13 ms·

Growth is great, but I've never met a single dev that is excited to use their tools. Management loves their app because they can spit out numbers, and don't ca

by jmcqk6 9y ago

Growth is great, but I've never met a single dev that is excited to use their tools. Management loves their app because they can spit out numbers, and don't care how good or meaningful those number are. Jira is a painful to use, especially compared to trello. They own trello now, so I hope they don't mess it up.

the_common_man 9y ago
Jira and trello were built for different use cases.
- athenot 9y ago
  Trello will probably be assimilated into Jira's answer to GitHub projects.
mathattack 9y ago
I’ve heard Jira described by developers as “the worst except for everything else out there.” Its put in with reluctance rather than enthusiasm.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  That is the correct answer And to be honest, it's a process tool. Dealing with processes is boring. Jira is better than bugzilla and trac. And much better than some tools, constructed from manure, from big IT companies and sold for very high price tags.
  - hinkley 9y ago
    After years of using Jira I kinda miss Trac. It's sad to me that they lost momentum. I think they got stuck trying to overcome tech debt and bug fixes and feature requests started to pile up. From time to time I keep an eye on CommonMark implementations and fantasize about writing an MVP to replicate parts of Trac by composing existing tools. Unfortunately there are like 5 other things I'd rather do with my free time.
    - Game_Ender 9y ago
      Check out Phabricator, it’s written in php, but it has that nice integrated suite feel that Trac had. It also gets a lot of use including at Facebook.
- Steeeve 9y ago
  That's actually a fantastic description of Jira.
- subpixel 9y ago
  I've heard Confluence described as "Satan's wiki", and my experience with Jira is very similar.
logicuce 9y ago
I feel Jira is actually a workflow management system disguised as a ticketing system. It is a complex product and their pricing is shit expensive but I haven't come across anything more powerful. IMHO If you are a small startup and can be self disciplined, you don't need Jira. It is more for enterprise setup where accountability/responsibility has to be generally enforced.
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  >a workflow management system I think this is some kind of natural law: any sufficiently old enterprise system tends towards becoming an ad-hoc, bug-ridden, poorly specified workflow engine.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  It's only "good for enterprises" insofar as management gets a boner over the reports it issues and the level of detail it lets you drill down to. Those reports are not generally being used to make sensible decisions, but they make management feel more in the know and in control and thats what really drives sales.
PhilipA 9y ago
Not to mention their UX is horrendous. You never hear people wanting to copy their UX. With the size of their company they should be able to produce better.
- braderhart 9y ago
  That's what happens when you build things in Java.
  - oblio 9y ago
    What does that have to do with anything?
    - braderhart 9y ago
      Just about every web-based Java project I've came across carries a certain persona of UX being terrible to navigate, slow to use and all around a negative experience once you try something that just works. Jenkins comes to mind, Jira of course, and just about any other Java project's website still looks like it is from the 90s.
      - oblio 9y ago
        Maybe that's because they actually are from the 90's? Well, not 90's, but early 00's. And they target the enterprise market. Also, all the big internet companies use Java, basically. You're using Google, Amazon, Twitter, Netflix, etc. products and you're using Java. Do you also hate those? :) Furthermore, Java is mostly server side at this point so I'm not sure your UI complaint is really valid...
        kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
        The problem isn't Java per se but that the UI code becomes fossilized and nobody wants to put in the effort to update it. The same issue happened with Perl and now (to a lesser extent) Rails sites.
sz4kerto 9y ago
> Jira is a painful to use, especially compared to trello. If you're using JIRA for stuff that Trello works for, then sure. What JIRA does and does exceptionally well: grows with your organisation. You can start using JIRA for a simple ticketing system with 3 devs, then continue using it through 100x growth and still use it with multiple product teams, multiple development teams, overlapping projects, CI, code review, wikis, reporting tools, and so on. If you think that all these tools and sophistication is bullshit, then that's a different conversation -- but a non-negligible number of smart people think that these integrations worth a lot. JIRA is like Excel or Word -- 80% of people use only 20% of the functionality (or less), but it's a different 20% for all of them. And it's really-really painful to realize that Trello/GH Issues/etc. works great with a slick UI, except that it can't do that single stuff you'd really need because of your special situation.
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  >If you think that all these tools and sophistication is bullshit, then that's a different conversation -- but a non-negligible number of smart people think that these integrations worth a lot. If you can point me towards someplace visible that is using these tools well, I'm more than happy to be wrong. Every time I've seen them used, they're more like rorschach number generators for management, so I have naturally assumed that my experiences are the normal. That is, of course, a fallacy, so if you can point me to such a paragon of use, I'll be more than happy to check it out.
