Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Atlassian moving to cloud-only, will stop selling server licenses (atlassian.com)
376 points by ameshkov 5 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 293 comments





This sounds like a terrible move and will probably force all medium-size organizations I work with to ditch Atlassian.

We have the technical know-how to administer data center versions of their products, but we can’t do shit if they force potential customers to pay for a minimum of 40 000 USD for a license per product.

Many of these orgs have multiple Atlassian products so this will probably end up doubling costs on several products at the same time effectively making it a money sink and impossible to justify to their budgeting.

I would have been perfectly OK with DC taking over server with similar pricing, but this is just a monumentally idiotic greed-driven move.

Now small-medium-large organizations are either forced to pay A LOT of money for self-hosting their highly protected data or either use their cloud. The latter is out of question for almost all of the organisations I know.

If I was a Microsoft or another enterprise tech company I’d hire a thousand engineers tomorrow to develop a Jira/Confluence competitor before the grace period for server licenses ends. All that engineering money will pay itself back whent they can sell modern collab tools without tech debt from 15 years ago for a price we can tolerate.


Our org uses both Jira Server & Confluence Server - and I’m fairly sure this will make us move away from Atlassian’s products.

The split between cloud and server offerings is partly to blame here.

My thoughts go out to the businesses that have built plugins for Jira and had to endure the variances between cloud and server, or worse, only catered for the server market.

The group at tempo timesheets[1] particularly come to mind here.

Thinking ahead - I’m hoping that an org like GitLab (who have got their Saas v On-Prem offerings balance right) is able to keep building on and catering for this space.

Their planning features are not there yet, but there’s a great group of people with oodles of traction and a roadmap that aligns with this problem space[2].

[1] https://www.tempo.io

[2] https://about.gitlab.com/direction/maturity/#plan


> I’m hoping that an org like GitLab is able to keep building on and catering for this space.

That's not really an option for organizations whose main product isn't code, no?


Yeah, Jira is the standard issue tracker precisely because it works on all levels of the organization, not just the "code monkey" ones.

We (GitLab) have strong planning features but are missing workflow enforcement. GitLab also has a wiki but it is less user friendly than Confluence.

What we mainly need is cheap/free non-coding users. I'm really not comfortable paying for a gitlab seat per support staff we hire.

Thanks for the thought, I have forwarded it into an issue discussing a similar topic on issue management for specific groups not counting towards the license limit: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/2105#note_4326...

> If I was a Microsoft or another enterprise tech company I’d hire a thousand engineers tomorrow to develop a Jira/Confluence competitor before the grace period for server licenses ends.

Azure DevOps Server, née Visual Studio Team System, already exists.


TFS is the self-hosted predecessor to Azure DevOps and it absolutely sucks compared to JIRA.

>"absolutely sucks compared to JIRA"

Congratulations, according to Google you are the first person on the internet ever to use that phrase. Indeed only the second ever to string the last four of those words together.


Let me be the second person then. Jira is way ahead of TFS and I worked extensively with TFS in my last job. That could just be me though.

This quote from Bjarne Stroustroup is very relevant:

> There are two kinds of programming languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.

JIRA is the C++ of project management software. It works. It has worked forever. It is easy to shoot yourself in the foot but a savvy operator can't be beat. It's unwieldy at first but gives you all the power to build a really sophisticated and efficient process.


"better than jira" returns 6210 results, too :)

How can you be worse than JIRA? Thats almost impressive.

My understanding of Jira is that it by itself does not suck but it bends over backwards for asinine “business processes” so it is difficult to find an implementation in the wild that does not suck.

I know a little about the inside of the jira sausage factory from second hand reports. It's got the "accrete everyone else's business processes" problem that you mentioned, but it's also got the problem that it's quite spaghetti on the inside as well, probably for the usual reason - startup founders writing lots of code in a hurry and conflating the purpose of the software with its architecture due to being too close to the problem. Compound that with the usual startup-in-growth problem of more people than necessary (with presumably very uneven capabilities) working on the codebase and you've got a recipe for a maintenance problem.

I do know that getting put in the jira team is one of the least fun parts of working for atlassian.


I’ve heard this from multiple sources as well. IMHO, atlassian has had lots of opportunity to fix this... they’ve just been too focused on the next shiny object to do the less fun work of refactoring and redesigning the engine layers into something more sustainable.

JIRA is essentially a platform. It is unopinionated and infinitely configurable. This leaves it open to abuse and many orgs will absolutely abuse it. Other products that are popular do very little by comparison. That lets them build a really tight and simple UI but any org with more than vanilla requirements will hit a wall.

Quite easy, I have am been around for 30+ years in IT and have yet to find something that beats Jira in all its integration options, possibilities of formating tickets information, and flexibility to definie project specific workflows.

Given the option, I will always push for Jira, and associated Atlassian products.


> have yet to find something that beats Jira in all its integration options, possibilities of formating tickets information, and flexibility to definie project specific workflows

I think the reason you like it is exactly the reason a lot of people hate it.


possibilities of formating tickets information, and flexibility to definie project specific workflows.

JIRA in its default state is fairly sane. People who hate it, usually with a white-hot burning passion, really hate the ham-fisted customisations their own organisation has done to it.


Indeed. Compare Jira with ServiceNow and it is like night and day. They serve different purposes, but Jira is friendly and SN almost hostile.

They're both tools to build forms. How horrible the forms are is really up to your organization. Whether they force you to fill 50 mandatory fields or not.

You would think that, until you try to use ServiceNow.

You know ServiceNow is the de-facto standard in ITSM, don't you?

This really does not say any thing outside you have 30 years+ in IT. What did Jira fix? I find what you said fully false given the context of the statements.

Why has this had adds playing every time I turn my radio on for the last 2 years as well..?


It means I have seen a lot in what concerns bug tracking and planning systems, from home grown cgi scripts with a basic form submit to enterprise deployment platforms like DOORS and ClearQuest, with dedicated IT support teams to just keep them running, and anything else that you can think of in between.

What do you think is better than Jira, and why?

I'm not the previous commenter, but I also have a similar 30+ years experience, and I've used quite a lot of project management software. I've seen Jira used poorly, and used quite efficiently for managing projects. My current job uses Jira and nobody in the company has ever expressed anything negative about Jira, and it's become quite nice to use. But again, I have seen some companies absolutely fail at Jira. YMMV.


What's wrong with JIRA? If it is about the usage of it within some orgs, I don't know if it is the tool or culture.

I have seen some people fawning over tools like Asana but in my usage I just found it fancier and slower than Jira.

Personally, as a developer I find GitHub issues to be good enough.


I feel like I've had two experiences with it. Probably 10 years ago I was at a medium sized facility and we migrated 10 different ticketing systems to Jira hosted on-site. It was a little awkward, not quite lightweight, but served all the needs and it was amazing to move tickets between departments while maintaining history and the customization of presentation and fields. Confluence was a much nicer wiki system compared to others at the time and it was nice to integrate Jira/Confluence. Search and Filters are something many other systems suck that for both wiki and ticketing.

I left that job and for awhile working at places using different ticketing systems, hearing complaints on places like HN about Jira, and wishing for features those other systems were missing. A few years ago I started at a place that used the cloud hosted Jira at a much smaller company (with an enthusiastic lead who likely tweaked the setup himself). It was a much, much worse experience. It was horribly slow and I guess they had focused on "management" features that made a normal ticket process annoying and confusing (it may have been how it was configured). Reading around I think the horrible performance was because of scaling architecture decisions that Atlassian made, which I heard they've at least acknowledged and are addressing. I gasped when I saw this headline they plan to drop local hosting before getting cloud performance issues behind them.


Man Asana is a real mystery. It has fewer features and worse UX than JIRA. I constantly have trouble clicking on the right thing or having some auto action just do something unexpected. It's coasting on having a nice stylesheet.

Oh, it is very possible. Look at most ITIL software, although it might be hard, they usually don't have screenshots on their websites so the only way to see the product is in the company of a sales person.

