Home Download Buy Blog Forum Support

Sublime for Linux :D

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby SteveCooperOrg on Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:30 am

EJ12N wrote:I don't think you have to repurchase sublime every year, to my understanding is a one-time fee. The exception is for example sublimetext releases a new "paid upgrade" version. Which I believe would be some massive rework done on it... like for ex, a linux version or something... Anyways this is my understanding of it, if it's not like this then I think Jon can clarify this for us :


I understood Sublime Text 2.0 for windows to also count. I think you get all the V.1* and V1 betas, but if Jon moves up and does a major update, then you need to pay to move to V2.

If that's the case, Jon's resale turnover is based on a user making a decision, every 12 months: would they like to move up one version (say, V1.2 to V2.0)? If, after a year there _is_ no version 2.0, Jon gets no money from resales. Now, if Jon makes ST1.2 for Linux, As a windows user, I won't even have the opportunity to buy V2.0 for windows, because it won't be there to buy; or if it is, it won't have enough new stuff to be tempting. So Jon won't get my money, because there's nothing for me to buy.

This is why I can't agree with a sideways move -- one that doesn't push towards 2.0. It doesn't benefit any of his existing customers, or most of his potential customers. Until Jon's saturated the Windows market (which he's nowhere near doing) I think it's better to concentrate on the one market.
Maybe what you're looking for is at the http://www.sublimetextwiki.com
SteveCooperOrg
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:53 am

Re: Why You Really Don't Want Jon To Make A Linux Version

Postby SteveCooperOrg on Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:15 pm

sublimator wrote:Woah, you got me scared! Damn linux terrorists! Kill them before they bring their Jihad upon us! Oh no, a world where we aren't safe from half-assed-addin-thrax! Shock horror.


I did my best not to introduce any kind of religious dogma into my argument. My problem isn't with the linux platform. My problem is in wondering how Jon's time could possibly be used like this and not impact heavily on his current market. And selfishly, on my favourite text editor.

Jon's in a sweet spot in Windows; ST is the prettiest editor on the platform. It's also extremely extensible. It appeals to a whole class of developers. I think it's ready for the big time, and he only needs to crack one market to do very well. Of course, there's stuff missing; people are evaulating ST right now and holding off buying it for that reason. If jon develops more features, more users cross over that threshold and choose to buy. But as I said at the start of my first post; this isn't a feature. If jon works on it, ST's feature set stays static. While it's static, those people out there evaluating ST are going to find that the product has halted, and not buy. Equally, Jon gets no closer to his V2.0 and to new licence income from existing customers.

A question is, how long would a port like this take? My intuition says that it's a great deal of work. Almost the entire core of ST would need to be rewritten. AFAIK, ST is a pure Windows beast; built on MFC and DirectX and targetted at file systems like NTFS. My guess is, it'd take about a year to port everything to one platform.

So, if I'm right, ST would get no new features for about a year. That's a year of reduced income, and a year in which competitors like 'e' and textmate make advances while ST stays still. In my book, that's a bad idea.


sublimator wrote:
stevecooperorg wrote: Community plugins will fail on linux, or be developed just for it, creating a world of half-arsed addins.


Seriously? Puh-lease.


I said this because I've had my fair share of problems with scripts and packages that could easily have worked on windows, but contained little assumptions of linux. Just little things, like perl scripts assuming I had a HOME directory. Things that make the script fail.

Assumptions work both ways, of course; assuming that '\' is the directory separator, or that there will be a registry, or that symbolic links exist, or that your 'alt-x' keybinding will work when you don't have an 'alt' key.

However, it happens, it happens all the time, and it means that there will be addins that just don't work on your chosen platform.

sublimator wrote:The only problem Sublime has with add-ons is the infrastructure, or lack of anything decent, for sharing them. There's no way of declaring versions / dependencies / requirements. No way to disable packages. No way of automatically merging in bindings/snippets changes.


I agree. How will a linux version not hinder Jon's effort to get these things in place?

sublimator wrote:I think you exaggerate the price of cross platform development.


It's enough that almost no-one does it. If it were cheap, TextMate would be available on Windows, and Photoshop on Linux.

