This lede seems kind of buried a bit but it looks like this is for creating people-centric workflows instead of yet-another-Airflow, which seems pretty cool to me.
Yes, we are focusing more on the human-in-the-loop aspect of the process, rather than solely orchestrating the software systems behind it (though this can also be achieved through integrations).
In other words, Pneumatic ensures that each task, as part of the workflow sequence, is delivered to the user precisely when it's time for them to take action. This removes the need to constantly monitor a Kanban board and guess what needs attention.
Additionally, it creates a queue of similar tasks, enhancing focus and productivity, such as a list of phone calls to make (complete with pre-filled information) or a list of blog posts to approve.
It looks very nice. For integrations, instead of driving your users to use Zapier or Make for integrations, you should offer them native integrations. For that purpose, you can explore ByteChef Embedded, an open-source integration platform: https://github.com/bytechefhq/bytechef
Looks very nice. I wrote a similar tool to this back in the late 2000s in rails, and it was fundamental to our organization at the time. I've been looking for alternative at my new company. I'll definitely spend some time with your app.
Nice. As someone who has seen a few Appian projects, something at a smaller scale is a nice niche for smaller teams.
Quick q: about integrations, I have seen the Zapier features, but can you invoke external systems via api on a specific task? (Eg client files complaint process, pull all orders from that client and display on screen so I can select the affected one and move forward)
Pneumatic looks cool but you are clearly missing the necessary app integrations to be competitive. If you want to integrate 2200+ applications in your product (with 10k+ triggers and actions) instead of sending all your customers to competitive products like Zapier and Make.com, you should explore Pipedream Connect - https://pipedream.com/connect.
You are my open-source Godfather ;) Our discussion was one of the final pushes in my long-debated decision to go open source. And your awesome launch of Skyvern on HN today inspired me to make a similar announcement. Thank you for your inspiring work!
I see n8n as an open-source, self-hosted alternative to Zapier, essentially orchestrating how systems communicate with each other. Pneumatic, on the other hand, focuses on human input and helps people navigate complex processes. In fact, many of our existing users use Pneumatic together with Zapier and n8n (mostly in Europe).
ActivePieces seems like a cool product I hadn’t seen before. I’ll need some time to play with it before I can form an opinion.
It helps teams create templates for sequences of tasks. For example:
Step 1. Expense is submitted.
Step 2. Initial review.
Step 3. Direct manager approval.
Step 4. CEO approval.
Step 5. Payment is made.
From the manager's perspective, each task has:
- Its own performer, which can be hardcoded or dynamically assigned based on conditions.
- A clear definition of "done," i.e., a set of data inputs required for task completion, such as file uploads or specific selections.
- Its own dynamic due date, based on variables and conditions.
From the performer's perspective, they receive a convenient list of similar tasks to complete, such as a list of expenses to review, phone calls to make, or customers to interview. They don't need to worry about SOPs, like where to submit information for the next step. They simply hit "complete," and the process moves to the next station or person in the queue. Alternatively, if they hit "return," the task goes back to the previous station.
Thanks for the info. At first I thought this sounded like more trouble to set up and maintain than it was worth, but your description of "performers" got me thinking it through a bit and seeing the value.
1. In a nutshell, Asana and Monday are board-based tools suited for project management, where people can see most tasks simultaneously and then choose what to work on.
Pneumatic, on the other hand, builds sequences, so my task only comes to me when it’s time for me to act. This templated sequence can be run repeatedly (manually or triggered by external events) to achieve predictable results.
2. We use Pneumatic to manage our development process :)
If you believe in free software services enough to build & release a product under this philosophy, why is a proprietary code forge service being used as a slap in the face of the free software philosophy? Is providing a non-corporate-held, non-proprietary a mirror in the TODO column?
I’ve always believed in free software versions and plans, but I only opened my heart to open source about a week ago. Funny enough, my software career began with a decision not to go open source with my first product, choosing a proprietary license instead. Now, after 20 years, life has come full circle, and I’ve come to understand that open source is the only right way to go.
I'm just taking my first steps in this world, and while those steps may seem basic, I truly appreciate your guidance here. Using a non-proprietary GitHub alternative hadn’t crossed my mind, and it seems like a great idea. This week, we're mostly focused on building decent documentation, but I'll add this to my to-do list as a high priority.
If the person who above you is indeed complaining about hosting the project on GitHub (never heard the phrase "code forge" before), then, speaking as someone who's spent my entire career focused on open source projects, all of which are hosted on GitHub, I think this is a ridiculous complaint. Especially if you want other people to contribute to the project, hosting it on a less familiar platform will probably just drive potential contributors away, except for a very few hardcore folks.