  - sz4kerto 9y ago
    You seem to be talking about JIRA reports. JIRA != Trello + fancy reports. The strength of JIRA is that if your company suddenly needs a different development flow (whatever it is -- new tooling, new workflow, more teams, awkward regulatory requirements etc.) then you can stay with JIRA because whatever you want to do will be possible with JIRA. (Uh, I sound like an Atlassian shill, even though I dislike the lagginess of their UI and also how they handle Bitbucket. :) )
    - ravitation 9y ago
rdtsc 9y ago
> Growth is great, but I've never met a single dev that is excited to use their tools. I've seen one dev excited - the one who tested other tools and picked Jira because it checked off on all the "features" needed. It really did handle the arcane and complicated workflow we had. But besides that few liked it, though it was a mix of hating the slow and unresponsive UI and hating the arcane process.
- gxs 9y ago
  I think this post speaks to a lot of the issues I see not just with JIRA, but with enterprise tools in general. Instead of adopting a sound process, customers will take an overly complicated business process and make the tool conform to this process. And please note that in this cases how you manage your code workflow is, in fact, the business process. Any tool will struggle - often it's the process that's cumbersome and not the tools.
  - switchbak 9y ago
    My main gripe with Atlassian products is the execution - the ideas behind the products are usually sound, it's just pretty clunky to use. For me, I'd love to have a flexible-enough tool for small to medium sized orgs that encourages a modern lightweight process and discourages ad-hoc process sillyness. Sometimes having a tool gently encourage better practices among all participants is a useful thing.
- qudat 9y ago
  I wouldn't hate JIRA so much if it wasn't for the terrible UX. Literally every action I do there's a loading spinner.
  - mivanchev 9y ago
    I think I'm traumatized by the Ajax spinners in Jira. It was just TOO MUCH.
tootie 9y ago
I love JIRA from a tech leadership perspective. It's very adaptable to different situations even if configuration isn't straightforward. Once you have a good workflow, it's great for devs and managers. The value for managers really should not be understated here. It's great for devs to have a simple ticket management system to help the flow of work, but being able to show measurable progress against priorities to management is absolutely to everyone's benefit.
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  >The value for managers really should not be understated here. Can you expand on that? I've never seen a manager use it well. They use it to generate numbers for their reports for the people they report to, and it doesn't tend to matter what those numbers or reports actually represent. For example, it's very easy for process to make velocity numbers complete hogwash. Basically, as far as I can tell, it's great and being able to tell you what you want to hear, and not very good at providing usable insights that increases productivity, but people don't notice because they're hearing what they want to hear.
  - hux_ 9y ago
    Now do a little thought experiment - what do you think they would be reporting if Jira or whatever else did not exist.
  - tootie 9y ago
    Well, once you're in that situation, you've already lost. Scrum is worthless if you haven't set he appropriate expectations with stakeholders at the outset. If you get them to understand definitions of Ready and Done as well as quality-first approach and being flexible on scope, then the backlog gives them all the information they need to understand what is being worked on and when. I've seen it done correctly a few times and I've even seen behemoth organizations get behind it and get a ton of value out of it. For my money, the #1 benefit to scrum is improved visibility to stakeholders and any productivity gains to the dev are the result of them being able to work on things in the correct priority order due mainly to benefit #1.
  - 9y ago
j45 9y ago
As much as I'm a hesitant user of JIRA, there is little out there that can grow with the complexity of a project and organization like it has. Other tools, fogbugz, trello, etc are very good at what they do. Invariably though when you get enough projects that are complex enough (not always big), JIRA has been the only thing that could take a bite out of managing the details like few others. JIRA also can be greatly simplified to use but most users don't do this. The JIRA core offering is what I recommend to folks. JIRA is heavier for dealing with heavier projects. On the flip side. Having a search engine of every issue and decision, be it design, system, implementation, roll out ticket for every project in a company is second to none. I recently assisted a client in their systems design and growth from from 0 to 50m revenue in 4 years. It feels strange and wondeful to have every decision made in one searchable place, on one time line for every major piece of software or system implemented for them.
- braderhart 9y ago
  The features you are talking about, like having a search engine, are in just about every product that could exist in this arena. Have you used GitLab and GitHub before for issue and project tracking? What about Phabricator?
  - j45 9y ago
    Complex projects, complete with their integrated support, roadmapping, sprint management invariably have a few order magnitude higher level of complexity and management. There are few tools that truly do the above well, or bearably competently. Most start from scratch projects can be nicely managed in Trello et al. Generic search alone isn't the feature, or the benefit. None of those options listed have a deep enough search. GitLab and GitHub aren't a project manager - projects that are manageable in Git* likely aren't complex, or enterprise grade. I have tried nearly every product in this arena as well over 20 yrs of dev in different types and sizes of projects. JIRA begrudgingly is my neccesary evil. I hear nice things about Pivotal Tracker as well, just didn't reach my sphere of folks when I was looking.
