This month we released the new code internally and migrated the version one data into the new release. Quickly it became clear we were having some issues with ticket assignments and other basic functions. Alex’s team is busy attempting to relsolve these shortcomings.
Lots of folks have different ideas about our release. Chris thinks we should wait until the code is ready for primetime, while Ward suggests that we “release early and often.”
Alex’s goal is to present the new version of SimpleTicket at Barcamp Texas (being held in Austin in two weeks). So the SVN is the old code (it has been disabled, please don’t download it) and the demo has been removed. Once the new code is released we will post it to the SVN and turn on the demo - we will, of course, write about it here. In the meantime, enjoy the last days of summer…
.
August 12, 2006 |
Trackback |
1 Comment
Tags: SimpleTicket , simpleticket , opensource , troubleticket , beach , update , release | Bookmark on del.icio.us | Digg It
The SimpleTicket DEMO was taken down in June for two primary reasons. First, the demo was getting hacked on a daily basis (the demo was a real install with admin access rights). Second, the demo was descriptive of a combination of the original code and updates provided by Kate and Peter. We are very close to the second major release of SimpleTicket and as a result we felt the existing demo was creating a major strain on engineering resources as well as being a poor demonstration of the ticketing system as it now exists. We are in the midst of the resolving various issues, but as soon as we have the time we will release the demo so you can take a look (this time we will limit admin functions - such as ‘change password’ - you know who you are).
August 1, 2006 |
Trackback |
[8] Comments
Tags: SimpleTicket , simpleticket , opensource | Bookmark on del.icio.us | Digg It
Satadru noted that he “welcomed the new Architel overlords” in a comment responding to disgruntled open source people. The overlords welcome you , Satadru! The real subject of this post is Defining the Terms.
I think the main problem is that Peter and Kate misunderstand what open source means (or what we think it means). I think Kate makes it clear that her definition of open source is different than ours when she says, “I may have issues with Architel’s handling of the initial project and the fact that the keep promoting the Open Source aspects of project when I can’t seem to find anything “openâ€? about the current version”
Our understanding of open source is far different than that of Kate. We think the definition of open source is, “software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees.” Kate would disagree and suggest that “open source code evolves through community cooperation.” Community development is in fact how many projects evolve, but certainly not how they start.
Imagine trying to build software for ten different people with ten different specific needs. Now realize that the needs of 2 of the people would make the software useless for the other 8. How could you agree on what to write? Who is in charge? In the case of SimpleTicket we are building it for us. We made our project open so that others could a) use our code and contribute back bug fixes and needed features or b) use our code as a basis to build something that worked for them. Had we relied on Kate or Peter to build SimpleTicket it would not be very useful to our company.
We decided to release version one as an open source project and we plan to release version two as well. Perhaps version three will develop with the help of the a community? Or perhaps the community will simply extend the second version for the benefit of everyone… We shall see.
July 30, 2006 |
Trackback |
[10] Comments
Tags: SimpleTicket , simpleticket , opensource , troubleticket | Bookmark on del.icio.us | Digg It
Six months ago we released our internal trouble ticket system using the GPL open source license - we call it Simpleticket. Over 20,000 people have downloded the code (more than 100 per day) since release. Hundreds of people have emailed us thanking us for releasing the admittedly “flawed” code. We are about to release the second version of SimpleTicket addressing most of the problems and providing features we need. You see, we operate an IT support company that lives or dies based on our trouble ticket system. On the eve of the release of our new code the volume of disgruntled people is deafening. Check out some of these comments:
I am good friends with Kate and Peter and it really pisses me off seeing how you guys have ignored their needs. Before going out and just coding whatever you want you should consult the community. Kate and Peter have very specific needs and the wireframes and the descriptions detailed in this blog don’t meet their requirements. How do you expect them to use simpleticket if you don’t get their buyin? We are outraged that you would pay programmers to build a ticketing system for your own company and not contribute to the open source community. - by Frank
We were shocked to read this comment and responded here. Two people, Peter and Kate have spent a lot of time claiming we have not worked on the code with comments like:
you never actually WORKED WITH THE COMMUNITY. The non-architel developers were the only ones doing any work. - by Kate
And stuff like this:
Also the statement, “Alex and Rodrigo who added thousands of lines of code after the release� is patently false. Architel’s contributions to the branch called masukomi, which we all agreed would be the basis for hte next version, were very minimal. - by Peter
At the end of the day it really pisses us off. We wrote a ticketing system, released it using an open source license and let anyone download and use it. To say we did not get enough feedback when we built it, or that we did not do any work on it or that we did not contribute to their branch of the code is just crazy.
We wrote the damn software in the first place and spent the first 90 days resolving bugs so that we could keep our business running while using SimpleTicket. If you were to believe Peter or his friends you would think “they” wrote SimpleTicket and we were just using it.
We spent the last 90 days paying coders to rebuild the code, adding much needed features and bug fixes. When we release the new code I am sure Peter and Kate will be around to tell us what we are doing wrong (Peter has said, “However, I would love to see the new version when released.“), but man I wish they would go away. I wish folks we just thank us for the code and contribute code back if they want to.
July 29, 2006 |
Trackback |
[3] Comments
Tags: SimpleTicket , Architel , simpleticket , opensource , troubleticket , helpdesk | Bookmark on del.icio.us | Digg It
Time for another update. I have been updating the comments, but I figured it would be a good idea to do a post. The new code is working well. There have been a few bugs, but generally it is working well. Let me just say it is a 100% improvement over the old code.
We have been using the first release of SimpleTicket for about six months. We have been able to determine what works and what needs improvement. The new version of SimpleTicket addresses many of the shortcomings of the first release from a workflow perspective. From a code perspective the new code conforms to the Ruby on Rails methodology.
The guys are still working on bugs and little edits, but our primary objective is to import six months of data into the new version (we think that will be the best way to bug test the new code) and start testing. Concurrently one of our designers is adding gradients and shadows to the panels.
Finally, the most exciting feature of SimpleTicket is its ability to deliver statistics about our clients to the managers of Architel. We can now have a real-time view into our business - a huge feature of Simpleticket. There is a big shortcoming in our view of the stats; the columns can’t be sorted in ascending or decending order - they are simply in alpha order. I have been told it is very hard to code a solution to this problem. If you have any ideas please post here. Otherwise, we will release without a solution for now. Thanks to our brothers in Paris who did most of the coding on the new version of SimpleTicket - there is light at the end of the tunnel.
.
July 29, 2006 |
Trackback |
[8] Comments
Tags: SimpleTicket , simpleticket , opensource , troubleticket , gpl | Bookmark on del.icio.us | Digg It
« Previous Page — Next Page »
