I'm looking into running a simple one... any thoughts on one that is
simple to use for a small team?
I'd like to avoid a huge installation, if possible.
jmckitrick wrote:
> I'm looking into running a simple one... any thoughts on one that is
> simple to use for a small team?
>
> I'd like to avoid a huge installation, if possible.
FogBugz. Why does it have to be free?
Bill Atkins wrote:
> jmckitrick wrote:
> > I'm looking into running a simple one... any thoughts on one that is
> > simple to use for a small team?
> >
> > I'd like to avoid a huge installation, if possible.
>
> FogBugz. Why does it have to be free?
Because I don't want to pay for it. ;-)
"jmckitrick" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
> > jmckitrick wrote:
> > > I'm looking into running a simple one... any thoughts on one that is
> > > simple to use for a small team?
> > >
> > > I'd like to avoid a huge installation, if possible.
> >
> > FogBugz. Why does it have to be free?
>
> Because I don't want to pay for it. ;-)
Seems pretty short-sighted to me. With a 45-day free trial, a 90-day
return period, and a cost of < $130/user, I would definately try out
FogBugz if I was looking for a bug/incident-tracking system. Fighting
with a sub-optimal bug system is no fun at all.
On 2006-08-27 09:34:55 +0100, ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F.
Burdick) said:
> Seems pretty short-sighted to me. With a 45-day free trial, a 90-day
> return period, and a cost of < $130/user, I would definately try out
> FogBugz if I was looking for a bug/incident-tracking system. Fighting
> with a sub-optimal bug system is no fun at all.
Ah, but remember, time is free.
marc spitzer wrote:
> But seriously, I have seen times when the choice was between spending
> $1,000 and $5,000+ to get roughly the same result($5k was the worse
> solution) and bussiness went with the $5k. The reason for this was
> the $5k was spent money, employee time, and the $1k was a check, real
> money.
This only makes sense if (a) you don't have anything more useful for
your employees to do, and/or (b) there is enough friction in the labour
market that you can't therefore lay them off. There can be reasons why
(a) is true even in a frictionless market - you don't want to lay them
off because they are only temporarily short of stuff to do, and even if
it is trivial to lay them off you still lose the knowledge etc. Or, in
other words, there is no such thing as a frictionless market for
labour.
--tim
On 2006-08-29, Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> wrote:
> marc spitzer wrote:
>
>> But seriously, I have seen times when the choice was between spending
>> $1,000 and $5,000+ to get roughly the same result($5k was the worse
>> solution) and bussiness went with the $5k. The reason for this was
>> the $5k was spent money, employee time, and the $1k was a check, real
>> money.
>
> This only makes sense if (a) you don't have anything more useful for
> your employees to do, and/or (b) there is enough friction in the labour
> market that you can't therefore lay them off. There can be reasons why
> (a) is true even in a frictionless market - you don't want to lay them
> off because they are only temporarily short of stuff to do, and even if
> it is trivial to lay them off you still lose the knowledge etc. Or, in
> other words, there is no such thing as a frictionless market for
> labour.
>
> --tim
>
I did not say it made sense. It was not for the reasons that you listed
above, which do make sence. It was because there were different line
items on the budget involved, not no money just no money for software
purchase.
marc
ps this text is designed to get around the more new text then old
requirement of lonestar.org's nntp server, lets see if it works
nope did not work
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
jmckitrick wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
> > jmckitrick wrote:
> > > I'm looking into running a simple one... any thoughts on one that is
> > > simple to use for a small team?
> > >
> > > I'd like to avoid a huge installation, if possible.
> >
> > FogBugz. Why does it have to be free?
>
> Because I don't want to pay for it. ;-)
Weak. Where is Kent Pitman when you need him?
Bill Atkins wrote:
> jmckitrick wrote:
>> I'm looking into running a simple one... any thoughts on one that is
>> simple to use for a small team?
>>
>> I'd like to avoid a huge installation, if possible.
>
> FogBugz. Why does it have to be free?
[ For free-as-in-Libre: So that your incident history isn't at the
mercy of some single vendor. Note: I have never used FogBugz in
particular, for all I know it backends to an openly documented or at
least fairly clear format in an RDBMS or something, but in general it's
the nonfree vendors who try to play lock-in games]
Anyway, what sort of incidents? If you mean computer security incidents,
there's Request Tracker for Incident Response:
http://www.bestpractical.com/rtir/
It's open source but you can pay for support and customisation.
David Golden wrote:
> Anyway, what sort of incidents? If you mean computer security incidents,
> there's Request Tracker for Incident Response:
> http://www.bestpractical.com/rtir/
> It's open source but you can pay for support and customisation.
The official term is 'incident' but what it really means is bugs and/or
feature requests.
On 26 Aug 2006 08:36:33 -0700, "jmckitrick" <···········@yahoo.com>:
>The official term is 'incident' but what it really means is bugs and/or
>feature requests.
Like Bugzilla?
Fabien LE LEZ wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2006 08:36:33 -0700, "jmckitrick" <···········@yahoo.com>:
>
> >The official term is 'incident' but what it really means is bugs and/or
> >feature requests.
>
> Like Bugzilla?
That's the first and obvious choice, but I'm just asking if anyone has
tried simpler alternatives. Somewhere between Bugzilla and sticky
notes on the edge of their monitor. :-)
jmckitrick wrote:
>
> David Golden wrote:
>> Anyway, what sort of incidents? If you mean computer security
>> incidents, there's Request Tracker for Incident Response:
>> http://www.bestpractical.com/rtir/
>> It's open source but you can pay for support and customisation.
>
> The official term is 'incident' but what it really means is bugs
> and/or feature requests.
Some sort of corpie-speak? Sigh. Weird, though. Usually people try to
downplay bugs, calling them "issues" or "variances". To me, "incident"
has far worse connotations than "bug"... bugs might lead to
incidents... Maybe that's deliberate, people were going "oh, it's only
a bug". But now it's "incident". Oh no...
David Golden wrote:
> jmckitrick wrote:
> Some sort of corpie-speak? Sigh. Weird, though. Usually people try to
> downplay bugs, calling them "issues" or "variances". To me, "incident"
> has far worse connotations than "bug"... bugs might lead to
> incidents... Maybe that's deliberate, people were going "oh, it's only
> a bug". But now it's "incident". Oh no...
Yes, I guess the terminology stuck from my previous job.
I always considered 'issues' to be personal problems, usually Freudian
in nature, 'variances' are things that go on a construction permit for
special cases, and 'incident' is... well... when someone says to me
"There was an incident" I usually imagine the police being called.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:14:30 +0100, David Golden
<············@oceanfree.net>:
>though. Usually people try to
>downplay bugs, calling them "issues" or "variances".
Just call them "temporary features"...
David Golden wrote:
> jmckitrick wrote:
>
> >
> > David Golden wrote:
> >> Anyway, what sort of incidents? If you mean computer security
> >> incidents, there's Request Tracker for Incident Response:
> >> http://www.bestpractical.com/rtir/
> >> It's open source but you can pay for support and customisation.
> >
> > The official term is 'incident' but what it really means is bugs
> > and/or feature requests.
>
> Some sort of corpie-speak? Sigh. Weird, though. Usually people try to
> downplay bugs, calling them "issues" or "variances". To me, "incident"
> has far worse connotations than "bug"... bugs might lead to
> incidents... Maybe that's deliberate, people were going "oh, it's only
> a bug". But now it's "incident". Oh no...
It's a good name if the system is going to be used more widely than for
software. Since things like hardware failures often have a time
related element, wheras in software the time the bug is observed isn't
likely to be relevant.
David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> writes:
> jmckitrick wrote:
>
>>
>> David Golden wrote:
>>> Anyway, what sort of incidents? If you mean computer security
>>> incidents, there's Request Tracker for Incident Response:
>>> http://www.bestpractical.com/rtir/
>>> It's open source but you can pay for support and customisation.
>>
>> The official term is 'incident' but what it really means is bugs
>> and/or feature requests.
>
> Some sort of corpie-speak? Sigh. Weird, though. Usually people try to
> downplay bugs, calling them "issues" or "variances". To me, "incident"
> has far worse connotations than "bug"... bugs might lead to
> incidents... Maybe that's deliberate, people were going "oh, it's only
> a bug". But now it's "incident". Oh no...
Someone once argued that calling something a "bug" downplays it, and
that people should call such things "errors".
I guess the original so-called "bug" was an actual bug and not an
error. Or perhaps it was an error in the hardware design, not making
it proof against flying insects. But that was probably the result of
an error in the spec.
So in this case an error in the spec led to a bug in the hardware
which led to an incident. :-)
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Thou shalt not convince stupid people to try cordless bungee jumping....
Thou shalt not substitute Semtex when all the Playdough's gone....
Thou shalt not bob for hand grenades....
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> I guess the original so-called "bug" was an actual bug and not an
> error. Or perhaps it was an error in the hardware design, not making
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug#Etymology
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:
+---------------
| David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> writes:
| > jmckitrick wrote:
| >> The official term is 'incident' but what it really means is bugs
| >> and/or feature requests.
| >
| > Some sort of corpie-speak? Sigh. Weird, though. Usually people try to
| > downplay bugs, calling them "issues" or "variances". ...
|
| Someone once argued that calling something a "bug" downplays it,
| and that people should call such things "errors".
+---------------
ISTR that Tom DeMarco[1] suggesting that "bugs" implied something
cute, small, and unimportant, and that they should be called "defects"
that are the responsibility of the person or group "that put them
into the code" [as opposed to "a bug that just crawled into the code
when we weren't looking, honest!"].
And <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug> has this "See also":
* ISO 9126, which classifies a bug as either a defect or a nonconformity
======
-Rob
[1] DeMarco, Tom. "Controlling Software Projects: Management,
Measurement and Estimation", (Prentice Hall, 1986) ISBN 0131717111.
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
jmckitrick wrote:
> I'm looking into running a simple one... any thoughts on one that is
> simple to use for a small team?
>
Hi,
for a simple one, look at roundup, http://roundup.sourceforge.net/ .
There is also trac, http://trac.edgewall.org/
David
jmckitrick wrote:
> I'm looking into running a simple one... any thoughts on one that is
> simple to use for a small team?
>
> I'd like to avoid a huge installation, if possible.
You should be able to find something here.
http://www.stickyminds.com/tools.asp?Function=Search&topcat=DFTRK&Kind=toolsimple