- klenwell 9y ago
  > It feels strange and wondeful to have every decision made in one searchable place, on one time line for every major piece of software or system implemented for them. I can see the appeal of that. That is a killer feature for me. My team currently runs what I find to be a pretty lean and clean workflow using Trello, Github (for source control and issues), and Wikimedia for documentation. (Oh, and can't forget Outlook for release scheduling.) Having all of that in one place would make life easier. On the other hand, not having a monolithic service handling everything has forced us to pay attention to our workflows and practices and keep them sharp. But the team is small. If we grew or had to manage more projects across multiple teams, this would be really valuable.
braderhart 9y ago
Especially compared to GitLab and Phabricator, which both offer open source versions that are way better IMO all around.
SonicSoul 9y ago
Have you tried managing 1000 tickets in Trello? Jira also offers decent API so you can streamline it a bit. Although I’ve gotten used to their cloud ui where it’s pretty easy to manage. I do wish response was faster though
mkobit 9y ago
I can understand why management would want to choose Atlassian. * The idea of the "Atlassian Ecosystem", in that buying more of their services seems to work better. * On-premise for most of their tools * Pricing. For example, Bitbucket Server - $26,400 for 500-1000 users /year [1]. GitHub Enterprise - $2,500 per 10 users / year [2]. Self-hosted GitLab - $39 or $199 per user / year (Starter compared to Enterprise Edition Premium package) [3]. If at a 1000 users, that is $26,400 compared to $250,000 or $39,000/$200,000. * "Other big companies use them" * "Reporting and metrics" * "There is a plugin for that" But, I and most of the other developers I have worked with hate every single Atlassian product we use. JIRA eventually turns into a micromanagement tool with all of the customization people think they want. People seem to think that because it is customizable, it will solve their problems. It always seems to take up more time and resources to try and bend their tools to do anything useful than it is to just say, "well, I guess we don't really need that". [1]: https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/bitbucket-server https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/bitbucket-server [2]: https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing [3]: https://about.gitlab.com/products/ https://about.gitlab.com/products/
- gsylvie 9y ago
  Bitbucket Server is only $26,400 for the 1st year in your scenario. The 2nd and subsequent years are $13,200/year.
- seanjregan 9y ago
  GitHub Enterprise Cloud . $21U/M Bitbucket Cloud Premium $5 U/M https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=host-in-the-cloud https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=host-in-the-cloud https://github.com/pricing https://github.com/pricing
taude 9y ago
I hear this a lot, but I'd love to hear what people prefer better. Also, I don't get the argument that JIRA is difficult to use. I can open a bug, fill out a few fields, assign it to someone, etc. easy peasy. Almost all the other tools I hear as substitutes are decent only when you have a few devs on the team. Personally, I don't mind JIRA and the Atlassian toolset as they are so much better than what we used to use in the old days.
TsomArp 9y ago
Have to totally agree with you. I don't see what people see on them.
lbartlett 9y ago
I feel like JIRA was just a configurable workflow tool at a time when all the processes around software development were still being defined/standardized. It worked well for it's era because people could get it to do whatever they felt was perfect fit for them, but overtime I feel like it's broken down for much the same reason that people prefer to buy a SaaS product that has 95% of their needs out of the box. Processes (agile) and UIs (kanban) have been much more standardized in software project management and only now does it seem like some companies are coming up to give you that 90% out of the book with 10% the overhead/ management. Pivotal Tracker came close.. Clubhouse.io is the one I've seen doing it best.
- jacques_chester 9y ago
  Pivotal Tracker has been around for a fair while now; it's usually compared to JIRA. They have quite different DNA. Tracker grew out of Pivotal Labs and it is mostly molded to how Labs and R&D teams do their daily and weekly work. To me it seemed constricted and limited until I came to work at Pivotal; now it makes sense.
- chrisco255 9y ago
  I've used Pivotal Tracker and I think it's great for small teams, but I can not see a big company with 500+ users using it. JIRA is better for ticket tracking, issue linking, cloning, reporting, integration with Bitbucket/Github branches, user permissions, build system integrations, burndown charts, analytics, media services support, and not to mention the ecosystem around JIRA is just huge. Disclosure: I'm an Atlassian employee, but I had these opinions before I started.
stephenhuey 9y ago
I know many devs who prefer JIRA over TFS.
mgkimsal 9y ago
> Jira is a painful to use, especially compared to trello Have never been able to use trello effectively with any clients. It's simply too open-ended on its own. "Issue trackers" (like Jira) have some semblance of workflow predefined, and act as a decent guide for people who are not "project managers" to still bring some degree of order/structure, with the benefit that that structure was actually defined by someone else who thought about data/structure/flow/etc.