I wish we had something even half as good as Jira.


People are spoiled.

JIRA sucks, but it sucks compared to more lightweight tools and the modern aesthetic

It outperforms previous tracking tools like bugzilla, trac, or those proprietary piles of crap like the "Rational" tools


Can you give me some examples of tools that are better? Genuinely curious.

I've used JIRA at multiple workplaces and really enjoy it. I like Github issues and Trello for my personal task/issue tracking but I don't think they're suitable for more complex projects.


I don't think it's possible to say that one project management project is universally better than anything else. What a team needs out of project management tools varies immensely.

In this thread there's people saying that inability to host on prem is an absolute blocker for them, for others they have zero problems with their data being SaaS-hosted. Some people need deep analytics to measure how their team is doing and they can meet deliverables, and some people could care less. Some people have 10+ workflow stages with tons of rules, some people are fine with Todo / in progress / done.

If you have a small team and dont really care about reporting, Trello is probably a great option for you.

If you want reporting, but are willing to work with a somewhat prescribed workflow / process, across a few teams at most, clubhouse or pivotal tracker are great.

If you need full control and flexibility, and are willing to give up some ease of use and speed, JIRA probably is your best bet.


ClearQuest wants a word.

Now that brings back some bad memories from around 2001.

HP Quality Center.

OMG.

In the place I worked at with quality there was a multi page document on how to file a ticket. It was a nightmare.


Polarion clears it's throat...

Thanks. So true. How a UI can damage a product is never as obvious as with ticket management systems.

This disagrees with my experience in both systems, especially if you’re using TFS for your build system, too and Visual Studio for programming. TFS was far better.

One of my customers uses Azure DevOps Server, self hosted. And it's missing a lot of features that the cloud version offers.

I think this is on purpose to push people to the clould offering.


If I was going to switch anyway, I wouldn't switch to Azure DevOps Server, I'd switch to GitHub Enterprise. I don't think there's much of a future for Azure DevOps.

> I don't think there's much of a future for Azure DevOps.

This is just... wow.

Every Microsoft shop I've ever worked at defaults to Azure. You need a really good reason to use GCP or AWS for anything, and it's an uphill battle. They're already paying licensing fees to Microsoft, there are incentives and discounts to stay within the ecosystem. My current employer has GitHub Enterprise and we still use DevOps for a lot of stuff, especially anything that business stakeholders have to touch.


> Every Microsoft shop I've ever worked at defaults to Azure. You need a really good reason to use GCP or AWS for anything, and it's an uphill battle

(1) Github Enterprise, the alternative suggested, is a Microsoft product (Github is Microsoft), not GCP or AWS. Given the way Microsoft seems to be investing and promoting products, seeing Github Enterprise as having more legs than Azure DevOps is completely reasonable. (And I'm the one who introduced Azure DevOps into the discussion.)

(2) I work for what has historically been an enterprise Microsoft shop; our cloud transition, except for some use of Github and Azure AD, been primarily AWS-based.


> been primarily AWS-based.

Same here for the MS shops I work with; actually no Azure at all.


I think GP is more referring to the fact that GitHub Actions et al are a better reimplementation of Azure DevOps. I suspect Azure DevOps will be deprecated in favour of GitHub.

This shouldn’t be downvoted, I’m certain it’s true.

If you talk to a Microsoft rep, they “recommend github enterprise for new projects”.

Microsoft obviously cares about backwards compatibility, and there is no way to currently migrate your stuff.

So... it’s not going to happen tomorrow, but it is going to happen.

...and no, it doesn’t have the nice clickops UI from devops: but that’s legacy now in favour of the multistage yaml pipelines.

You can close your eyes and cross your fingers and say Azure Devops will Be around forever... but, you’d be wrong.


I work in a Microsoft shop and we're all in on AWS. Seen a few transition from Azure to AWS also.

I built a pipeline for testing purposes / for an upcoming presentation with github actions.

The amount of bugs i encountered is.. Bad. From not starting build agents, to stopped agents to hanging etc etc etc..

That said: i looooove the docker container concept for builders :)


Azure devops was the first to offer Windows based self-hosted runners - if you’re stuck in the drudgery of building Windows software, because your customers only run Windows servers, it was pretty much the only modern devops option for a while. I don’t think Devops is going anywhere anytime soon, I’ve heard utilization is quite high.

It already exists. JetBrains YouTrack has an on-site version with similar features to Jira, and the latest version comes with a wiki feature called Knowledge Base. [1]

There's also an automatic import process from Jira [2].

YouTrack has a cloud version now. Unfortunately they used the introduction of this to raise the prices for their self-hosted version. However they do allow migration both to and from the cloud version, and they plan to introduce a self-hosted version of their newest Space product, so it seems JetBrains is more DIY friendly than Atlassian.

JB seem like a better company anyway. It's hard to forget Atlassian's decision to stop rewarding employees based on merit, a system they claimed was created by "white men" [3]. The new system rewards employees largely for following the "company values". Under the company values page [4], they claim one of their values is "Don’t #@!% the customer". Interesting way to show it.

[1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/youtrack/standalone/Getting-S...

[2] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/youtrack/standalone/importing...

[3] https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/atlassian-ditch...

[4] https://www.atlassian.com/company/values


In our case we're ditching our office and that probably means we'll be using the Atlassian cloud instance (since I imagine our server racks will be scrapped eventually), which might be a trend they're seeing altogether.

I agree. this is a jump-the-shark move.

I've worked with confluence and jira and they are not as good as other products - but we can put any kind of confidential data in them. Everybody likes sharepoint/google docs/slack way better.


I feel like SharePoint and Google Docs are fundamentally different products that Confluence.

Looking for a Confluence competitor with permissions, version tracking, templates, and search but don't feel like I have found a good alternative.


I don't think we use version tracking, templates are not really used (but they should be!) and search could be better.

We basically use confluence like a wiki, but it's abnormally hard to put info into it.


Hard in what way?

by spending a lot of time in the confluence editor doing things the confluence way.

Yeah, it can definitely feel like a time-suck sometimes. What "confluence way" things would you do differently? And how?

XWiki is the closest thing I've found to Confluence.

Sharepoint? <spits out glass of water>

ok i take that one back personally, but somehow microsoft stuff keeps getting chosen by the decision makers.

This sounds like a terrible move and will probably force all medium-size organizations I work with to ditch Atlassian.

Me too. How awesome is that! Its absolutely fantastic news.

Edit: This is great for those of us that have to suffer Atlassian products that we didn't choose. It is also good news for companies such as Gitlab that do offer self-hosted solutions.


And what on-premise substitute do you think will be superior? Asking seriously.

I have no answer to that, but if one is forced to go off of on-prem Jira and go into the cloud, it may not follow that people will go to in-cloud Jira. Once an organization is forced to do work, it may be the opportunity re-evaluate things and find something "better" (local or in-cloud) instead of just renewing annually due to inertial.

Our org uses both Jira Server & Confluence Server - and I’m fairly sure this will make us move away from Atlassian’s products

The split between cloud and server offerings is partly to blame here

My thoughts go out to the businesses that have built plugins for Jira and had to endure the variances between cloud and server, or worse, only catered for the server market.

The group at tempo timesheets[1] particularly come to mind here

Thinking ahead - I’m hoping that an org like GitLab (who have got their Saas v On-Prem offerings balance right) is able to keep building on and catering for this space.

Their planning features are not there yet, but there’s a great group of people with oodles of traction and a roadmap that aligns with this problem space[2].

[1] www.tempo.up [2] https://about.gitlab.com/direction/maturity/#plan


Yes, there still is no easy way to migrate Tempo data from Server to Cloud. Their advice is "there's an API - good luck" [1].

Gitlab is great for their developer niche, but the relatively weak issue tracker and wiki lets them down for more general use. Still, Gitlab is a great company with momentum and a roadmap. Feel free to join us [2] in looking at such alternatives.

[1] https://tempo-io.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/THC/pages/8969584...

