panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 16 hours ago
I hope this doesn’t come off as too harsh, but the text reads as very AI generated, and I think if you rewrote the main text you could do a much better job.
It’s not clear to me why to use it, the pitch today is that it makes failures loud, which is nice, but very poorly described.
The tool itself looks good, but the website looks very “Claude”, resistant the text at the top saying “ONE BINARY · LINUX · MACOS · WSL · 25 MB RAM IDLE”
Those are great pros, but are they the guest thing the user should see?
Honestly the first paragraph of the quick start is a much better pitch:
RunWisp is one small Go binary. You list the shell commands you want to run in a runwisp.toml, and RunWisp takes care of the rest — firing jobs on cron, restarting services when they crash, and capturing every line of stdout and stderr so you can go back and look at what happened. There’s a TUI in your terminal and a Web UI in your browser for poking around. No external database, no agent, no sidecar
This tool looks decent, but for me I find nix helps manage the complexity of systemd well
runwisp_com@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
actually not harsh
this is exactly the kind of concrete feedback I was hoping for. You’re right that the quick-start paragraph explains the actual value better than the current pitch… I should lead with that, then treat the binary size and platform support as supporting details rather than the headline.
Thank you for taking the time to look at this.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
Why did you use Claude to write this comment
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
No problem.
The other thing with AI stuff is it conveys very little trust. It’s easy-come easy-go, so it’s hard to tell how much maintenance the owner will has put in or will put into the project.
Scheduling is high risk, so it’s important that it feels safe