by jmcqk6 9y ago

the_common_man 9y ago

Jira and trello were built for different use cases.

athenot 9y ago
Trello will probably be assimilated into Jira's answer to GitHub projects.

mathattack 9y ago

I’ve heard Jira described by developers as “the worst except for everything else out there.” Its put in with reluctance rather than enthusiasm.

raverbashing 9y ago
That is the correct answer And to be honest, it's a process tool. Dealing with processes is boring. Jira is better than bugzilla and trac. And much better than some tools, constructed from manure, from big IT companies and sold for very high price tags.
- hinkley 9y ago
  After years of using Jira I kinda miss Trac. It's sad to me that they lost momentum. I think they got stuck trying to overcome tech debt and bug fixes and feature requests started to pile up. From time to time I keep an eye on CommonMark implementations and fantasize about writing an MVP to replicate parts of Trac by composing existing tools. Unfortunately there are like 5 other things I'd rather do with my free time.
  - Game_Ender 9y ago
    Check out Phabricator, it’s written in php, but it has that nice integrated suite feel that Trac had. It also gets a lot of use including at Facebook.
Steeeve 9y ago
That's actually a fantastic description of Jira.
subpixel 9y ago
I've heard Confluence described as "Satan's wiki", and my experience with Jira is very similar.

logicuce 9y ago

I feel Jira is actually a workflow management system disguised as a ticketing system. It is a complex product and their pricing is shit expensive but I haven't come across anything more powerful. IMHO If you are a small startup and can be self disciplined, you don't need Jira. It is more for enterprise setup where accountability/responsibility has to be generally enforced.

jmcqk6 9y ago
>a workflow management system I think this is some kind of natural law: any sufficiently old enterprise system tends towards becoming an ad-hoc, bug-ridden, poorly specified workflow engine.
crdoconnor 9y ago
It's only "good for enterprises" insofar as management gets a boner over the reports it issues and the level of detail it lets you drill down to. Those reports are not generally being used to make sensible decisions, but they make management feel more in the know and in control and thats what really drives sales.