[2] https://www.goodbyeserver.org


Hi, Developer Evangelist at GitLab here.

"Relatively weak issue tracker and wiki" got me interested - mind elaborating in more detail what brings you to this conclusion? :)

Thanks!


Please stop doing this. Fishing for product insight on such broad opinions in an open forum does a disservice for Gitlab the product and the team. If it was a natural question... But this is so canned, every gitlab employee here does it, sounds flaky and impersonal. Almost troll-like, maybe even arrogant tbh.

You really don't know why Gitlab is not an issue tracker like Jira is? I'm sure you do, or at least you should know. Being an issue tracker like Jira is not even a bad thing! So why try to look like you think you can be as bad as Jira?

/rant (from a Gitlab fan)


Hi,

sorry that it came around this way. I was really interested in your honest opinion, as my personal experience with Jira is limited at this point with 7 months into my new role. I have been asked about it during past GitLab trainings in my old job, but never used it in production myself. May sound weird, but I learn the most from users sharing their experiences :) Hence my question, it would help my research.



Not just "medium-sized".

We're really larger than "medium-sized", but we're not the kind of company that can or will force everyone to use Jira.

Jira adoption could have happened, but it would only have been possible in a bottom-up, team-by-team basis. And certainly not with a $40000 starting price tag.

As it is, yeah, we're planning on migrating off Jira now.


> If I was a Microsoft or another enterprise tech company I’d hire a thousand engineers tomorrow to develop a Jira/Confluence competitor before the grace period for server licenses ends.

Microsoft already has GitHub that works fine as a Jira/Confluence substitute for technical people. Maybe this will be their call to make it more accessable.


> Microsoft already has GitHub that works fine as a Jira/Confluence substitute for technical people.

But if you want to replace Confluence as the knowledge base for the business people, there's Sharepoint, which is better than massaging your genitals with broken glass, but not by much.


Microsoft also has Azure Devops, which essentially competes with Jira + Teamcity in one. Confluence is covered by either Azure Devops wikis or SharePoint.

Microsoft is busy also pretending OnPrem does not exist, They cancelled all of the OnPrem cert programs, and everything is "Cloud First", with Onprem products being treated as second class with price increases to push people to subscriptions

Microsoft is doing the same with Azure DevOps and big orgs with sensitive data are moving there as well. I don't think you can even have Azure DevOps on premise.

So Atlassian is doing it because they know there is no competitor that would jump in. Because everyone else also goes that direction.


> I don't think you can even have Azure DevOps on premise.

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/devops/server/

“Previously known as Team Foundation Server (TFS), Azure DevOps Server is a set of collaborative software development tools, hosted on-premises.”


> So Atlassian is doing it because they know there is no competitor that would jump in. Because everyone else also goes that direction.

New Confluence licenses will no longer be available in 2021 and support ends in 2024 (though it seems the Data Centre version will still be available, but it's expensive). That's potentially 3-4 years lead time to get something going. Either totally on-prem or an either-or option (à lab GitLab).


Wow. This must feel like a huge fuck-you to people that migrated to Atlassian because they could host things locally (I worked at a place that made the leap 3 years ago and it was a somewhat controversial decision. I feel kinda bad for everyone that'll be hearing an "I told you so" on Monday morning).

Not only is the product being killed, they're raising the price during the migration period. Their FAQ also hints that even more price increases are coming. I imagine they'll lose a lot of customers that can't or won't send all of their data into the cloud


And they are doing all of this while Microsoft is strengthening its competitive offerings.

It's the Oracle playbook. F*ck customers, make money. Seems to work rather well, actually!

This is why you always have to figure out what abandoning the software you pick would look like before you integrate into everything else.

This is entirely because they had to fork their product and codebase between cloud and on-prem, and their resulting total failure on execution on their internal product roadmap. Atlasssian has demonstrated a chronic inability over the past few years to maintain feature parity between what are effectively two different products. Atlasssian has had a really, really terrible feature execution delivery pace over the past few years - "Next-Gen Projects" were so immature at launch they were useless, and have been incredibly slow to mature.

So they need to focus their developers onto building features on the Cloud product codebase, but I am not hopeful that this means they'll actually ship features faster.


There’s an irony in Atlassian failing to manage their internal roadmap and timelines.

Love this!

It's insane that they had to that rather than giving their On-Prem version the ability to scale the way you need a SaaS service to scale. Turning your SaaS Ops team into an On-Prem customer is a great way to dog-food your product.

It's not easy unless you begin with that mind-set from day one.

In fact, it gets tricky as you have "location-flagged" functionality depending upon Cloud or Self-hosted.

We did this from scratch @ Documize by making (bold?) choices around deployment/runtime and database schema design for both SaaS and self-hosted "products":

- run the exact same binary (we used Golang)

- share/use the exact same database schema

- data migration process the same for schema changes

- support multi-tenanting: "enterprise" self-hosted also multi-tenanting so different teams/departments internally get different URLs

- use the same "build" process to compile and ship

Probably plenty more I could tell you!


I know it's not easy, but it's the only viable path form my experience. I ended up doing something similar, but taking our SaaS product and packaging it in a way that it could be run On-Prem. There was a really interesting feedback cycle where we wanted to make the On-Prem and SaaS deployments work as similarly as possible.

Atlassian's Cloud products were initially (~2009) just the Server products with a few plugins bolted on to unify the UI, deployed in bulk. Over time the backends diverged, and here we are.

We're using Jira, Confluence, and BitBucket on-prem at our DC now, on some pretty sizeable VM's with good network connectivity back to head office.

Despite that, it feels very slow. Not the occasional 10+ second page load, where you've accidentally clicked something that happens to generate a cascade of cache misses. I can forgive that kind of infrequent performance hiccup.

But rather, regular usage, especially of Confluence and Jira, just feels sluggish when doing bread and butter actions - adding a comment to a ticket or reloading a kanban view, loading a new page or opening the search dialog on Confluence.

Yet, everything I've heard about the responsiveness of the 'cloud' offering is that it drives people to move to the on-prem server version.


Atlassian does not provide particularly good guidance on how to get their tools to perform well. The first big issue for any moderately busy system is that you need to dedicate huge gobs of heap memory (think 16G+) to the tool. After that, they suffer from poor schema design - there are tables that are literally missing indexes on commonly queried columns, and some columns that have delimited values embedded in them.

It's hard for me to imagine that atlassian would allow individual instances of jira/confluence/etc in their cloud versions to get nearly as much resources as you need to give them on-prem. The incentive would always be for them to try to minimize the amount of memory every instance gets, which does NOT maximize your individual performance. Shared resources will also make performance more variable and "noisy", making it more difficult to narrow down specific causes. It's hard for me to see how "Java" and "cloud" go together.


> It's hard for me to see how "Java" and "cloud" go together

AirBnb, LinkedIn, Netflix, Twitter, Foursquare, Sony, Shopify etc.

Most of the top tier websites use something on the JVM e.g. Java, Scala.


> It's hard for me to imagine that atlassian would allow individual instances of jira/confluence/etc in their cloud versions to get nearly as much resources as you need to give them on-prem.

I always wondered that, too! Like, you'd think that if you have devs building a product and a team running a hosted instance of the product in the same company, that they'd have a very good feedback loop and make it easy to run the thing and to do it well. Although, I wonder if the answer is that it's not the same product - like with bitbucket, where the thing they run in the cloud isn't the same thing as they sell for on-prem. Or even a lighter version (BB, AFAIK, is literally 2 separate codebases), where they cut features in order to make the cloud version work.

> It's hard for me to see how "Java" and "cloud" go together.

Nah, it's not Java, it's the specific product. I've worked at a SaaS shop that did all Java, and while the pathological cases are comically bad, it's actually fine most of the time IME.


They don’t.

They forked the code base around 5 years ago now. Cloud/on prem.

Cloud is or was multi tenanted, you didn’t get your own isolated server, you got routed to some compute that would then pull data at request time based on your tenant id.

