Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software

Bugzilla Delivered to the Desktop 157

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the it's-not-a-bug-it's-a-feature dept.
sereda writes "Deskzilla released their desktop client for the Bugzilla bug tracking system today. The Deskzilla system promises to deliver features for greater productivity and improved working environment for the users of Bugzilla." There are also a few screenshots posted on their site.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bugzilla Delivered to the Desktop More

Bugzilla Delivered to the Desktop

Comments Filter:

  • Damn! (Score:5, Funny)

    by mctk ( 840035 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:17PM (#13723878) Homepage
    The installation crashed. Better report that. ...wait a second...

    • Re:Damn! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mysqlrocks ( 783488 )
      I would like to express our sincere gratitude to all Deskzilla users who responded with comments, ideas and bug reports.

      Wow, that's recursive. Submitting bugs on a bug tracking system. What if there are bugs in the bug tracking system? Wait, I'm going in circles...

    • Re:Damn! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lilmouse ( 310335 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:37PM (#13724004)
      Silly boy, web interface will still work!

      This is actually really really interesting. I can totally see the value this would have for a company that uses Bugzilla as the bug-tracking software. The tree structure would be really handy in certain situations, and for a company, the $99 pricetag is a drop in the bucket. It's not something I would want everyone to use, but for some people who use bugzilla very often for management, this would be handy.

      The offline bit is really great - if you need to go to a client, and want to take the buglist along with you, you're pretty screwed. But if you have this, there's a local copy you carry around, and it seamlessly integrates...very nice. Very very nice.

      --LWM
      • It's handy so far... it doesn't have all of the fields for queries that our Bugzilla has here at work (such as 'cc list') and I submitted a support request for a confusion in how our bugzilla handles our login vs assignment name, but man the interface is pretty slick. Works great on gentoo/gnome.

      • Re:Damn! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by w98 ( 831730 )
        I'd prefer a 'free' version, even if it were limited a little, for personal use at home ... I'd love a to-do list/bug tracking list for my own personal development, but couldn't justify a price tag if it's just for personal stuff. Just my $0.02 tho.

        • Re:Damn! (Score:4, Informative)

          by lilmouse ( 310335 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @02:22PM (#13724301)
          They offer free download for people in opensource development, and you can also use the "bleeding edge" version for free.

          --LWM

          • But... (Score:2, Informative)

            by Jsutton1027w ( 757650 )
            The bleeding edge version seems to be unavailable for the moment. Also, if you want a free copy for being an FOSS developer, they limit you in the EULA for Open Source Projects [deskzilla.com] to only one project. Now, I haven't checked to see if it was possible to use it with more than one, but they do not allow it in the license.
      • The offline bit is really great - if you need to go to a client, and want to take the buglist along with you, you're pretty screwed. But if you have this, there's a local copy you carry around, and it seamlessly integrates...very nice. Very very nice.

        ... and very very scary if there is any sensitive customer data in your bugzilla.

        • ... and very very scary if there is any sensitive customer data in your bugzilla.

          Yes, but if there is such sensitive information in your Bugzilla, then the user would have access to it whether or not they use deskzilla. Or, contrariwise, if they don't have access to it without deskzilla, they won't have access with it.

          Think of Deskzilla (in this situation) as a way of copying the text from Bugzilla to a spreadsheet, except it's really really fast, and you don't have to do it yourself.

          If you're not using de

      • I like it. I prefer desktop apps for things I use very frequently. Funny how were all supposed to be piling onto the web and not using desktop applications anymore. The biggest thing I hate about microsoft money and quicken is their webness...

  • Just what I need! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Work Account ( 900793 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:19PM (#13723890) Journal
    Task tray icon #147!

    (Not as bad as my parents who have half their screen taken up by all the spyware crap running in the Tray).
    • Task tray icon #147!

      Well, if you have WinXP and try to run games on a wireless laptop, it can sometimes take up to ten minutes to close out all the task tray icons they clutter it with, shut off all processes, and finally run the game.

      Which will then promptly crash and then you have to bring back up all the wireless services so you can - finally - report the bug to bugzilla on the desktop task tray icon ...

    • Trend Reversal (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 )
      This seems backward to me. We seem to be moving towards a more internet focused life, with web based apps which are scaring MS. We're trying to do things that used to be desktop based (encyclopedias, games) on the internet (Wikipedia, flash games & MMORPGS) And then we're taking something that really should be online to the desktop?

      Task tray icon #147!
      Yeah, that's life for packrats. And aren't we all like this? I mean, do I really need 4 web browsers? Yes, dang it, I do. What if AOL decides

      • Re:Trend Reversal (Score:2, Insightful)

        by maxume ( 22995 )
        It's not about the platform, it's about the data. Network based apps are good because the make it easier to access data from multiple locations. This app is all about being able to view the data in ways that would be hard to do in a browser.
      • THe desktop has a lot more power. Its more flexible, easier to program for, can work when the internet is down, works quicker with lower computing resources. Not everyone jumped on the "everything ought to be an applet/AJAX/web service/whatever" bandwagon. The internet supplies my data, but I want the apps on my desktop.

  • A conundrum (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:26PM (#13723934)
    Now here's a head scratcher. I'd presume that the Bugzilla team uses Bugzilla to track its own bugs. Now, what happens when there's a bug that renders certain features of Bugzilla unusable? The team wouldn't able to use Bugzilla to track the bug that is causing the Bugzilla software to be buggy. What happens then?
    • I thihnk that means there crap out of luck. I never really understood the use of having a desktop client such as this or yahoo desktop or google desktop. I guess windows users are just getting lazier by the minute. Honestly though, what -are- the benefits of running one of these desktop programs?
      • you could try reading the Features and Benefits [deskzilla.com] page...
      • Honestly though, what -are- the benefits of running one of these desktop programs?

        The benefit is aggregation of information. Sure you can do it on a webpage, but there are limitations. Take the newest Google Desktop. It integrates all your browser bookmarks, your Outlook/Gmail emails, photos on your hard drive, and searching of your drive contents, just to name a few things. And then it displays them concisely. You certainly couldn't handle the desktop side of information in a web version of the same thi

      • Re:A conundrum (Score:3, Informative)

        by nanop ( 155318 )
        From the deskzilla site, it seems that the benefits may include:
        • Hierarchical project structure and nested queries allow you to apply consistent and orderly approach to issue tracking by creating an issue breakdown structure
        • Issue counters give you the immediate picture of the state of your project;
        • Local database that acts as a cache for issues allows for quick and customizable database search;
        • User interface enhancements such as Threaded Comments View help working with issues;
        • Offline availability allows

      • Re:A conundrum (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rob the Bold ( 788862 )
        I never really understood the use of having a desktop client such as this or yahoo desktop or google desktop. I guess windows users are just getting lazier by the minute.

        One man's laziness is another's efficiency. If you've got users who are more efficient with a desktop app than they are with a web app, then give 'em the desktop. Assuming that "time is money" in your organization, then if you save time, you save money. Also, giving your users the impression that you care about how they prefer to work

    • Re:A conundrum (Score:5, Informative)

      by koh ( 124962 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:32PM (#13723966) Journal
      They use an older, stable version of Bugzilla to track issues in newer releases. Just like gcc folks use the current version of gcc to compile the next one. No magic here.
      • Which came first, the gcc or the egcs?

      • Re:A conundrum (Score:4, Funny)

        by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:59PM (#13724153) Homepage
        But how was the *first* compiler compiled?

        Just thinking about that makes me head explo[NO CARRIER].

        • Re:A conundrum (Score:5, Interesting)

          by eli173 ( 125690 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @02:06PM (#13724201)
          But how was the *first* compiler compiled?

          Just thinking about that makes me head explo[NO CARRIER].

          Go read Reflections on Trusting Trust [acm.org] and pay particular attention to the part about the '\v' character.

          'Course the rest of that document may reduce you to gibbering goo. ;)

        • Re:A conundrum (Score:3, Informative)

          by jallen02 ( 124384 )
          It wasn't compiled. It was hand written in machine code. When I first learned machine code and we had to write things in machine code on the little virtual machines we had I was starting to think of assembly as an easy to use language. Heh. That is when you know you are at the bottom of the barrel ;) (It was actually pretty fun).

          Jeremy

          • It wasn't compiled. It was hand written in machine code. When I first learned machine code and we had to write things in machine code on the little virtual machines we had I was starting to think of assembly as an easy to use language. Heh. That is when you know you are at the bottom of the barrel ;) (It was actually pretty fun).

            Now a days, I'm pretty sure the initial compilers are generated using a cross compiler. E.g. you get your gcc compiler on x86 to use the right instruction set and then cross compi

            • Yeah, usually you use a cross-compiler to target the new OS/arch to make your binaries, then get them somehow onto your filesystem to be used.

              Then you get the OS advanced enough that it can actually run GCC itself, then you use the cross-compiler to generate a native-compiler.

              Of course, sometimes, for some reason, people have to compile a cross-compiler for an arch that they're not compiling on. They call this a canadian cross-compile. For example, (you build (a PowerPC gcc binary which (cross-compiles fo

          • Re:A conundrum (Score:5, Funny)

            by scovetta ( 632629 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @02:34PM (#13724394) Homepage
            We did the same thing, except we didn't have computers, we had to write machine code literally "by hand". Co-workers would take turns playing different registers and the manager would be the CPU chugging along. It took us a while to compile, but we were men.

            Oh, and we did this at midnight, outside, in late january in the middle of Minnesota, barefoot, and we loved it.

    • Re:A conundrum (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Bugzilla implodes in on itself and is replaced by something even more inexplicable and bizarre.

  • Doesn't beat commercial apps (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Free or not, Bugzilla doesn't come close to the commercial bug tracking apps. Give me Tracker or Clear Quest any day. Freeware has come a long way, but practical and reliable bug tracking apps seem far away.

    Has anyone used Bugzilla so far?

    • Re:Doesn't beat commercial apps (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:13PM (#13725102) Journal
      Bugzilla is both practical and reliable - and it is used on some VERY large projects (tracking hundreds of thousands of bugs).

      We use it to track not just bugs, but feature requests and issues for our IT department. It fits what we need very well. The nearest commercial offering is unjustifiably expensive and is a lot less flexible than Bugzilla. It's always a question of the right tool for the right job - but for what we do (and what many projects out there do), Bugzilla fits perfectly - reliably and practically.
      • Don't forget then Bugzilla can be hacked to meet your needs. If you want to change something you can. If you need a new hook, you can add it. Some of these aren't even that difficult to do :-D If you want e-mail automatically sent to a special e-mail address when bugs get closed, no problem - you can do that. If you want to make your source control add comments to the bug report every time a junior developer touches the code, you can do that, too.

        Try doing *that* with closed source bug tracker!

        --LWM
      • bugzilla is rather top heavy, and the interface is pretty cumbersome (and ugly as sin). i don't know if the servers are underpowered or if the database is just too large, but redhat and gnu's bugzillas are very creaky and slow.

        bugzilla does work, it's relatively stable, but it's very bleah-inducing. sort of like the bugtracker of choice for curmudgeons :-)

        for almost all projects i prefer mantis [mantisbt.org]. it's much lighter and the interface is much more straightforward.
    • We use it here at Netflix [netflix.com]. We traded in a Remedy application for it, and we're very glad we did. In order to meet our requirements for Sarbanes-Oxley, we were able to patch up bugzilla in pretty short order. It kept our process minimal while still satisfying requirements for the auditors, and more importantly not burying the developers in a heavyweight process. I don't expect we could have done it with a commercial product because we would have had to fit their previously conceived notion of what passes SOX

  • Did I miss something? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by flatass ( 866368 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:32PM (#13723970)
    I thought we were moving away from fat client technology. So let me get this straight:

    We went from decentralized, to centralized back to decentralized...... now back?

    • Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DrWhizBang ( 5333 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:44PM (#13724047) Homepage Journal
      You sound surprised. Software is the same as fashion. Put it in the closet, wait long enough, and it will come back in again.
    • It's like all development tools. You need to use the best tool for the job. If you have an app used by hundreds of widely distributed community clients, then yeah, a web interface would likely be best. If you are looking for a local tool used by 3 developers to track bugs, fixes, and updates, then the amount of effort getting a web system up and running will quickly out weigh the distibution benefit. A smart/thick client would be easier to set up and maintain in that senerio.

      It would sure seem like BugZi
      • >>A smart/thick client would be easier to set up and maintain in that senerio

        I could see a thick client being easier to use, but how is it easier to maintain? In your example, you still have three installs vs. one.

        Aside from the deskzilla systray app, I don't see anything in the screenshots that couldn't be done with AJAX.

        • I agree with you on deskzilla, I've never used it, but from my understanding of it, the web interface would seem to be the most logical way to go.

          As for why smart/thick clients, if your app is hosted entirely local, for a smart/thick client you need a desktop client and a data source. For a web based client, you would need the data source, a web server, and the web application. Setting up and maintaining a webserver and web app is significantly more involved then having 3 guys run a setup.exe for some gener
    • I used to be with it, but then it changed. Now what I'm with isn't it and it isn't it either. The solution is easy though, just wait a few years for it to revert back the way it was.
    • I thought we were moving away from fat client technology.

      Seriously, what is fatter than a bloody web browser? I've never understood why I'm expected to prefer web interfaces to other things. Especially when the web interfaces suck as badly as they do.

      Well, I haven't used Bugzilla, but I've used many others which my employer doubtlessly paid megabucks for, and which were clearly made and marketed as practical jokes. By unusability experts.

      We went from decentralized, to centralized back to decentralized..

      • I would agree about web interfaces sucking. Even Gmail and Sharepoint(in IE regretably), both of which have rather nice, dynamic, web interfaces, still can't do as much as regular apps. And I really like using regular apps better. Having shortcuts/better and faster feedback and such is rather nice.

  • For a while I did something similar for GForge... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tcopeland ( 32225 ) * <tom.thomasleecopeland@com> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:32PM (#13723973) Homepage
    ...it was a Java client that used Apache Axis and the GForge SOAP API to make a GUI client. I made a little jEdit plugin [infoether.com] and a little JFreeChart app that showed user and project [infoether.com] charts.

    I wasn't really using the GUI client very much, though, so I ran out of interest. But if something like that was available that could talk to the SourceForge servers, I'd buy it...
  • The network is the computer! That's what Google said this week, so it must be true.

  • No Free Beer Here (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They want $99 bucks for this?!?

  • Client/Server is so last millenium (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gregmac ( 629064 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:35PM (#13723995) Homepage
    If bugzilla actually was a nice looking, easy to use application this probably wouldn't be necessary. Web-based is the way to go. Updating is as simple as updating once on the server -- you don't have to worry about a whole ton of client versions floating around.

    Bugzilla is still one of those first-generation looking web apps that was designed (in the visual sense) by programmers, and you can tell. From my experience, most programmers are very bad at making user interfaces (myself included) and really it's a job that should be left to web designers (a subset of graphic designers). Compare bugzilla's interface to say, gmail, and you can see there is just no comparison.

    Sure, the usability may be there, but if it's just awkward to use and hard on the eyes, people won't like it. Oh, and apparently they'll revert to developing old client/server style interfaces for it.

    • Re:Client/Server is so last millenium (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Have you used Bugzilla 2.20? It's quite a bit prettier.

      Their aversion to javascript is now solved by greasemonkey, so there's less querying the server and the difficulty is customizing your site is greatly reduced by the amount of CSS used. Periodic reminders are settable on a per-user basis now too. All in all, I like it a lot more (it's been about a week). The only thing missing in my opinion is dated deadlines; they're in 2.21 which is moving along nicely.
    • Web-based is the way to go.

      Yeah, until I need to report a bug with my laptop suspend/resume functionality, and what do you know, but I'm on the road and don't have Internet connectivity at the moment.

      A local application has value.

    • The killer feature here is working offline (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @02:13PM (#13724244)
      Several comments in this thread point out that web-based interfaces are mandatory for a bug tracking system, which is absolutely true. If you *require* a client to use the system, well, there go half of your potential users.

      But that's not the point here. It looks like this product just connects to an existing Bugzilla database, so you get to keep all of the web based access you crave, but your frequent users can augment that with a rich client interface.

      If you work with bugzilla all the time, there are features that a web interface just can't give you. The biggest one: being able to work with Bugzilla offline (bug database behind a firewall, for instance). The ability to do bug triage from a coffee shop instead of the office could easily justify the price tag.

      Of course, it has to acutally install and run first. :)

    • Have you ever heard of FogBugz [fogcreek.com]? It solves many of the appearance and usability problems you were talking about. I have used it previously, and it worked very well for my company. It is also very easy on the eyes and has a clean interface (though it is not free). I am curious how this tool compares to Bugzilla since my experience with it is extremely limited. Is the ease-of-use of FogBugz worth the price? Are there major features missing here that Bugzilla lacks?

    • i agree with you. bugzilla is functional, but it is ugly as sin. it kinda screams "this application was made for ncsa mosaic".

      sounds like you should try mantis [mantisbt.org].
  • Ok, so how is this thing licensed? Open source? Freeware? Commercial?

    • Re:License (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:45PM (#13724057)
      For open source projects its offered as freeware [deskzilla.com]. You need to send an email to opensource@deskzilla.com with your name, project's name & URL, and Bugzilla URL of the project for a freebie key.Then you may proceed to download the proggie [deskzilla.com].

      For everyone else, it's purely commercial [deskzilla.com]. All your $99 are belong to them!

  • Costs $99 per license (Score:5, Informative)

    by bradbeattie ( 908320 ) <[bradbeattie] [at] [alumni.uwaterloo.ca]> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:39PM (#13724015) Homepage Journal
    Note that Deskzilla, unlike Bugzilla, is not open-source.

  • Smart Clients (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:39PM (#13724017) Homepage
    Call them 'smart clients' or 'fat clients' or whatever, but AJAX or not these babies are starting to make a comeback. The proliferation of web services and simple, secure client stacks to talk to them in whatever language one happens to use (C#, VB, Python, Perl, Ruby) simply make a far better solution than spankfangled 'rich' browser apps that are, for all their coolness, still difficult hacks. The desktop is still the best environment for creating useable apps. Give me a fast, stable widget library over crappy slow spaghetti JavaScript any day.
    • I tend to agree. Especially with technologies like java webstart and whatever the .net version of the same type of autoupdate client tool is called. To me the main advantage behind a web based application (not a general read only site, but an actual application), was that nothing needed to be installed on the client. When it becomes trivial to keep the client updated the main advantage of being web based, IMHO, goes away.

  • Is Bugzilla just for software development? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {noitaulav}> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:39PM (#13724020)
    I've been involved in a number of large projects at work that involve the use of several staff members and the creation of large, complex financial analysis models and literally thousands of pages of text. Could a program like Deskzilla (or full-blown Bugzilla) offer me and my colleagues some basic project management tools? It would be pretty cool if it could generate some sort of report that we could show to clients if they want a status report of our progress. Any thoughts on this? I've managed very well without such software, but anything to make better use of my time would help. I've no desire to get a commercial package like MS Project...I would like to keep things open and lean. Any thoughts on this?

    • Re:Is Bugzilla just for software development? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It is certainly very usable for a situation where you have a common goal and a few people working on sub-tasks that are required for that goal. Bugzilla will let you track what is dependant on what and let you easily communicate with each other.

      It's not as suitable for actually collaborating on content - that would work better with some Wiki software.

      It also doesn't really have anything that deals with timeframes and timelines.

      I've heard good things about http://www.edgewall.com/trac/ [edgewall.com].
    • Sadly the main reason I couldn't convince people to use it at work (and they were seriously interested) was because I couldn't easily tell them how to customize it. They wanted a tracking system they could use for not just software, but documentation and electronics drawings too. I figured it would be pretty easy to customize for that, but they wanted to make many changes, and I just didn't have enough experience with it to say, "yes, that'll be easy!" So they went with a commercial product. Sigh.

      Well,
      • "It would have been worse if they'd gone with it and then I'd be stuck PHP programming"

        Isn't bugzilla written in Perl? Oh yeah, I remember the pain getting the dependency graphing to work local :) Works like a charm now. Haven't touched the machine in 6 months.

    • Bugzilla isn't really set up for project tracking. It's more for logging and responding to defect and improvement requests throughout their lifecycles. E.g. A finds bug, B confirms bug, C fixes bug, sends it back to A to confirm it's fixed, etc. There are some free alternatives to MS Project, including Planner and OpenSched, which might do what you're looking for. Probably some other free or low cost Gantt chart creating/updating packages, too.
  • Anyone here ever use bugxula what are the advantages of that over deskzilla.
    Even though that Deskzilla is a cooler piece of software.

    PS Are thier other pieces of software that are like deskzill but are freeee.
    • Bugzilla is browser-based, so your client is your web browser. It's about as close to "runs anywhere" as you can get. No installation, no local maintenance. What makes or breaks bugzilla or any bug-tracking system is your team. Getting your engineers and programmers to use it is important, but getting the rest of the company to "buy in" can be tough. And it's their input to the bug process (including the "bug closing" part) that can be crucial. Everyone wants to complain about bugs, no one wants to he
      • Everyone wants to complain about bugs, no one wants to help confirm the fix.

        That is the crux of it all.

        You run into this at the office. You run into this with open source projects. It can be very, very frustrating.

  • Wow. Exactly backwards. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MirthScout ( 247854 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:47PM (#13724065)
    We've been evaluating a few request/bug/issue tracking products.

    The first thing I tell the vendors is that I'm not interested in client side software. I want it to be fully usable from most modern web browsers on most common OSs. This makes it accessible by any of our users without the need to install additional software on their computer (and we don't have to worry about updating it when a new version is released).

    Bugzilla is already a web application. I can't fathom why would anybody waste so much time making a client version that most sane administrators wouldn't want?

    • Re:Wow. Exactly backwards. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LordKazan ( 558383 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:51PM (#13724093) Homepage Journal
      For ease of use and offline usage

      Personally I like the appearance of this application and I think it would be _MUCH_ easier to use than the actual web interface - and the offline usage ability is a wonderful feature


      It's nice that they offer free copies to members of established OSS projects


      if they get $99/copy for this i should write one for trac!
    • The administrator doesn't have to do *anything* for it. As long as it's normal old bugzilla, then deskzilla will communicate with it via HTTP just like a webbrowser would.

      This is something that the client can use if the client wants to; it adds extra functionality, and is only for users who want what it gives. It doesn't stop anyone from using the traditional web-based approach - indeed, if you want to use flags, you've still got to use the web.

      --LWM

  • Already written in Java... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shadowmatter ( 734276 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:49PM (#13724080)
    ... Just too bad it isn't an Eclipse plug-in. That would have been slick.

    - shadowmatter
  • As someone who's used quite a few web-based and client-based bug trackers over the years, I'll say that Bugzilla's web interface leaves a *LOT* to be desired: you are seriously limited in the complexity of queries you can write, your sorting options are laughable, general result layout is very poor, etc etc.

    So I was prety excited when I saw this post - I downloaded the product and immediately tried it out. Unfortunately this product doesn't really add much: sorting is unimproved, the query builder is a lit

  • Thick vs. Thin, the age old question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brett77 ( 808513 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @02:51PM (#13724524)

    Lets see, first came the client/server applications and all was well! Well, not exactly first, but for the purpose of this discussion I'll say client/server came first. Companies grew faster than tech services could scale-out servers and management shouted "Oh no! This monolithic application will not scale!"

    Then came the browser with all the promises of client side scripting and the developers shouted "I can do anything in a browser using sweet javascript code that you old client/server developers can do in a thick client! It will scale to tens of thousands!!"

    2 years go by as developers embed thousands of lines of sweet javascript code to accomplish what you can do in a thick client in maybe 100 lines (I'm exaggerating here).

    Management shouts "Oh no, my thin web application is taking 10 seconds to load as it parses 50K lines of sweet (now a spaghetti mess) javascript code!"

    The new age of developer shouts "I can accomplish everything your antiquated web application can do, using XML web services while still providing a thin client with increased functionality in half the development time! Not to mention the application will be self updating so you will never need to support older versions of the application!"

    And managment shouts "WTF!"

  • A lot of the data mining and reporting tools I want on the client are already available in Excel. Can Bugzilla be accessed from Excel?

    Since our admins set up a couple of convenient SQL Views on our DevTrack database, I've been able to very easily access our issue/bug tracking system via Query Analyzer and Excel. Excel is awesome as I can quickly look at how things are going with things like pivot tables, or just formating the data in a way that is useful to me and the team. I can then forward the spreads
  • I went to the screenshot page ( http://deskzilla.com/shots.html [deskzilla.com]) and scrolled to the very bottom, where it says:

    Copyright © ALM Works Ltd 2004-2005 Deskzilla is not related in any way to Mozilla Organization or its employees. Bugzilla and Mozilla are trademarks owned by Netscape Communications Corporation.

    Naturally, I double checked on that one over at Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/faq. html [mozilla.org]) and found:

    The Mozilla trademarks include, among others, the names Mozilla(TM),

  • While we're at it (Score:3, Funny)

    by williepete25 ( 668669 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @03:41PM (#13724862)
    Lets build a slashdot desktop client. Then I can /. offline. willie

Slashdot Top Deals

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Close