4 ms·

I realize this is a joke, and that you're jokingly elevating Jira's user-unfriendliness to the "evil" level of active environmental destruction. But given how

by smt88 5y ago

I realize this is a joke, and that you're jokingly elevating Jira's user-unfriendliness to the "evil" level of active environmental destruction. But given how many genuinely evil SaaS companies there are, I think it bears clarification that Jira does not do anything more evil than being a shitty product that people are forced to use by their bosses. They are not, for example, potentially responsible for the eventual collapse of civilization (which cannot be said of the Facebooks and Googles of the world).

dzqhz 5y ago
rmbyrro 5y ago
I think the difference is just a matter of opportunity, not merit. If Atlassian had the opportunity to become a Google-like company, threatening humanity's existence, as you suggest, Cannon-Brookes wouldn't have stopped it. He would in fact pursue it, become a trillionaire and then use a good portion of the money to do charity or green stuff to make it up for the evil he's done. It's what our culture tells people to do since Roman Christianity values were imposed mainstream. You don't have to do it right, just regret, donate your wealth and ask for forgiveness. The actors in the story have changed. There's no confessionals anymore, for instance, but the underlying story is the same...
- smt88 5y ago
  > If Atlassian had the opportunity to become a Google-like company, threatening humanity's existence, as you suggest, Cannon-Brookes wouldn't have stopped it. This is tantamount to saying, "All companies of equal size are equally evil." Or maybe it's: "No one has morals, given enough opportunity to become wealthy." While I think there is some sort of trend there, you have no justification to speculate that Cannon-Brookes is not an outlier. There are lots of people who are more moral than other, less-wealthy people.
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    Well, let's clarify two things. One is a fact. The other is an opinion. He wouldn't be able to stop it. That's a fact. Diluting himself by taking loads of VC, subjecting himself to a money-driven Board. He just wouldn't be able to stop it. You can argue he would have not pursued it, that he'd step out before his company became sort of an evil Facebook. My opinion is that the moment he accepted the fact above, it tells me he wouldn't step down. He'd profit from it. And later use the money for good causes to "compensate" and look good to society. I accept he could have been an outlier, just don't think it's remotely likely.
lmm 5y ago
How do you figure that? Jira is absolutely the kind of slow drag that destroys civilisation. Facebook and Google make things that empower people, for good or ill; Jira makes it impossible for anyone to do anything. Personally I believe in the positive side of human agency.
- smt88 5y ago
  > Jira makes it impossible for anyone to do anything This is like arguing that pencils and paper are evil because Trello (or whatever) exists. Jira is slow, but it's faster than what people did before it. And I have efficiently built and shipped ~10 projects on Jira, so I know it's not that bad. I use ClickUp now, and Jira is maybe 5-30 seconds slower per action than Jira. It adds up to, maybe, 30 min of saved time per day across my whole team.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > Jira is slow, but it's faster than what people did before it. That's not my experience. Most of what people do on Jira is stuff they just didn't do before; there's no benefit, only cost. > And I have efficiently built and shipped ~10 projects on Jira, so I know it's not that bad. Hmm, did you have access to edit workflows or something? It can be "not that bad", but the defaults and the way it nudges people mean it's bad unless you - or rather, all too often, the person above you - is making a serious effort to ensure it's not bad.

by smt88 5y ago

dzqhz 5y ago

rmbyrro 5y ago

I think the difference is just a matter of opportunity, not merit. If Atlassian had the opportunity to become a Google-like company, threatening humanity's existence, as you suggest, Cannon-Brookes wouldn't have stopped it. He would in fact pursue it, become a trillionaire and then use a good portion of the money to do charity or green stuff to make it up for the evil he's done. It's what our culture tells people to do since Roman Christianity values were imposed mainstream. You don't have to do it right, just regret, donate your wealth and ask for forgiveness. The actors in the story have changed. There's no confessionals anymore, for instance, but the underlying story is the same...

smt88 5y ago
> If Atlassian had the opportunity to become a Google-like company, threatening humanity's existence, as you suggest, Cannon-Brookes wouldn't have stopped it. This is tantamount to saying, "All companies of equal size are equally evil." Or maybe it's: "No one has morals, given enough opportunity to become wealthy." While I think there is some sort of trend there, you have no justification to speculate that Cannon-Brookes is not an outlier. There are lots of people who are more moral than other, less-wealthy people.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  Well, let's clarify two things. One is a fact. The other is an opinion. He wouldn't be able to stop it. That's a fact. Diluting himself by taking loads of VC, subjecting himself to a money-driven Board. He just wouldn't be able to stop it. You can argue he would have not pursued it, that he'd step out before his company became sort of an evil Facebook. My opinion is that the moment he accepted the fact above, it tells me he wouldn't step down. He'd profit from it. And later use the money for good causes to "compensate" and look good to society. I accept he could have been an outlier, just don't think it's remotely likely.

lmm 5y ago

How do you figure that? Jira is absolutely the kind of slow drag that destroys civilisation. Facebook and Google make things that empower people, for good or ill; Jira makes it impossible for anyone to do anything. Personally I believe in the positive side of human agency.

smt88 5y ago
> Jira makes it impossible for anyone to do anything This is like arguing that pencils and paper are evil because Trello (or whatever) exists. Jira is slow, but it's faster than what people did before it. And I have efficiently built and shipped ~10 projects on Jira, so I know it's not that bad. I use ClickUp now, and Jira is maybe 5-30 seconds slower per action than Jira. It adds up to, maybe, 30 min of saved time per day across my whole team.
- lmm 5y ago
  > Jira is slow, but it's faster than what people did before it. That's not my experience. Most of what people do on Jira is stuff they just didn't do before; there's no benefit, only cost. > And I have efficiently built and shipped ~10 projects on Jira, so I know it's not that bad. Hmm, did you have access to edit workflows or something? It can be "not that bad", but the defaults and the way it nudges people mean it's bad unless you - or rather, all too often, the person above you - is making a serious effort to ensure it's not bad.