With a hard fork of two seperate product streams it was inevitable at some point maintaining feature parity between products would get to much.

Java and cloud go together quite nicely. Backend services, a JVM that has now be tuned for many many years by lots of clever people. If you have a long lived service it works really well. It works better than your node js app running a single instance on a multi core server with the event loop getting blocked.


Makes sense. SaaS and desktop have subtle different needs that cause widely different problems to solve.

The amount of effort I would fathom needed to maintain a single code base that's architected to do both would be exhausting.

I'm disappointed they don't just come out and say it, i.e. play open cards and help your customers understand


> It's hard for me to imagine that atlassian would allow individual instances of jira/confluence/etc in their cloud versions to get nearly as much resources as you need to give them on-prem.

The homedir for our on-prem Confluence instance is >120GB and the MySQL dump is 26GB uncompressed (2GB gzipped).

Not sure how that import would/will go.


If Atlassian gets paid by month to store it, it seems ok. Most images seem to be in AWS anyway, so they probably don’t back them up. The DB can get big but is that a problem if they are paid to maintain it?

>It's hard for me to see how "Java" and "cloud" go together.

Netflix.

> It's hard for me to imagine that atlassian would allow individual instances of jira/confluence/etc in their cloud versions to get nearly as much resources as you need to give them on-prem

Yes, which is why the atlasaian cloud is no longer a collection of individual customer instances. More details: https://youtu.be/0N4KknY_zdU


> It's hard for me to see how "Java" and "cloud" go together.

Why? From its release, Java has been used for SaaS. SAP runs its cloud services using Java and this includes subsidiaries Ariba, Concur, and SuccessFactors.


> It's hard for me to see how "Java" and "cloud" go together.

Given the number of companies known to use Java in the cloud very successfully, this is a “Citation Needed” moment.


I've no recent experience of the on-prem version, but nowadays I have to use the cloud version and it's painfully slow. One common problem I encounter is that after a page loads I might want to search for something in the search box. I'll click it and start typing ... then at some point the rest of the page has loaded including the stupid key bindings which do various random actions on different keystrokes. I don't know why they have this, it's infuriating.

Oh and they keep updating the UI which involves shuffling things around and every new version is slower than the last. If you're running on-prem you at least get to decide when to update and notify everyone accordingly. We'd just find out one day that everything has been moved around and learn the new locations of different features.

Sorry I'm really just generally ranting about Jira now but honestly I find it so infuriating to use. Confluence as well, how did they manage to make wikis suck so bad?


Agreed. Hijacking ctrl-f in my browser (chrome) is user-hostile, given searching on-page is a reasonable expectation for any web app.

I use Confluence regularly over a high latency (600ms) link - and this has the surprise / delayed page load you describe, with the newer search features refusing to action your search request until it's loaded & rendered a large overlay on the right-hand side of the screen.

These two attributes make are hugely frustrating, given looking for information is the key function of a wiki.


Yep:) At a previous job, we also did Jira/Confluence/BitBucket self-hosted, running on what should have been nice hardware, and spent months chasing performance issues, including a charming issue that was so bad that it broke jira for the entire company every... Monday, I think? When you have a well-used standard operating procedure for restarting Jira just to unfreeze it, you have a problem. We were pretty sure it was somebody running a weekly report with some monstrous query, but 1. not even Atlassian support could seem to tell us how to find such an event, and 2. I don't really care how bad the query is - if you can run a query and take down the system for the whole company, then the software is bad. And honestly, even "normal" performance was poor - I seem to recall that it at least acted like the web UI was the slow part; running a local CLI client against the API was faster.

Well they certainly noticed companies running their own Jira hurt the image of Atlassian, and stopped offering the service altogether. It would be a knee-jerk reaction but possible.

Jira is probably the slowest piece of software I use in my job. I can't believe there's an interstitial loading screen with a status bar for cloning an issue.

The performance on the cloud version is awful. When I previously self hosted it was a miserable management experience, but it definitely felt snappier than the current cloud version does.

I don’t share the same experiences with slowness (maybe we do something right on the instances we manage). I do however experience slowness in cloud. I assume they increase cloud resources in some kinds of steps that make them appear extremely sluggish.

Sorry to hear it's been a frustrating experience. I'm a PM for Confluence Cloud and we're always trying to make it better. Would you be willing to share more specifics, such as: - Pages with content X are the slowest - Trying to do A/B/C is annoyingly slow - etc ?

You should be able to experience the slowness for yourself by spending a few minutes using your product. Then try something like notion or pretty much any other web app and notice how your blood pressure drops and your stress levels decrease.

It is not a particular area it is the whole thing. Every interaction makes me want to gouge my own eyes out. It's a glorified text area with a menu, why should every click cause dozens of requests that take more than 10 seconds to complete?

I can only conclude Atlassian engineering is utterly disfunctional for this to have gone on so long unimproved.


Hi ratherbefuddled,

We definitely recognize we have a lot of work to do on performance in general, and we're definitely trying. "fixing everything" is definitely part of our plans, but we'd also like to "fix whatever users find the most frustrating".

If any specific items stand out as the most frustrating please do let us know.


I think you are taking entirely the wrong approach here.

Pressing refresh on the front page causes TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN requests for about 7MB of resources.

The only meaningful content on this page is a list of 20 or so links.

You don't need customer feedback here, you need some basic engineering principles and a tiny bit of pride.


Hi ratherbefuddled,

Thank you for the insight. We are definitely working on generalized efforts to make 'most/all/everything' faster (including speeding up the app overhead), but those types of projects unsurprisingly take a little longer to finish.

On the other hand, specific user feedback might be 'the most annoying thing to me is that pages with Links load slowly, I need the links to load earlier because of X', or 'I need inline comments to load faster than page comments, because of reason Y'

-> this type of feedback could give us something we can fix quickly and alleviate user frustration sooner. Hopefully the intention makes sense.

Of course, in general, we're also always looking for any feedback that can help us improve Confluence!


Where is the data hosted? Somehow it feels like the devs are located close to the data and don't notice the lag. And for me in central Europe, some requests must travel across the world and back.

Hi sheeeep86,

My original post did not mean to give the impression we think Confluence is fast - we do recognize that we have a lot of room for improvement.

The reason we're asking for feedback on specific areas that are annoying is that while we can work on making 'everything' faster, knowing which specific items may be of the most concern may allow us to focus fix those items first.

If you do have any feedback around such specific items we would be happy if you're willing to share it.


Surely you have metrics?

Hi vasco,

We have a lot of metrics, and we recognize that Confluence is not as fast or as good an experience as it should be.

However nothing beats user feedback - hearing specific feedback from users may provide us with specific areas that we can focus our work, on top of the work we're already doing.

If you have any feedback like that, we're hopeful you're willing to share it with us.


I agree with you on user feedback being valuable, but not to figure out what's slow. You should be getting that information accurately through metrics and know what to prioritise without having to speak to anyone. Reserve questions you can't get answers for otherwise for user interviews.

If your avarage is always 10 seconds, 7 is fast!

While we had very similar experiences - only used JIRA but the performance was borderline-unusable - I've heard reputable sources say that configuration plays a tremendous role in that. I'm inclined to believe we just hadn't configured it "correctly," but the fact that you can destroy performance by casual misconfiguration is itself a pretty big issue.

I've heard the same about cloud performance, which seems to be an argument against it being simply configuration, but who really knows?


When I used JIRA Cloud about a year ago I measured 30s+ load times on every single page. For a nearly-empty instance with no customizations, just their scrum template.

Yes, it's like that out of the box. The next gen stuff offers no improvement whatsoever.

My experience with Jira makes me think that extensions are a big portion of the problem here.

Confluence just sucks though.


What about Confluence sucks specifically? I share your view but how could it be better?

1. Performance. It is incredibly slow without customization.

2. Editing is a clunky process. Not only is the UX subpar, it never loads all the possible widgets you can insert, making dynamic content a pain.

3. Awful search. It always manages to find internal process documents from 2014 and not the service pages I actually want.

