Since when do Unix tools output 3,000 word long usage info? Even GNU tools don’t even come close…

[zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ man grep | wc -w
4297
[zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ man man | wc -w
4697
[zlatko@dilj ~/Projects/galactic-bloodshed]$ 

The article sure mentions 💩a lot.

These technologies, although archaic, clumsy and insecure

Like cars? Or phones? Those are also archaic, clumsy and insecure technologies.

I’ve ran into Drone CI about a year ago and I like it. I wanted to self-host something simple next to my gitea instance, and after a few hours I had it mostly set up. And in the course of a week I had it all figured out, I don’t bother with it any more.

It’s basically hands-free operation the way I have it set up, works with my gitea as said so I’m happy.

even if it is an earlier, yet undeteced bug, whoever found it (in this case, the cowboy), should at least log it, if not open a separate PR to fix it.

I wanted to suggest something like this. Code-freeze wise, you can have a “minor” and “major” problems, major problems block the feature, minor ones let it go (but you now have a tech debt, and make sure that THIS process to fixing up found issues is higher-prio then new features). Of course, you decide what is minor and what major. E.g. maybe a typo in the UI is acceptable, maybe not.

As for throwing features over the wall - I would actually suggest just changing the perspective - make QA involved earlier. The feature is not ready and not frozen unless it’s been looked at by QA. Then when a thing is frozen, it’s really ready. (Of course you’ll still have regressions etc but that’s another topic.)

I think it is a bit more than that.

You point out two things:

• the “fuck it” algorithm
• the hidden DNS request.

So, now, obviously if you wrote the “fuck it”, then well, you fix it. If you found the DNS library problem - find a better lib or something.

But if you take the stance “fuck it, there’s always something”, you don’t even have a chance of finding out. If you had a test suite running 10 seconds, and suddenly it’s up by 10 more, you would notice. If you had tests running for 10 minutes, you would not.

If you had a webapp or something that always opened “fast”, then suddenly it gets doubly slower, you’ll notice it. But if you already started slow, you won’t notice (or care, or both), when it gets even worse.

I think that’s the point of the article. If we all dug in and fixed a little bit, eventually we’d have fast apps or tests or whatever. If you accept that things suck, you’ll make it tripply worse. It is a conscious effort to be fast.

It’s not a monopoly, but it’s still an oversized influence on the market. I think the poster is arguing that: when have you heard a recruiter ask you for your bitbucket account? But they will look at github.