Code forge isn’t a weird phase & existed before Git. It is the precise term for a collaborative software, often web-based, for hosting a source code repository & perhaps bug tracker, review, & so on, but it doesn’t specify the provider’s or the type of version control system used. The prior popular alternative was mailing lists. It is the “forge” in the name SourceForge.
You are missing what a mirror is—you can use both simultaneously. This increases accessibility to those blocked under nation-state blocks or US sanctions, but also for those that value their freedom/privacy as well as those that require a lighter experience without a heavy JavaScript web application. You also won’t get to hear from this crowd that wishes for accessibility if stuck in the proprietary echo chamber. In the future, some of these forges will support ForgeFed which won’t require specific accounts with a system. Forgejo in particular follows Microsoft’s product to a fault in my opinion, but it means those that can’t pick up new skills will feel precisely at home. Sticking to hegemony doesn’t mean it is good or aligning with the changes in the world you would like to see.
> Choosing proprietary tools and services for your free software project ultimately sends a message to downstream developers and users of your project that freedom of all users—developers included—is not a priority.
You also might want to try out some of the forge alternatives—especially those that aren’t Git—since it seems you’ve conservatively only tried one one platform. How do you know about the others & what advantages or disadvantages they bring?
I didn't imply it was a weird phrase, it's rather lovely actually. I've just never heard of before so I wanted to ensure that I hadn't misunderstood you.
> since it seems you’ve conservatively only tried one one platform
I've used GitHub, BitBucket, Gitlab, and definitely one or two others at some point. However, it's been predominantly GitHub because that's where all the open source projects I work with are hosted. Except occasionally for when I'm doing work on a private (closed source) repo, in which case I've found most people use BitBucket.
Codeberg, Notabug, GitLab, SourceHut are probably the most popular options that are not self-hosted for Git (not that self-hosting is bad). Some of these can even be configured to automatically mirror to give those that care about their privacy or blocked by US sanctions the opportunity to contribute.
This lede seems kind of buried a bit but it looks like this is for creating people-centric workflows instead of yet-another-Airflow, which seems pretty cool to me.
Yes, we are focusing more on the human-in-the-loop aspect of the process, rather than solely orchestrating the software systems behind it (though this can also be achieved through integrations).
In other words, Pneumatic ensures that each task, as part of the workflow sequence, is delivered to the user precisely when it's time for them to take action. This removes the need to constantly monitor a Kanban board and guess what needs attention.
Additionally, it creates a queue of similar tasks, enhancing focus and productivity, such as a list of phone calls to make (complete with pre-filled information) or a list of blog posts to approve.
I like the idea but the README seems to have been cut short and there’s little to go on from the repo.
It looks very nice. For integrations, instead of driving your users to use Zapier or Make for integrations, you should offer them native integrations. For that purpose, you can explore ByteChef Embedded, an open-source integration platform: https://github.com/bytechefhq/bytechef
Looks very nice. I wrote a similar tool to this back in the late 2000s in rails, and it was fundamental to our organization at the time. I've been looking for alternative at my new company. I'll definitely spend some time with your app.
Do you intend to put further information on running it into the README?
Any screenshots or demo by any chance?
Nice. As someone who has seen a few Appian projects, something at a smaller scale is a nice niche for smaller teams.
Quick q: about integrations, I have seen the Zapier features, but can you invoke external systems via api on a specific task? (Eg client files complaint process, pull all orders from that client and display on screen so I can select the affected one and move forward)
Thanks!
Pneumatic looks cool but you are clearly missing the necessary app integrations to be competitive. If you want to integrate 2200+ applications in your product (with 10k+ triggers and actions) instead of sending all your customers to competitive products like Zapier and Make.com, you should explore Pipedream Connect - https://pipedream.com/connect.
Great to see you on here Anton!
Just curious, how do you differentiate from other open source competitors like n8n and Active pieces?
Hey Suchintan!
You are my open-source Godfather ;) Our discussion was one of the final pushes in my long-debated decision to go open source. And your awesome launch of Skyvern on HN today inspired me to make a similar announcement. Thank you for your inspiring work!
I see n8n as an open-source, self-hosted alternative to Zapier, essentially orchestrating how systems communicate with each other. Pneumatic, on the other hand, focuses on human input and helps people navigate complex processes. In fact, many of our existing users use Pneumatic together with Zapier and n8n (mostly in Europe).
ActivePieces seems like a cool product I hadn’t seen before. I’ll need some time to play with it before I can form an opinion.
What does this do, exactly?