4. Tough to reorganize content. Moving a page around is just hard enough that people tend not to do it, resulting in really poorly organized content.

Honestly, I’d be happier using notion or just GitHub wikis. But the main benefit of putting our docs at wiki.$COMPANY.com is that I can guarantee discoverability for other teams, so we’re kinda stuck with it.


Ouch, on-prem software is a really tough business. I can kinda see why companies want out. Especially as they get bigger. Two of my former employers had to go through this hurdle of moving to SaaS from a an on-prem installation.

* It's really hard to scale support. You end up being on the hook for why "it's not working" in thousands of different of environments you have zero control over. Anyone qualified to do that level of support could be making more money not hating their life.

* Nobody wants to pay for updates. I mean it's totally rational but we also don't want to support $old_version forever.

* Even when updates were free people still didn't do it. Telling your users "sorry you're using an ancient version, please update" just makes people angry. Again, understandable, but surprise! those same people suddenly weren't angry about updates once they were on our SaaS offering. Turns out that frog boiling is reasonably effective.

* We had to deal with swaths of customer complaints about performance that we're mostly not our fault. Sorry our app is slow on 1/64th of a used SuperMicro. Maybe your IT department should get on GoFundMe?


A lot of this seems to boil down to whether or not you're willing to "upset" your users. Yes, sometimes they do dumb shit. That doesn't mean you hang up on them, but "you're out of support and need to update. Call us back when you've updated" is a completely reasonable response, even if the update isn't free. "Your environment is below our minimum specs, you have to increase the hardware on that VM. Call us back when you've updated" is reasonable as well.

I get that telling customers this kind of thing is hard, but sometimes it just has to be done.


"please update" is kinda the "try restarting" equivalent for sysadmins. And people get angry because it is usually delivered in a "I have no idea if it will work" kinda way. All you would have to do to make people calmly accept that they need to update is explaining why, so you know do the minimum and search the issue tracker so you can tell them that this is actually a known problem that was fixed in version x.y.z and updating will fix the problem.

Yeah, but most software updates have so many bug fixes and performance improvements it's unreasonably expensive to give people a justification for each upgrade request, especially when - as noted - customers accept forced upgrades without any notice at all, when something isn't self hosted.

I think this is a fundamental issue with the software world: there aren't enough skilled sysadmins left anymore (how many people even call themselves sysadmins these days), so the more options users have the more ways to get things wrong they'll find. The vague, open ended nature of "support" means it ends up being an unsatisfactory experience. When the only people who need support are the in-house devops team, it's a lot easier.

Unfortunately there don't seem to be good solutions for this. If users aren't given choices, they may leave or never turn up at all, but once that pain is over they won't be unhappy again (unless you have a major outage). Give them choices and when things blow up they'll become an angry unhappy customer with a support contract, which is every businesses worst nightmare.


If something's broken, upgrading is the Last thing I'm willing to try.

> Telling your users "sorry you're using an ancient version, please update" just makes people angry

I think telling people we support version x - y and facing a problem say try upgrading makes people angry

Telling people we support version a - b and sorting out their issue is fine even when a-b is smaller than x-y

I know support have it difficult because no one can be across all the bugs, regression and fixes, for multiple versions/configurations


Agreed. Our Atlassian apps were out of sync with each other so couldn't integrate well. Somehow I couldn't convince people that we need to upgrade.

Even though most of things the users complained about would have been fixed with upgrades.


This title is misleading. Atlassian will continue to sell and support their Data Center lineup, which are all on-premise products, so they are not moving to “cloud-only” as this title suggests. Now, this announcement will probably affect SMBs the most, as most large organizations, government agencies, etc are most likely already running Data Center and have left Server behind since it really isn’t scalable. I would’ve assumed that they would have just jacked up the price on Server to squeeze everyone out, but alas here we are.

The title isn’t misleading if you consider:

- Customer must start with cloud,

- Data Center is the overweight offering, starts with thousands of users, grossly overpriced like GitHub Enterprise.


What do you mean by “Customer must start with cloud”? You do not need to purchase their Cloud licenses to run any of their Data Center apps. And I never said Data Center was a good fit for everyone. The notion that they will not have any on-premise options is just simply not true though.

For any soon-to-be-ex Atlassian Server (self-hosted) customers, I've set up a Zulip server for discussing alternatives:

https://chat.goodbyeserver.org/

It's an difficult position Atlassian are inflicting on tens of thousands of customers. Atlassian's self-hosted products are uniquely flexible, being built on a plugin architecture, and many orgs have indeed customized Jira extensively with plugins, notably ScriptRunner [1]. Atlassian's Cloud plugins have their APIs, but have nothing like the same flexibility. A lot of functionality just isn't possible in the Cloud architecture. It's a bit like Firefox moving from XUL to an extension API.

In my opinion, the most customer-respecting way forward would be for Atlassian to open-source their discontinued Server product line. Go to the "open core" model with the clustered Data Center product as the upsell. This avoids screwing over their customers, and if their Cloud product really is as good as they say, customers will migrate to it naturally over time. It's the kind of damn-the-torpedoes move I think Mike CB would like.

But over the next 3 years, lots of painful migrating or evaluating-of-alternatives will need to happen, and perhaps a non-Atlassian forum for sharing experiences will help.

[1] https://marketplace.atlassian.com/apps/6820/scriptrunner-for...


> open-source their discontinued Server product line

little did you know, the source code for atlassian server products is already available for any paying customers. It's not FOSS, but if you need to run this yourself, and customize it, it's already possible. But of course, you will be responsible for keeping it updated (patching vulnerabilities from libraries etc).


I mean under an Open Source license, which the Atlassian Software License Agreement [1] is very far from being. It forbids you to even redistribute patches between licensees.

[1] https://www.atlassian.com/legal/software-license-agreement


I’ve never succeeded to compile it, and like Android, most of the code is in non-public plugins. I’ve been a developer for long and we can only use it to look at algos of the core product, but not execute them.

I promoted it upthread (though I have no connection to JetBrains), but I'd note that YouTrack and their other team products have extensive Java and REST plugin APIs so they're also very customisable. Actually YouTrack lets you write workflow logic in JavaScript too.

I would like to like YouTrack, but I've always been put off by own custom database [1]. I like my data in relational databases. SQL is the ultimate read-write API. Jira (unintentionally) stands on the shoulders of giants in this regard.

[1] https://github.com/JetBrains/xodus


Problem is that DB schemas are unlikely to be exposed as a real API by any app. It may feel like an API but actually writing software that pokes DB tables directly would just create the kind of support and upgrade headaches that presumably are driving Atlassian to this decision.

The other advantage of the JB approach is it's one click install and upgrade. No schema migrations, complicated issues with DBA hoarding permissions etc.


Plugins are great until you crash your standup board because the “Recycle” plugin put stories somewhere you can’t see but also didn’t remove the story from the sprint, causing permission issues.

A lot of what makes Jira so broken is that it is way too flexible, and this flexibility has costs in terms of performance and stability. There’s a damn good reason why I used Chrome back in the XUL days for FF; because XUL FF was not performant or stable for me back then.


I'm curious if anyone knows of a decent alternative that's not only focused on organizations producing code.

My employer (large Fortune 500) recently "soft banned" Confluence and Jira, meaning groups already utilizing it can stay on it until our enterprise license runs out at the end of the yearly support contract. At first I thought it was really stupid decision as Confluence, at least, is fantastic product and Sharepoint/Notes (the enterprise replacement solution) is a horrid alternative. One of the admins said there were licensing issues that drove the decision. I figured someone was just being cheap but I bet this was the reason.

How did Confluence and Sharepoint compare? I'm curious (For context: I've only ever worked in BigCo's that used Confluence).

Sorry for the late reply.

Sharepoint is god awful for anything Confluence is good at - namely being a wiki aimed at technical documentation. OneNote is a little better but even the online OneNote isn't great great, and both are a few steps backward in functionality.