PhilipA 9y ago

Not to mention their UX is horrendous. You never hear people wanting to copy their UX. With the size of their company they should be able to produce better.

braderhart 9y ago
That's what happens when you build things in Java.
- oblio 9y ago
  What does that have to do with anything?
  - braderhart 9y ago
    Just about every web-based Java project I've came across carries a certain persona of UX being terrible to navigate, slow to use and all around a negative experience once you try something that just works. Jenkins comes to mind, Jira of course, and just about any other Java project's website still looks like it is from the 90s.
    - oblio 9y ago
      Maybe that's because they actually are from the 90's? Well, not 90's, but early 00's. And they target the enterprise market. Also, all the big internet companies use Java, basically. You're using Google, Amazon, Twitter, Netflix, etc. products and you're using Java. Do you also hate those? :) Furthermore, Java is mostly server side at this point so I'm not sure your UI complaint is really valid...
      - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
        The problem isn't Java per se but that the UI code becomes fossilized and nobody wants to put in the effort to update it. The same issue happened with Perl and now (to a lesser extent) Rails sites.

sz4kerto 9y ago

> Jira is a painful to use, especially compared to trello. If you're using JIRA for stuff that Trello works for, then sure. What JIRA does and does exceptionally well: grows with your organisation. You can start using JIRA for a simple ticketing system with 3 devs, then continue using it through 100x growth and still use it with multiple product teams, multiple development teams, overlapping projects, CI, code review, wikis, reporting tools, and so on. If you think that all these tools and sophistication is bullshit, then that's a different conversation -- but a non-negligible number of smart people think that these integrations worth a lot. JIRA is like Excel or Word -- 80% of people use only 20% of the functionality (or less), but it's a different 20% for all of them. And it's really-really painful to realize that Trello/GH Issues/etc. works great with a slick UI, except that it can't do that single stuff you'd really need because of your special situation.

jmcqk6 9y ago
>If you think that all these tools and sophistication is bullshit, then that's a different conversation -- but a non-negligible number of smart people think that these integrations worth a lot. If you can point me towards someplace visible that is using these tools well, I'm more than happy to be wrong. Every time I've seen them used, they're more like rorschach number generators for management, so I have naturally assumed that my experiences are the normal. That is, of course, a fallacy, so if you can point me to such a paragon of use, I'll be more than happy to check it out.
- sz4kerto 9y ago
  You seem to be talking about JIRA reports. JIRA != Trello + fancy reports. The strength of JIRA is that if your company suddenly needs a different development flow (whatever it is -- new tooling, new workflow, more teams, awkward regulatory requirements etc.) then you can stay with JIRA because whatever you want to do will be possible with JIRA. (Uh, I sound like an Atlassian shill, even though I dislike the lagginess of their UI and also how they handle Bitbucket. :) )
  - ravitation 9y ago

rdtsc 9y ago

> Growth is great, but I've never met a single dev that is excited to use their tools. I've seen one dev excited - the one who tested other tools and picked Jira because it checked off on all the "features" needed. It really did handle the arcane and complicated workflow we had. But besides that few liked it, though it was a mix of hating the slow and unresponsive UI and hating the arcane process.

gxs 9y ago
I think this post speaks to a lot of the issues I see not just with JIRA, but with enterprise tools in general. Instead of adopting a sound process, customers will take an overly complicated business process and make the tool conform to this process. And please note that in this cases how you manage your code workflow is, in fact, the business process. Any tool will struggle - often it's the process that's cumbersome and not the tools.
- switchbak 9y ago
  My main gripe with Atlassian products is the execution - the ideas behind the products are usually sound, it's just pretty clunky to use. For me, I'd love to have a flexible-enough tool for small to medium sized orgs that encourages a modern lightweight process and discourages ad-hoc process sillyness. Sometimes having a tool gently encourage better practices among all participants is a useful thing.
qudat 9y ago
I wouldn't hate JIRA so much if it wasn't for the terrible UX. Literally every action I do there's a loading spinner.
- mivanchev 9y ago
  I think I'm traumatized by the Ajax spinners in Jira. It was just TOO MUCH.

