Introducing Git-Notifier

This evening I finished the preliminary base code for a project I have been working on called Git-Notifier.  Inspired by Gitifer for OSX, Git-Notifier provides pop-up notifications for updates of a remote git repository using libnotify in Ubuntu.

As it stands, the program is currently a bash script, and configuration is a manual process.

To get started, download the come from http://github.com/maxolasersquad/Git-Notifier/archives/v0.1 in either tar.gz or .zip format.  Extract the .gitnotifier folder to your home directory.  Extract the gitnotify.sh file to wherever you would like to execute it from.  I keep this file in my home directory as well.

Next cd into the ~/.gitnotify directory and clone the remote repository using the -n switch.  For example, to get notified of updates to the Git-Notifier application, do the following

cd ~/.gitnotify

git clone -n git://github.com/maxolasersquad/Git-Notifier.git

Finally, edit the file ~/.gitnotify/gitnotify.ini file.  To the right of repos=, list out each git project you have cloned.  Using the same example from above, the line would look like this.

repos=Git-Notifier

If you have cloned any more repositories, simply list them all in the repos line, separated by a space.

Finally you can change how often the program looks for updates, and the pretty style to display the results. To see the different options for the pretty styel, run man git show.

Once you have cloned the directories you want, with the -n switch, and you have configured the ini file appropriately, simply run the gitnotify.sh script.  As commits are made to the remote repository, you should get notifications on your deskop.

The code could probably use some love, and a few more features would be nice as well.  Once I am happy with how this script works, I'd like to port it over to python.  I'd also like to have better support for non-Ubuntu flavors of Linux, though I'm not sure what other notifications are out there that can be easily programmed from Bash.

Any bugs, fixes, improvements, etc. would be appreciated on the github site.

Another reason I don't run Windows.

I'd like to start off by saying that I don't hate Windows. I just don't think it is a very good operating system in comparison to Ubuntu or OSX. Overall it provides a reasonably stable and consistent platform for users to interact with their computer.
Outside of work I barely ever boot up in to Windows. I do have a Virtual Machine of XP, Vista, and Windows 7 for the occasional dabbling. Regardless of my opinion of Windows I do believe it is important for me to keep up with its goings on, since IT is my profession.
So the other day I had my XP Virtual Machine booted up and I had a few things open. I left my computer for a little while to do a few other things and when I come back I have a message telling me that Windows knew better than that I needed my machine and all of its applications up. Apparently what I really needed to do was restart. In fact, I needed to restart so incredibly much that it wouldn't have been prudent for Windows to ask me for my opinion on such matters. It didn't matter if I maybe had some unsaved work open, or maybe I just didn't really feel like having my computer rebooted, Windows knew that I must reboot.
Believing that the computer always knows better than the user is a design decision that permeates Microsoft's products. Office is legendary for its paperclip that is about as annoying is a little chihuahua that won't stop yapping, and its auto-formatting that makes getting the right formatting in to your document a task within itself.
This behaviour also effected a coworker, when he was trying to give a presentation. Updates had been installed on his laptop, and about every five minutes his presentation would be interrupted with a prompt to reboot. Of course he wasn't interested in rebooting in the middle of his presentation, but Windows wasn't going to have it. He was either going to reboot or be annoyed constantly, his choice.
Operating system should be out of the way, should talk to you only when absolutely necessary, and provide a good interface for letting you quickly and easily let it know what you want. The purpose of the operating system is to understand your needs and act accordingly, not to let you know its needs and force you to comply.
It is very much like how cars work. When there is a problem, low on gas, an open door, high engine temperature, etc. it notifies you with a simple gauge or indicator light that is easy to access, but does not interfere with your driving. Likewise, the operating system should give you easy to access cues about what is going on, but ultimately let you get back to the issue of using your computer.

I don't understand Microsoft's direction.

News hit yesterday of the different versions of Windows 7. Like Vista, Microsoft is going to ship several different versions that range from a crippled version up to a the beefy version that costs a whole lot of money. The idea is sound. Microsoft has to pay developer to develop and maintain features, some of which are only used by advanced users or by businesses. By offering a cheaper version of Windows that does not include these features, they are shifting the financial burden to the users with more needs than the average person. Why should the average consumer pay for features they will never need or know exists?

I think Microsoft did a good job of making this divide in XP. If you didn't know the difference bettwen XP Home and XP Pro, chances where you had no need for XP Pro. If you did know the difference, chances are it isn't that difficult for you to decide which one you need.

With Vista there are six different version planned for launch, Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate. This isn't just confusing for the average consumer, this becomes confusing even for technophiles. Microsoft has not yet released pricing.

Reportedly, Starter is for low end machines and protable devices. The report so far makes Start sound like a complete piece of crap. According to The Inquirer, it will only allow the user to run three programs at once. This artificial limitations is absolutely stupid. My XO, which is running much lower specs than the average netbook without much of a problem. It is also highly presumptuous of Microsoft to say "three programs" without any regard to the hardware specifications or the amount of resources the application uses. This means you could run three programs that use a lot of resources, but not four programs that have a smaller footprint. It is believe other functionality will be reduced, but neither the netbook nor low-end computer manufacturer get to have a say which features should be reduced or kept. It is simply a one size fits all job. Since many netbook manufacturers have been putting Linux on these devices because Vista is simply to bloated to offer a good user experience, I don't see what this does to enhance Microsoft's position.

Without dissecting the specifics of the other versions, it is suffice to say that it is just a list of versions that have features added or removed, depending on the target market. In light of Microsofts competition, which has made some small but significant strides in erroding market share in a post-Vista world, this really doesn't make Microsoft look good.

Apple sells their OSX with the current version being Leopard. The only other OS product they are currently selling is OSX server. The decision is clear, everyone buys Leopard unless they want a server. For $129 you get the full OS with all of the features and the improved security and stability offered over the Windows products.

With Linux the situation is not so clear because there are hundreds and hundreds of versions available, but the overwhelming consensus is that everyone should use Ubuntu unles they know enough about Linux to know why they would have a need or desire for any other version. Okay, it still isn't that easy because their is Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu each offering a different interface, but most people should probably just use Ubuntu unless they are technical enough to know why they would use something else. So while Linux doesn't exactly win in this category, it still beats the versioning of Windows.

The stock install of Ubuntu will run just fine on the lowest-end machines that are being sold today including the netbooks. It also scales up just fine to take advantage of a top of the line PC. It does this at install time by looking at your hardware specs and adjusting itself accordingly. It doesn't artificially lock you out of how many programs you can have open, or deny you access to features because you didn't spend more money.

Ubuntu also releases on a predictable schedule of every six months, and gives you a predictable life time of three years of support, while every so often releasing a version supported for five years. If a consumer decides to choose Linux it is very easy. You get the latest version of Ubuntu, no matter how low end or high end the machine you are purchasing, and don't worry about new versions for three years.

This is by no means a Windows bash. There are a lot of great improvements in Windows 7, especially with Internet Explorer 8. I just see their model of havng six different versions that go from needlessly crippled to needlessly expensive, when their competitors handle this in a much more consumer friendly fashion.