Data sovereignty means my 5,000 seat company will stop using it. Confluence and Jira were already a hard sell due to licence fees. Now Atlassian wants us to put our trade secrets on AWS or something? Not happening.

At least they if we mess up security on a host inside our business it’s not the end of the world.

edit: I don’t make the money decisions here, I am just a peon.


For 95% of companies, outsourcing your servers to the cloud is a drastic security improvement.

Tell that to CapitalOne.

Coming from a company that has capital one as a customer. They are one of the dumbest related to security.

Banks are still in the stone age when it comes to NIST and cyber security.


They are still selling their datacenter version.

The minimum seating for datacenter products is 500 users, with corresponding purchase and maintenance costs. It's simply not viable for small businesses who are unable to move to the cloud.

For example, if my employer (for whom the use of cloud hosted service is simply not possible) wanted to keep using Atlassian products, moving to datacenter would cost us many thousands of dollars more per year in maintenance while wasting literally hundreds of unnecessary seats we'd be forced to pay for.

This announcement has ruined my day. Not only will we have to abandon a number of projects to implement new Atlassian products, we'll have to start planning to migrate all of our existing instances to other products and re-build all the work flow and customisations in those. At least they've given a few years window for changeover, but this is going to generate a lot of work and our confluence power-users are going to be very upset at having to move to Sharepoint or some other horror.



This just makes me extremely sad.

Server products is what made us purchase Atlassian software. There are numerous reasons why our company (and a lot of other companies I presume) would like to avoid cloud. And if we really had to go cloud, I simply don't see why we would choose Atlassian over alternatives.


What are your companies reasons for avoiding cloud?

This is a big problem for our non-profit organization. All of our documentation is stored in Confluence. We are fortunate enough to use a free Community license for self hosted servers, but this announcement would remove the free Community license and would force us into a Community Cloud license that would cost us over $4k a year. Are there any good, possibly open source, alternatives available for non-profits?

Depending on what you have, you might look at Xwiki (xwiki.com) or Bookstack (www.bookstackapp.com). I find Xwiki's look-and-feel not as nice as Confluence's, but they have many of the same features and they have a migration guide for importing data from Confluence.

Are there good self-hosted alternatives for those of use who'd like to get off of Atlassian products?

For Bamboo, I immediately think of Jenkins, although it's showing its age now.

For Confluence, I think of Media Wiki.

For BitBucket, I think of self-hosted GitLab.

Not sure about Jira or Service Desk, though.

I'd appreciate any better suggestions.


The problem is that a lot of people will reach for Gitlab to replace Jira, or MediaWiki/Dokuwiki (or again, Gitlab) to replace Confluence. But for businesses that have adapted business processes to use them, Gitlab/MediaWiki/Dokuwiki simply don't cut the mustard. We have an extensively customized Jira installation that's used for tracking budget requests, cage access tickets, and system change requests--none of those fit into a "bug/task/defect" tracker like Redmine or Github Issues. And for anyone who's gotten a manager using Confluence's editor, moving to writing wiki source in Dokuwiki is a big step backwards.

The thing Atlassian had going for them is that we could get our non-technical people to use their stuff, understand it, and even customize it themselves to meet their needs. I'm not looking forward to trying to bend some other issue-tracking system to do it, so I'm guessing we'll pony up for the DC-class charges (for the few years they continue offering that option) and see if a competitor emerges.


  The thing Atlassian had going for them is that we could get our non-technical people to use their stuff, understand it, and even customize it themselves to meet their needs.
This. Although personally I have never been a big fan of clunky Atlassian products and as a developer would prefer more productive tools, but getting key non-technical stakeholders use the same system as devs teams is a big win.

GitLab pretty much covers BitBucket (code), most of Bamboo (GitLab CI), maybe Jira if you use it only as a basic issue manager (forget about Agile stuff).

Confluence is probably the hardest one. You could use any wiki software but the new "live-editing" stuff (Google Docs style) is pretty good for productivity. Hard to find an on-prem equivalent. Confluence's integration with Jira is hard to compare too.


What agile stuff are you missing from the paid versions of GitLab? We have epics, roadmaps, milestones, and iterations. The only thing that is missing I can think of is workflow enforcement, but that doesn’t strike me as Agile.

Last time I checked I could not modify the fields of an issue (e.g. introduce a random drop-down or a checkbox). Here Jira and TFS were always excellent.

I always go the impression that GitLab was doing excellent in code related workloads but sub-par in issue and test record tracking.


I would be missing the ability to setup customer access, but only give them limited access to tickets and ticket comments.

Or the ability to have different user types paying differently every month.

If you likes gitlab and look for better planning capabilities you can have a look at Tuleap [1].

Tuleap shines with very advanced tracking capabilities and, most important, empower end users to manage it. Unlike Jira, you don't depend on a central admin to tweak you configuration, everything is at hand.

Git & CI capabilities are built-in but if you prefer gitlab for that, you will have soon an integration between the 2 tools. It's part of the next delivery [2] due mid november.

[1] https://www.tuleap.org [2] https://tuleap.net/plugins/agiledashboard/?group_id=101&plan...


I really wish MedisWiki was in a state that it could be rolled out as a replacement for Confluence. And in a lot of ways it can be. But sadly a lot of companies go the other way.

Most of the places I know of or where friend's work use Atlassian. I am wondering if this will drive a shift towards GitLab considering the general consensus I've heard is that GitHub Enterprise is too expensive.

Nextcloud Hub is a fairly good option, and has components/integrations to support many business activities.

https://nextcloud.com/blog/nextcloud-hub-20-debuts-dashboard...

- federated file sharing

- real-time collaboration (e.g. via OnlyOffice or Collabora)

- calendars

- video conferencing

- kanban

- webmail

- webhooks and push notifications

- discussions and mailing lists via Discourse

- Matrix/Element, Mattermost, or Rocket.Chat, IRC, and Slack integration

- Github and GitLab integration

- help desk via Zammand

Nextcloud is not without shortcomings. But, it's strengths are being federated, open-source, and integrated with an exosystem of open-source community and productivity tools.

One additional note, our small cooperative uses a managed version of Nextcloud from Web Hosting. The cost starts at $35/month for fully managed or $7/month to update Nextcloud manually via the settings page (which is surprisingly simple). The Web Hosting Web page and sign-up process are slightly klunky, but their customer care has been excellent in my experience.

https://webo.hosting/


I wish there were better self-hosted wikis. Most seem to be from the mid-00s and rock the look. None of them have real-time collaborative editing like Confluence or Quip from my research.

We're working on a CRDT collaboration engine at Outline-Wiki https://www.getoutline.com. It can be easily and performantly self-hosted (though there's a saas version available) and it's open-source.

Fair warning that it is under the Business Source License which isn't really open-source. I fully understand why this license was chosen (preventing resellers competing with your SaaS), but advertising as "open-source" is misleading.

Your FAQ also says to "Contact [You]" regarding on-prem instead of pointing to the GitHub, which imo conceals the fact that you can build and run it without a restrictive license.


I have used openkb for a while.

Its fast, lightweight and MIT licensed.

https://github.com/mrvautin/openKB


Wiki.js seems to be up and coming in this space. It’s not full featured yet, but it feels like working with a modern web application, rather than a bunch of PHP. No real time collaboration though.

I created and maintain BookStack which is often used for many similar use-cases as confluence: https://www.bookstackapp.com/

Rather opinionated in design and structure though.


It's great for things like blog posts, but not so great for technical documentation. Tables are the key. Also if it had DocuWiki/MediaWiki import tools and PDF/ePub export for print and screen reading it would have been perfect. Markdown doesn't cut it if you have tables, the DocuWiki format seems to be better suited for that but also a lot more annoying for source editing regular stuff and a nuisance for non technical people. We have online docs on DocuWiki. At least we have the option to use Pandoc to convert to printable formats. The thing is that our whole instance looks like a 00s web 1.0 website and it's not searchable. I'm always annoyed when looking for something on it. Your BookStack web app is miles ahead in this regard. I love the chapter collapses.