tootie 9y ago

I love JIRA from a tech leadership perspective. It's very adaptable to different situations even if configuration isn't straightforward. Once you have a good workflow, it's great for devs and managers. The value for managers really should not be understated here. It's great for devs to have a simple ticket management system to help the flow of work, but being able to show measurable progress against priorities to management is absolutely to everyone's benefit.

jmcqk6 9y ago
>The value for managers really should not be understated here. Can you expand on that? I've never seen a manager use it well. They use it to generate numbers for their reports for the people they report to, and it doesn't tend to matter what those numbers or reports actually represent. For example, it's very easy for process to make velocity numbers complete hogwash. Basically, as far as I can tell, it's great and being able to tell you what you want to hear, and not very good at providing usable insights that increases productivity, but people don't notice because they're hearing what they want to hear.
- hux_ 9y ago
  Now do a little thought experiment - what do you think they would be reporting if Jira or whatever else did not exist.
- tootie 9y ago
  Well, once you're in that situation, you've already lost. Scrum is worthless if you haven't set he appropriate expectations with stakeholders at the outset. If you get them to understand definitions of Ready and Done as well as quality-first approach and being flexible on scope, then the backlog gives them all the information they need to understand what is being worked on and when. I've seen it done correctly a few times and I've even seen behemoth organizations get behind it and get a ton of value out of it. For my money, the #1 benefit to scrum is improved visibility to stakeholders and any productivity gains to the dev are the result of them being able to work on things in the correct priority order due mainly to benefit #1.
- 9y ago

j45 9y ago

As much as I'm a hesitant user of JIRA, there is little out there that can grow with the complexity of a project and organization like it has. Other tools, fogbugz, trello, etc are very good at what they do. Invariably though when you get enough projects that are complex enough (not always big), JIRA has been the only thing that could take a bite out of managing the details like few others. JIRA also can be greatly simplified to use but most users don't do this. The JIRA core offering is what I recommend to folks. JIRA is heavier for dealing with heavier projects. On the flip side. Having a search engine of every issue and decision, be it design, system, implementation, roll out ticket for every project in a company is second to none. I recently assisted a client in their systems design and growth from from 0 to 50m revenue in 4 years. It feels strange and wondeful to have every decision made in one searchable place, on one time line for every major piece of software or system implemented for them.

braderhart 9y ago
The features you are talking about, like having a search engine, are in just about every product that could exist in this arena. Have you used GitLab and GitHub before for issue and project tracking? What about Phabricator?
- j45 9y ago
  Complex projects, complete with their integrated support, roadmapping, sprint management invariably have a few order magnitude higher level of complexity and management. There are few tools that truly do the above well, or bearably competently. Most start from scratch projects can be nicely managed in Trello et al. Generic search alone isn't the feature, or the benefit. None of those options listed have a deep enough search. GitLab and GitHub aren't a project manager - projects that are manageable in Git* likely aren't complex, or enterprise grade. I have tried nearly every product in this arena as well over 20 yrs of dev in different types and sizes of projects. JIRA begrudgingly is my neccesary evil. I hear nice things about Pivotal Tracker as well, just didn't reach my sphere of folks when I was looking.
klenwell 9y ago
> It feels strange and wondeful to have every decision made in one searchable place, on one time line for every major piece of software or system implemented for them. I can see the appeal of that. That is a killer feature for me. My team currently runs what I find to be a pretty lean and clean workflow using Trello, Github (for source control and issues), and Wikimedia for documentation. (Oh, and can't forget Outlook for release scheduling.) Having all of that in one place would make life easier. On the other hand, not having a monolithic service handling everything has forced us to pay attention to our workflows and practices and keep them sharp. But the team is small. If we grew or had to manage more projects across multiple teams, this would be really valuable.

braderhart 9y ago

Especially compared to GitLab and Phabricator, which both offer open source versions that are way better IMO all around.

SonicSoul 9y ago

Have you tried managing 1000 tickets in Trello? Jira also offers decent API so you can streamline it a bit. Although I’ve gotten used to their cloud ui where it’s pretty easy to manage. I do wish response was faster though

mkobit 9y ago

I can understand why management would want to choose Atlassian. * The idea of the "Atlassian Ecosystem", in that buying more of their services seems to work better. * On-premise for most of their tools * Pricing. For example, Bitbucket Server - $26,400 for 500-1000 users /year [1]. GitHub Enterprise - $2,500 per 10 users / year [2]. Self-hosted GitLab - $39 or $199 per user / year (Starter compared to Enterprise Edition Premium package) [3]. If at a 1000 users, that is $26,400 compared to $250,000 or $39,000/$200,000. * "Other big companies use them" * "Reporting and metrics" * "There is a plugin for that" But, I and most of the other developers I have worked with hate every single Atlassian product we use. JIRA eventually turns into a micromanagement tool with all of the customization people think they want. People seem to think that because it is customizable, it will solve their problems. It always seems to take up more time and resources to try and bend their tools to do anything useful than it is to just say, "well, I guess we don't really need that". [1]: https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/bitbucket-server https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/bitbucket-server [2]: https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing [3]: https://about.gitlab.com/products/ https://about.gitlab.com/products/

gsylvie 9y ago
Bitbucket Server is only $26,400 for the 1st year in your scenario. The 2nd and subsequent years are $13,200/year.
seanjregan 9y ago
GitHub Enterprise Cloud . $21U/M Bitbucket Cloud Premium $5 U/M https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=host-in-the-cloud https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=host-in-the-cloud https://github.com/pricing https://github.com/pricing

taude 9y ago

I hear this a lot, but I'd love to hear what people prefer better. Also, I don't get the argument that JIRA is difficult to use. I can open a bug, fill out a few fields, assign it to someone, etc. easy peasy. Almost all the other tools I hear as substitutes are decent only when you have a few devs on the team. Personally, I don't mind JIRA and the Atlassian toolset as they are so much better than what we used to use in the old days.

TsomArp 9y ago

Have to totally agree with you. I don't see what people see on them.

lbartlett 9y ago

I feel like JIRA was just a configurable workflow tool at a time when all the processes around software development were still being defined/standardized. It worked well for it's era because people could get it to do whatever they felt was perfect fit for them, but overtime I feel like it's broken down for much the same reason that people prefer to buy a SaaS product that has 95% of their needs out of the box. Processes (agile) and UIs (kanban) have been much more standardized in software project management and only now does it seem like some companies are coming up to give you that 90% out of the book with 10% the overhead/ management. Pivotal Tracker came close.. Clubhouse.io is the one I've seen doing it best.

jacques_chester 9y ago
Pivotal Tracker has been around for a fair while now; it's usually compared to JIRA. They have quite different DNA. Tracker grew out of Pivotal Labs and it is mostly molded to how Labs and R&D teams do their daily and weekly work. To me it seemed constricted and limited until I came to work at Pivotal; now it makes sense.
chrisco255 9y ago
I've used Pivotal Tracker and I think it's great for small teams, but I can not see a big company with 500+ users using it. JIRA is better for ticket tracking, issue linking, cloning, reporting, integration with Bitbucket/Github branches, user permissions, build system integrations, burndown charts, analytics, media services support, and not to mention the ecosystem around JIRA is just huge. Disclosure: I'm an Atlassian employee, but I had these opinions before I started.

stephenhuey 9y ago

I know many devs who prefer JIRA over TFS.

mgkimsal 9y ago

> Jira is a painful to use, especially compared to trello Have never been able to use trello effectively with any clients. It's simply too open-ended on its own. "Issue trackers" (like Jira) have some semblance of workflow predefined, and act as a decent guide for people who are not "project managers" to still bring some degree of order/structure, with the benefit that that structure was actually defined by someone else who thought about data/structure/flow/etc.