It helps teams create templates for sequences of tasks. For example:
Step 1. Expense is submitted. Step 2. Initial review. Step 3. Direct manager approval. Step 4. CEO approval. Step 5. Payment is made.
From the manager's perspective, each task has:
- Its own performer, which can be hardcoded or dynamically assigned based on conditions. - A clear definition of "done," i.e., a set of data inputs required for task completion, such as file uploads or specific selections. - Its own dynamic due date, based on variables and conditions.
From the performer's perspective, they receive a convenient list of similar tasks to complete, such as a list of expenses to review, phone calls to make, or customers to interview. They don't need to worry about SOPs, like where to submit information for the next step. They simply hit "complete," and the process moves to the next station or person in the queue. Alternatively, if they hit "return," the task goes back to the previous station.
Thanks for the info. At first I thought this sounded like more trouble to set up and maintain than it was worth, but your description of "performers" got me thinking it through a bit and seeing the value.
This looks like an open-source alternative to work management software for work that isn't software development, like Monday.com or Asana.
You're correct, with two small clarifications:
1. In a nutshell, Asana and Monday are board-based tools suited for project management, where people can see most tasks simultaneously and then choose what to work on.
Pneumatic, on the other hand, builds sequences, so my task only comes to me when it’s time for me to act. This templated sequence can be run repeatedly (manually or triggered by external events) to achieve predictable results.
2. We use Pneumatic to manage our development process :)
If you believe in free software services enough to build & release a product under this philosophy, why is a proprietary code forge service being used as a slap in the face of the free software philosophy? Is providing a non-corporate-held, non-proprietary a mirror in the TODO column?
I’ve always believed in free software versions and plans, but I only opened my heart to open source about a week ago. Funny enough, my software career began with a decision not to go open source with my first product, choosing a proprietary license instead. Now, after 20 years, life has come full circle, and I’ve come to understand that open source is the only right way to go.
I'm just taking my first steps in this world, and while those steps may seem basic, I truly appreciate your guidance here. Using a non-proprietary GitHub alternative hadn’t crossed my mind, and it seems like a great idea. This week, we're mostly focused on building decent documentation, but I'll add this to my to-do list as a high priority.
Which one would you recommend?
If the person who above you is indeed complaining about hosting the project on GitHub (never heard the phrase "code forge" before), then, speaking as someone who's spent my entire career focused on open source projects, all of which are hosted on GitHub, I think this is a ridiculous complaint. Especially if you want other people to contribute to the project, hosting it on a less familiar platform will probably just drive potential contributors away, except for a very few hardcore folks.
Code forge isn’t a weird phase & existed before Git. It is the precise term for a collaborative software, often web-based, for hosting a source code repository & perhaps bug tracker, review, & so on, but it doesn’t specify the provider’s or the type of version control system used. The prior popular alternative was mailing lists. It is the “forge” in the name SourceForge.
You are missing what a mirror is—you can use both simultaneously. This increases accessibility to those blocked under nation-state blocks or US sanctions, but also for those that value their freedom/privacy as well as those that require a lighter experience without a heavy JavaScript web application. You also won’t get to hear from this crowd that wishes for accessibility if stuck in the proprietary echo chamber. In the future, some of these forges will support ForgeFed which won’t require specific accounts with a system. Forgejo in particular follows Microsoft’s product to a fault in my opinion, but it means those that can’t pick up new skills will feel precisely at home. Sticking to hegemony doesn’t mean it is good or aligning with the changes in the world you would like to see.
> Choosing proprietary tools and services for your free software project ultimately sends a message to downstream developers and users of your project that freedom of all users—developers included—is not a priority.
— Matt Lee, https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/opinion-github-vs-gitla...
You also might want to try out some of the forge alternatives—especially those that aren’t Git—since it seems you’ve conservatively only tried one one platform. How do you know about the others & what advantages or disadvantages they bring?
> Code forge
I didn't imply it was a weird phrase, it's rather lovely actually. I've just never heard of before so I wanted to ensure that I hadn't misunderstood you.
> since it seems you’ve conservatively only tried one one platform
I've used GitHub, BitBucket, Gitlab, and definitely one or two others at some point. However, it's been predominantly GitHub because that's where all the open source projects I work with are hosted. Except occasionally for when I'm doing work on a private (closed source) repo, in which case I've found most people use BitBucket.
Codeberg, Notabug, GitLab, SourceHut are probably the most popular options that are not self-hosted for Git (not that self-hosting is bad). Some of these can even be configured to automatically mirror to give those that care about their privacy or blocked by US sanctions the opportunity to contribute.