I also have a small dev team of 25 that wants to move to gitlab paid model but the upfront cost is too much. We need a monthly payment plan even if it costs more than annual one because I can't justify a high upfront cost to my ceo. We're rapidly expanding and expect to be 100 within 2021.
Many of these points come back to "it's easier or cheaper for gitlab this way" which isn't a great way to convince a customer. Some of which seem to actually be "due to our inability to onboard, manage and retain customers in an automated hands off way it's cheaper or easier this way" which is a terrible way to convince customers.
None of these is convincing, mostly because "its better for Gitlab".
I don't care. I want what's better for our company.
And right now, that is not paying for GitLab.
It sucks because I am an evangelist for GitLab, but I'm fighting a losing battle and we will be switching paid Github over free GitLab because of things like this.
Disagree. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” - Henry Ford. Customer is mostly right. Not always. Use your best judgement as a business owner. Innovate where necessary and stick to customer feedback where you think it makes sense.
I think there's a pretty big distinction between the customer lacking the imagination to see a better solution until it is presented to them, and being denied a choice while being in full possession of the facts.
Yeah, and this isn’t even an equivalent situation.
A more comparable situation is if Ford had requested his supplier send him a certain type of screw but the supplier sent him a completely different type of screw because it was “better”. It may be better. But it may also be absolutely the wrong thing to build Ford cars out of because they weren’t designed to use it.
And that’s what Canonical often seems to forget. Ubuntu isn’t just a product. It’s also infrastructure, and an individual (although critical) part in many other products and systems.
And AFAICT Ubuntu as a product is far less popular, and pays far less of the bill than Ubuntu as infrastructure, which is why their actions are doubly incomprehensible.
The auto update certainly falls in the former you mean? These (older, less tech savvy) people clearly lack the imagination. That's why auto update has to be mandatory. This is again for consumer facing OS and not for the server infra.
No. Just no. Don't install a library and two others just to show a tree view. Make your own with whatever features you need and just those features, nothing else. Less than 200 lines of code and one day's work for a competent developer. Don't install three libraries in your webpage just to show a tree view.
If you're in the market for a Bootstrap Treeview you're likely already using Bootstrap and therefore jQuery.
Your comment reflects exactly the kind of attitude that puts people off doing open source work. No one is forcing you to use this project, someone put effort into making this and released it to the world for free, what does your criticism add?
It's a problem with HN - Since the average user can't downvote, these trash troll comments stay at the top and derail any conversation, when they should just be insta-downvoted into oblivion.
You're totally right, but everyone should just ignore the idiot troll and move on.
There is no way to know if its a troll or a noob or just a kid trying to learn web development who doesn't know what bootstrap is and has probably heard that external dependencies are typically bad.
> If you're in the market for a Bootstrap Treeview you're likely already using Bootstrap and therefore jQuery.
Is that true if you are using it as part of a react or vue application? I know, for example, that bootstrap-vue replaces the jquery dependency with Vuejs[1]. I'd guess the react equivalent is similar.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but isn't a day of a competent developer's work usually worth quite a lot compared to the integrated maintenance effort of looking after two (one of which is almost universal) library dependencies?
There are many cases where what you need is instant soup powder, not home made velouté.
And this will save me from writing tests for those lines. With all major browsers. And documentation. And maintain all that, of course, for the next 5 years.
And when new devs will arrive in the team to provide the training for the custom code. I may even not be here anymore
So yes, it can be overkill, or just what you need.
E.G: some server side dev need a quick fix for his personal web site.
Besides, even a lib with zero tests like this one will have enough users and tickets open that it will be better tested that the server side dev code that don't know JS much.
Normally I'd disagree, but not this time. There's 0 test coverage. For simple feature libraries at minimum I'd expect it to have tests to be worth considering.
Seems like you have never really worked on a large web app with lots of complex UI requirements, or else you would know what bootstrap is and when to use it and how much developer hours it saves. I am not saying it's the best library out there but it's pretty neat and gets the job done.
There is a good chance you already be using 1 if not both of the requirements already if you are building a reasonably responsive web UI that requires a tree view.
> How does once check for the presence of a VM from inside the VM
for example by enumerating the connected PCI devices and looking for common VM vendors virtual devices.
>Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the VM to begin with
that depends on your use-case. If it's about separating mostly trusted applications and/or servers, then absolutely not.
If it's about investigating known-bad code, then, yes, absolutely - malware is often intentionally disabling itself when it detects it's running in a VM.
Theoretically speaking you can make a VM that is indistinguishable to a real computer. In reality most VM solutions do not attempt to do so. For example, many install specialized drivers to communicate to the host that can be readily checked.
Me and My team have been working on a Looker alternative for a couple of years. Hope this is the right time to give a pitch. We as a company love to assist our clients with a free consultation in understanding their data better. This will take you to the direct demo: https://demo.katoai.co/login?email=demo@katoai.co&password=k...
I can talk a lot about it if anyone is interested.
We do a bunch of stuff superset doesn't. Mostly related to filters and how they're implemented. We never mess with user's query. We only supply filters to it. Superset doesn't let users write optimized queries. We replaced superset for one of our largest clients and they are extremely happy with the move. This is pure js as well, nothing like superset tech stack wise.
Yes we probably lie close to Superset and Mode than we do to Tableau but I believe the data transformations, access level (sharing) and deep integration put us apart from those. Tableau's quite bit more mature than we are but we already support self hosted service, OAuth based auth integration, sophisticated user access level based sharing for all resources (reports, connections, users, dashboards, visualizations, product features, etc). We don't cost an arm and a leg either.
> data transformations, access level (sharing) and deep integration put us apart from those
I couldn't find anything about these features on my first pass, though I do now see the "Cleanup" bit on the "Data Visualization" page. I would have really liked to see more about features/tools/strengths and less nebulous marketing promises.
That... would be the marketing team for you. We do spend quite a bit of our time adding stuff that I don't think I've seen anywhere else but is extremely useful for some of our biggest clients.
Market that stuff! Blog posts, list of features, service comparison - anything. For example, I know that Tableau offers in-memory storage that can help improve performance by bring data in locally and not hitting the original source. Kato mentions something about "10x performance improvement", but there's zero explanation how this is accomplished.
We have 3 different levels of storages to avoid hitting remote. Redis cache for query, storing the results on our server and letting users edit the data as well and finally front end cache with service workers.
I think I'll start writing out the feature comparisons.
Out of those I only have substantial experience working with Superset. We replaced Superset for one of our biggest client a few months ago. We built a ton of features in the process. My take was that they ended up meddling with the user's query which raised issues with SQL injection and performance. For example filters only going on the end of the query.
In Kato filters can be replaced anywhere. Plus we offer a ton of integration and data manipulation features. One of the biggest things that the client really liked over Superset is the ability to set up drilldowns where when you click on a bar chart on any graph you can see further details about that bar chart in a table, or any other graph. And this drilldown can go however many levels deep. We can link different reports from entirely different datasources with drilldown. I don't think that's available in any of those mentioned above and it completely changes the user experience.