Phabricator is pretty good and is open source

https://phacility.com/phabricator/

Some big organizations are using it (like Facebook, Wikimedia Foundation, Mozilla)


Also wanted to write about Phabricator / Phacility as it looks really neat.

Does anyone have a first hand experience working with it comparing to standard Atlassian stack?


This looks fantastic. A very deep product. I appreciate the copy "Like Slack, but nowhere as good."

Another option for Wiki, which I think is a bit closer to Confluence (but open source & self hosted) would be XWiki https://www.xwiki.org/

Take a look at Documize [1] -- it might help you in place of Confluence.

(It's my start-up.)

[1] https://www.documize.com


If you look for a full featured approach I would recommend that you look at Tuleap[1] and esp. how it maps with Atlassian suite [2].

[1] https://www.tuleap.org [2] https://blog.tuleap.org/tuleap-versus-jira-software/

(Disclaimer: I'm from the dev team)


> For Confluence, I think of Media Wiki.

Having used and looked inside both Media Wiki and its enterprise fork BlueSpice, I can't really recommend either if you need anything more serious than just "minimum viable wiki features".

A few years back we temporarily switched from using Confluence to Xwiki, which worked okay for a while, but then different small and medium issues kept adding up until we had to go back to Confluence and swallow the increased price (sixfold in a span of 3 or so years). This was with Xwiki 8 though, the current version 12 might have improved things, I should try it again really.


What issues made you switch back specifically?

One alternative to JIRA Service Desk is Deskpro https://www.deskpro.com/on-premise-download/ - we continue to invest heavily in our On-Premise product.

Disclaimer, I am CEO


For issue tracking I like https://mantisbt.org

Self-hosted gitlab could probably get you some variation of all of these.

BitBuket + Bamboo can be replaced with GitLab. For the wiki, have a look at DokuWiki.

How does this play with the Australian ruling around state mandated backdoors and encryption bans? I can't imagine there's a lot of trust here for an Australian company providing cloud infrastructure that can be compelled to include back doors or locking out encryption?

https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryptio...


I work in SaaS supporting global regulated markets. We’ve had to replicate full stack implementations hosted in local data centers and accessible only by citizens physically in that country with security clearance. I expect Atlassian (and other cloud companies) will need to do the same.

I would guess that this move is because because their software runs like a bag of hammers falling down a flight of stairs and the last thing they want to deal with are your support calls about why their products dont work right. Don't get me wrong, they can work smoothly- just it takes an order of magnitude more work than you would expect / they would admit.

To be slightly more charitable, this is a sensible move as at least this way Atlassian can control the end user experience and (perhaps!) have it not be utter trash. Far easier for them to manage this way.


It is trash on cloud, worse than server by a distance unfortunately.

I’ve abandoned Jira (cloud) at work so long as my manager continues to not care. It’s just painful. Brutally painful. Like 20MB download per use and everything takes forever to populate and there’s lag in everything I do.

Atlassian feels like a bunch of individually purchased products that they then just jam together with integrations that never quite work the way they should.

I wish my company would abandon it.


I maintain server versions most of the self-hosted applications they're killing off.

One thing I like about the server versions is the ability to spin up development versions of these applications so I can test out new plugins, version updates, or complicated configuration changes without affecting our production applications.

So much for that. I guess I can skip that step and when it goes wrong in production I can be the old man who yells at "the cloud".


Same here. Every org I work with has a dev environment we regularly refresh with production data. It’s great.

If only they made the DC cheaper I wouldn’t be so disappointed.


Jira is really a weird product;

I'm using it for ages now and i have not seen any real features being added in the last 10 years and fundamental issues have not been adressed.

The weirdest thing was their UI change a few years back where they thought it would be great to make core workflows 1 or 2 clicks further away than before.

Like 'creating a ticket; went behind this plus button thing.

Plenty of features i would love to see, the community votes them up as well but nothing happens.

Apparently they are to busy with stuff no one is seeing. Hope that actually brings in innovation.


Do you have a link to some of the features you'd like to see?

Just the natural progression from UI to UX (clueless) design. The latter works to dumb down mobile interfaces, but wreak havoc in any complex interface.

Everyone keeps only mentioning gitlab, whereas gitea[^1] has wiki, bug tracking, and git as well. No CI if I understand it correctly, but for the rest, it's there, and it's nice, and it's order of magnitudes faster and lighter.

Then there's fossil[^2], which is brilliant, and is completely self-contained, with version controlling, wiki, etc. It's a bit awkward, but nonetheless feature full.

[^1]: https://gitea.io/

[^2]: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki


Switched from Jenkins to Bamboo Server about 5 years ago. The integrations with Bitbucket, Jira, and Slack have been really useful. My team has put a lot of time into getting the most out of Bamboo, so it’s disappointing that we won’t be able to continue to build on that.

It would be nice if Atlassian open-sourced Bamboo so that we could continue using it long-term, but honestly one of the primary reasons that we’ve stuck with them is their excellent support team. Without them, our development team would be forced to diagnose and fix issues in Bamboo, which is not the best use of dev time. So I guess we’ll attempt to find alternative build software soon.


Do you think that you'll go back to Jenkins? I'm in the same situation that you are

We’ll have to do some research and analysis. When we compare alternatives, product support will be one factor. There might be some commercial Jenkins support offerings out there, which would be interesting. It’s going to be a whole process that will take months to get right.

I work for a large company that spends almost $1M/year with Atlassian and I’m the lead architect for our Dev tools infrastructure.

On the one hand, I’m glad Atlassian has finally come clean on what’s obviously been their strategy for some time. On the other hand, it kinda sucks for customers like us. Yes, we’re a big company and yes, we run data center instances of some of the tools. But we’ve also got tons of smaller instances running around that basically have nowhere to go now. There are several industries that are incline to stay on premise: healthcare, legal, and financial software among others. We’re in that same boat.

At the moment, I’m inclined to recommend we drop Atlassian altogether, for several reasons:

First, Atlassian has never really understood the needs of large enterprises. They’ve recognized that we need performance and scalability and top level web security, but the rest of our large enterprise requiements remain largely unmet.

Secondly, I haven’t seen any good organic development from Atlassian for a long time. They’ve bought a lot of other products and companies, but their ability to produce and deliver great features disappeared a long time ago.

Finally, I have no confidence that Atlassian will keep the data center products going and properly maintain them. Something tells me they’ll do what’s necessary to keep too many customers from immediately jumping ship, but in the long run, I expect we’ll eventually see the end of life for the data center products just like they’ve done with the server products.


"...but the rest of our large enterprise requiements remain largely unmet."

What are some the unmet requirements?


A lot of stuff around granular authorization controls and auditing - there’s a huge gulf in most of the atlassian products between a system admin and project admin and there’s a ton of admin actions that never show up in any audit trails or history within the app.

Also: email handling sucks and support for the scaled agile model is pretty non-existent.

Just in general though, take a look at jira.atlassian.com and see all the issues with thousands of votes that have been unresolved for years and years.


I really hope this happens! My organisation will be certain to ditch JIRA and Confluence.

+1

I'm somewhat worried about what this means for our organisation. We use both Jira and Confluence, and while they have their issues, we've got many integrations that make life significantly better that will be work-intensive to convert to their cloud offering, if it's even possible.

Our biggest complaint about Atlassian has always been the constantly rising price while value does not follow, and this might finally make them too expensive that we would be better served by alternatives, especially considering all the re-integration we would have to do in any case.


Doesn't seem like a good move, when we moved back to Bitbucket cloud from Bitbucket server we lost many essential features and ultimately decided to move to GitHub.

We do still use Jira Cloud but while the UI and search is better the performance is just awful.

Note that they do have a good vscode extension that integrates well with the development workflow, creating branches for tickets, commenting and so on. I use it to see issues, get notifications in vscode for new bugs and transition issues. It's good for viewing basic text but poor for media rich content.

