control system.
They are more interested in the integration of a version control
system and a software defect reporting/tracking system. They want
to be able to...
<snip>
Managers *don't* use version control themselves; the presence or
absence of a GUI really doesn't matter to them. They want to
manage their software development and that normally require control
over the process. They would find a GUI to manipulate those
controls to be useful.
yes, precisely. if you look back at the scenario that i wrote up, the
natural progression would be to ask what kind of features that each
constituent would want and how can they be built?
the reason that i mentioned developing the GUI in a web framework
like Ruby on Rails (which is not my idea but one created in concert
with others including Tom) is that the GUI could be a dashboard with
a view that can be defined by the particular user.
for instance, hackers may have an interface that allows them to check
in code, check out code, view diffs, etc. QA can see what snapshots
are ready to be tested and how the results of previous tests.
sysadmins can see the health of the system. and managers can have a
view along the lines of what you're talking about.
one example of what the GUI can become is Trac (http://
www.edgewall.com/trac/) which has become a very successful software
product. it has tight integration with SVN, a wiki and a bug/issue
tracker. of course, given the nature of their software stack it's a
centralized system.
It has also been my experience that any system relying upon a GUI
to get anything done is going to suck ass, unless the things being
done are rather simple. Version control can have complex moments.
right. CLI still takes precedence for complex tasks. my conception of
a GUI though is less about those requirements.
Of course, if you believe that Windows support is critical you
would (by necessity) believe that a GUI is critical.
yes, i suppose that is true.
talli