12 ms·
Launchpad is also objectively more complex and hard to use than alternatives, and subjectively I'd say it's ugly and looks dated. Launchpad isn't probably somet
by rosywoozlechan 6y ago
Launchpad is also objectively more complex and hard to use than alternatives, and subjectively I'd say it's ugly and looks dated. Launchpad isn't probably something people want to use because of product design, and thus there's not much activity around it outside of Canonical.
I think it would be silly to assume that a separate project that is liked wouldn't get traction outside of Canonical because of their experience with Launchpad.
- galgalesh 6y ago> Launchpad is also objectively more complex and hard to use than alternatives, and subjectively I'd say it's ugly and looks dated Launchpad is _really_ old though. When it was open sourced, there were very few alternatives and those were often even more complex and harder to use. I think part of the reason why it was almost never used was because it does so much: project management, bug trackers, build service, package hosting, ISO and distro building, .. If you only need a few of these features, you are much better of using alternatives with a smaller scope.
- stubish 6y agoLaunchpad actually predates Ubuntu :) A lot of the methodologies and practices used to develop it (both good and bad) didn't even get names until years later. I even hear monoliths are becoming fashionable again.
- pseudalopex 6y agoIt was tied to Bazaar until 2015 too.