I also use the go-jira unofficial cli tool written in golang which is just a joy to configure and use. It supports a templating system for creating new issues and custom commands to do all kinds of tasks. https://github.com/go-jira/jira

Paired with GitHub Issues and PRs vscode extension, this enables me to work in the text editor most of the time.


Oh, perfect timing! Some coworkers were starting to consider Bamboo to replace Jenkins, but since our use case demands 100% on-prem, now I don’t have to waste my time evaluating it. We can throw it into the “inherently unfit for purpose” category and move on other products.

If we’d bought Bamboo a month ago, I’d be ready to develop a temper.


Thank goodness! The unicorn I work for will finally ditch JIRA and move on to something more user-friendly. What a relief.

If it's an SV Unicorn, it can probably afford the "Data Center" enterprise offering. Though from comments here, even that may not be a smooth migration from the a la carte on prem products, depending on what add-ons they use...

Data center and server are the same bits using a different license. Moving from server to a one node data center Jira is not hard

Right, the change is fundamentally retiring the lower-priced single-node offering for small orgs. Likely their market understanding shows that organizations with sufficient motivation to stay away from the cloud are also mostly willing to use the higher-level Data Center offering. It's not only the same bits though, it add some extra enterprise-flavored features also.

What specifically about JIRA annoys you?

Wow, I don’t think there’s any news Gitlab could have released themselves that would have been better for their sales.

I wonder what will happen with all the plugins that only worked on the "in premise" version of JIRA. I remember at some point going through the offering of plugins and a lot of them where only available for that version.

I can't imagine our management will be happy about this. We have server licenses and I don't think we'll be willing to turn our data over to their servers.

On the other hand, this is great for me because I pretty much hate using all of these products. If this gets my company to stop using them, I will be so happy.


"If this gets my company to stop using them, I will be so happy."

What specifically sucks about Jira and Confluence?


RIP defense community using Jira

Classified clouds are a thing. (Also national clouds for unclassified but export-controlled information.)

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/global-infrastructure/gove...


> Classified clouds

That honestly sounds like an oxymoron.


From looking at Atlassian's website, it doesn't seem like they're doing anything that would be adequate for FOUO data, let alone classified

This sounds bad! We use 4 of their products on premises. We definitely can’t use Jira or Confluence in the cloud due to customer data privacy. I‘m eager to see what my bosses will decide.

Leave them feedback they deserve. https://www.atlassian.com/company/contact


This is very unfortunate, because in my experience the cloud offerings for JIRA and Confluence are orders of magnitude slower and more resource intensive, and BitBucket Cloud is very feature poor and workflow-compromised in comparison to its server counterpart.

Calling it “moving to the cloud” has such pompous overtones. They stopped giving away access to their source for free, just like the majority of the rest of their community. Atlassian might as well be any other company now with a really good product suite. Years ago, they were awesome. They gave free licenses to open source projects. I still think they’re the best, but this cloud-only thing sucks. The software has value outside of their hosting it.

I do wonder what atlassian do some days with their cloud offerings. I find they tend to muck about with the UI more than fixing bugs or new features. I tend to find we have downtime with pipelines a lot as well.

Jira is ok, it can be slow. Confluence seems to be playing catch-up with notion.

If I were to start a startup, I'd probably avoid atlassian.


My employer's national security agreement with the United States CFIUS requires software development in a data center on US soil where all security controls can be audited at any time by the government. Atlassian's JIRA is one of the tools in use for this. It could be a problem if on-prem is no longer offered by Atlassian.

They are discontinuing the “Server” product, but continuing “Data Center”… which has more functionality at a higher price, suitable for bigger orgs. You might already be using Data Center, and be unaffected by the new announcement.

It’s surprising to me how many commenters on this post didn’t even read the announcement. When you see that their Data Center offering isn’t going anywhere, it doesn’t seem dire at all.

Their Data Center offering now starts at $40000 per year. This doesn't make sense unless you're already severely locked into Jira.

It's taking a price hike, though.

We use Bitbucket server because we prefer the code review UI and the diff views over everything else. I was shocked when I tried the cloud version and saw how different and how much worse it was. Would otherwise actually prefer to move to cloud but not with that UI, will re-eval competitors instead.

I don't know about the other products, but I was always told that Bitbucket is literally 2 separate products with unrelated codebases that Atlassian just branded the same. Take with a grain of salt because I have no good source, but consider that ex. on-prem BB never supported Mercurial (which was cloud BB's big selling point for me), and their UIs were quite different.

I don’t know what the products are like today, but you’re right that they’ve historically been two separate products with totally different implementations.

Recently, I've been taking a look at OpenProject https://www.openproject.org/ (GNU General Public License version 3), wich provides a wiki, task management, bug tracker, project management, time tracking. I cannot share any experiences so far, but the project looks very promising. The release notes for the OpenProject 11.0.0 indicate that the project is actively maintained. Can anyone share her/his experiences with OpenProject?

I'm doing sysadmin roles using OpenProject 10.n and up, really enjoying it (also sysadmin a bunch of atlassian instances). Does the basic things well, with active development team behind it. Well worth a shakedown test to verify if fit-for-purpose for your needs.

Not surprised. There was a time when they supported various java servers .. jetty, jboss, tomcat, others. That ended due to way too much support requirements.

This is a step in the same direction.

I wonder what institutions with a security restriction will do though.

Market opportunity for some rival?


Dang. I actually like how customizable Jira's workflows are. What else is good at customizable Scrum-like workflows with custom fields?

I'm part of the dev team so take this comment with the level of distance you want but you should have a look at Tuleap [1].

You get the customization to yet another level as you are not constraint by the fact that templates are shared across your organization. You can tweak and customize every single tracker (issue type) with it's own fields & values without impacting others and without depending on an admin for that. You can deep dive with https://blog.tuleap.org/tuleap-versus-jira-software/

[1] https://www.tuleap.org/


Check out TargetProcess

The primary reason that the company I work for chose the Atlassian Confluence server licence was for LDAP integration with Active Directory. Yes, Atlassian supports SSO, but it requires Atlassian Access which costs $3/user/month. Further SSO with Access requires user management to be done within Access which is not the source of truth for this company as that privilege belongs to AD. Users are assigned to groups in AD, and group membership determines the access to Confluence sites, etc. Unless the cloud offering can provide similar functionality the server licence will die here, and be replaced by a product that can deliver these features.

Anyone got a good opensource Jira alternative I can install locally? Most alternatives are cloud as well.

Traditionally, redmine. Non-traditionally I'd say GitLab.

Try looking here:

https://alternativeto.net/software/jira/?license=opensource


Anyone still use Trac? [https://trac.edgewall.org]

We were using it up until a while ago (edit: oh, did the math, 7 years ago)... could still totally get by with it.

I keep my free Jira/Cloud account going, but when I look elsewhere, I don't really love the options either (Clubhouse, looking at you).


At the largest bank I worked with. Trac was the primary wiki that was in use for almost 15 years (largely abandoned for the last 5). Think 10 000 wiki pages and documents written by a thousand developers over the span of entire careers. Note that Trac is abandoned software, for example it cannot run on python 3, there's been issues filled on that for years and there's simply no effort to maintain it.

I decommissioned it last year (hint: there's a long and painful migration story here). Users and documents have migrated to Sphinx, that's been actively used for the past 10 years and was always supposed to replace trac (hint: there's a longer story on how to handle or not handle a migration here). It looks really good but the markup and editing tool is not really user friendly.

A few teams decided to move to the internal confluence instead, that's supposed to be the strategic solution in the company. Looks like they're up for another migration within 3 years.


To each their own I guess - Clubhouse has been a change for the better in every way compared to JIRA for me/us (cloud-only, though)

Keep checking HN for the next week. I hope we see some good alternatives.

Open Project https://www.openproject.org/ We use it on the side of JIRA. It is straightforward to use, can assign group to tickets, gantt charts, cost reporting...

Depending on your requirements YouTrack by Jetbrains might fit the bill. Not opensource but available for local installation.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: