Reading the website for FogBUGZ I don't feel like I have a clear understanding of FogBUGZ's benefits over, say, Bugzilla.
Why should one use FogBUGZ over Bugzilla (or other well used bug / feature trackers?)
Thursday, November 7, 2002
Isn't BugZilla for fans of Linux and Open Source?
I know that there are Windows 32 versions, but they are more or less "unsupported" or at the very least advocate replacing Windows with Linux.
Joel is providing a quality product that runs on platforms most organizations have, so I'm certainly not going to complain.
John R. Troy
Friday, November 8, 2002
What's not to like about Linux and Open Source software?
As Bugzilla (like FogBugz) is primarily a web-based bug tracking system, it resides on a server - one can install linux on an old Pentium 2 system and have a dedicated Bugzilla server up and running in about an hour or less - assuming that they know how to configure linux. Furthermore, you can't argue with the price - no OS licensing fee and no software cost.
On the other hand, FogBugz certainly seems to be a superior product to Bugzilla. Bugzilla's default UI is pretty ugly (Though one can adjust the templates to the heart's content) CVS and email integration in Bugzilla is also sorely lacking. It is present, but is a pain to get working and has nearly no documentation. Some of the little touches in FogBUGZ seem to put it a leg up. (in-line image viewing etc)
Bugzilla is 'industrial-grade' sofware however, and does a fine job of tracking bugs.
Friday, November 8, 2002
I wasn't trying to insult "open source"
The only thing I've found is some Open Source projects tend to have very elitist supporters. They assume everybody is a Perl Guru or would only work with Linux, or actually have the technical knowledge to change the things "they don't like".
The biggest objection I have to many of these projects is a lack of well-written documentation. I am a web developer who had started with Cold Fusion (althogh I now work a lot with ASP/VBScript), and people kept talking about PHP as being better. Well, I looked at the documentation they had, compared to Allaire's well-written docs, and I just made my choice based on that.
Fogbugz is well documented, has a good interface, has free access to the source code. In my mind, I think paying for software has some benefits.
John R. Troy
Saturday, November 9, 2002
Obviously, as a commercial product, I expect FogBUGZ to be well supported, well documented, and not require nearly the same amount of customisation as Bugzilla does to get things going. And I think I'd be pretty happy about that -- time spent working on Bugzilla is dead, unproductive time for us.
Bugzilla was designed as a bug tracking tool for Mozilla. That's all. Whereas FogBUGZ seems to have been designed with a broader agenda, one fitting an overall approach to software management (eg deliberately lacking certain reports, no custom fields, etc).
I guess what I was interested in is how the two different approaches translated into their final products. To an end user, is it obvious that FogBUGZ supports a wider set of requirements -- what affect on software quality could a switch from Bugzilla to FogBUGZ make?
Sunday, November 10, 2002
Here's a random data point -- about half of the people who take advantage of our competitive upgrade are upgrading from Bugzilla. This is self-reported so it's not ultra scientific.
I don't know much about Bugzilla (sorry, no time to review the competition!) but it's pretty clear to us that quite a lot of teams that had Bugzilla up and running evaluated FogBUGZ and decided to shell out actual money for it.
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
Fog Creek Home