Those products that do tend to build, not on Windows or Linux, but on another platfrom like the JVM or Mozilla's XUL. ST isn't a java product, so porting is just going to be hard. Porting MFC to Cocoa, or MFC to Gnome, is expensive and hard.

There's a nice article in Joel Spolsky's 'Best Software Writing' book, on the cost of porting Word 6.0 from Windows to Mac. It gives a bit on insight into the cost of moving pure windows app to pure mac apps. Have a read. It's almost directly applicable to this situation, and tellingly, it's an article that starts "Mom always said, 'the best thing about beating your head against the wall is that it feels good when you stop'"

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vPvhzDqZlaAC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=joel+spolsky+word+for+mac&source=bl&ots=ck3hPaMfVc&sig=GAPP1Ixa1NomSBf3dHA12ShZdM8&hl=en&ei=mbzySszjLsL4-AbM4tSrBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Maybe what you're looking for is at the http://www.sublimetextwiki.com
SteveCooperOrg
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:53 am

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby SteveCooperOrg on Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:12 pm

Nick, you're not addressing the important parts of the argument. You're picking short, trivial phrases out of long posts and ignoring the big objections;

- If cross-platform development were profitable for small companies, ISVs producing mac software would also produce for windows, and they aren't. See textmate, omnifocus, scrivener, tinderbox.

- Each new platform slows down all feature development ad infinitum, and immediately halts production of features for current customers.

- It will hurt ST's financials. There are startup costs ($1500 for mac development.) There are short- and medium-term costs as fewer customers buy or upgrade as fewer features appear. Lastly, the long-term benefits are unclear; there is little reason to suppose that serving new, small markets (mac and Linux) would be a better strategy than addressing the large, underexploited Windows market.

That's the core of my argument. I'm happy (really) to be proved wrong on any of these points, to hear counter-evidence and solid arguments. If there are small companies out there doing well straddling over three platforms, that's counter-evidence. If there's reason to suppose that Jon has maxed out the windows market, I'd love to hear it. If it can be shown that mac or linux users are much more generous when it comes to buying software, that's good evidence, too.
Maybe what you're looking for is at the http://www.sublimetextwiki.com
SteveCooperOrg
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:53 am

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby SteveCooperOrg on Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:44 pm

will do ;)
Maybe what you're looking for is at the http://www.sublimetextwiki.com
SteveCooperOrg
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:53 am

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby elrom on Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:09 pm

Not to inflate the price of sublime or anything. But I would pay for two licenses if it meant I had subby on both windows and linux. Besides, Currently I do about 90% of development on linux so having sublime run on linux would be huge for me.
p.s.
the only competing product (as far as I can tell) would be slickedit.

-elrom
elrom
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:08 am

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby SteveCooperOrg on Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:08 am

Wow. Talk about price inflation! Slickedit on Windows+mac clocks in at $449. Yikes.
Maybe what you're looking for is at the http://www.sublimetextwiki.com
SteveCooperOrg
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:53 am

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby Henrik on Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:38 am

I got meself a mac recently and like it pretty well, but I seriously mourn the loss of Sublime. There's simply no 1:1 replacement for it on OSX. Port it to mac and I'll throw some more money at you :D
Henrik
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby Incendium on Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:12 pm

Sublime works pretty well with Crossover (commercial version of wine), might try giving it a shot if you are dying to have it back. ;)

I use Crossover Linux + Sublime at work and it works great aside from having to reload the program on config changes, but that is just a minor quirk.
Incendium
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:06 pm

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby Henrik on Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:25 pm

Incendium wrote:Sublime works pretty well with Crossover (commercial version of wine), might try giving it a shot if you are dying to have it back. ;)

I use Crossover Linux + Sublime at work and it works great aside from having to reload the program on config changes, but that is just a minor quirk.

Oh, excellent! I'll do that until there's an official version *cough* ;)
Henrik
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Sublime for Linux :D

Postby Marciano on Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:44 pm

Henrik---Since you're on a Mac, what exactly is TextMate missing besides the minimap? I'm just curious.
Marciano
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ideas and Feature Requests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests