They aren't claiming to be associated with Sublime - they're saying that they're trying to make something _like_ Sublime. And that is actually a pretty good way to explain it. When I first found LimeText (about a year ago) I was searching for an "open source ST2 clone". I already knew that I wanted something like Sublime, I just wanted it to be open source so I could contribute to it. Having to compare the features of LimeText to the ubiquitous features of Sublime would have just made it harder for me to "get" what LimeText is.
> because he has the gall to charge $60
I don't think that the 60USD was a big deal. I was fine with that, I just wanted something that's open-source.
> weird that the fact that it's made in Go is part of the pitch
I think that the reason why is because LimeText is marketed towards people who want to contribute to their editor. Sublime is probably a more stable solution for people looking for something like Sublime, so right now the big feature is that it's open-source.
* Also, I should note that I've never used LimeText... I ended up switching to Atom instead. My primary experience with it is just finding it and evaluating it as an alternative to Sublime.
They use wordplay on the sublime editor to name themselves.
It's up to trademark lawyers to prove if the name is associated with Sublime Text or not.
They did announced something recently, like getting ready for ST 4. And 3 is not even a major upgrade from ST2, IMHO.
From a development standpoint it likely was. Doing a plug-in rewrite is a ton of work.
I understand software development isn't cheap but it's kind of annoying that $60 doesn't include free upgrades.
Expiration Date
Licenses purchased for Sublime Text 3 do not expire, however
an upgrade fee will be required for Sublime Text 4.
Yeah, they do. It's very hard to do in both cases, for different reasons - licensing for Emacs, code quality/style for Vim - but it happens. For Emacs just read this: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Ant... and this: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Ant... (or look at normal changelog, but I kind of like this "backwards in time" format, it's fun :)) to get a feeling for what you'd miss by not doing a "major upgrade".
Anyways, theres no satisfying HN. When Atom came out, the consensus was that they should've come out and said it was an ST clone upfront. Now someone does that and it seems the tide has changed.
While we're on Atom, since switching I've found its everything ST should've been. Its open source and has a huge community developing very useful plugins (not to mention, they're well integrated from a usability perspective - git/terminal status/linter/etc). Also, I have yet to run into a serious bug/versioning issue which ST plugins were rife with before I dropped it.
Not that it matters much, but it's actually $70 now: http://www.sublimetext.com/buy
And how does that make a difference? You could already contribute plugins to both to add/remove/alter functionality, so other than a warm fuzzy feeling, what does Open Source add to your productivity?
I used closed and open source software. It just feels much better if I see a bug, fix it, place a pull request and be done with it, than discuss with some devs in a bug tracker if and when they want to fix a bug I hate.
It's no surprise that most open source software is clunky and hard to use whereas closed products always have that visual polish.
And often big projects have, similar to closed source software, rather ugly workflows where you have to discuss stuff before you're assigned to a bug and then have to send it patches and what not.
A good review process is important or else everything ends in chaos.
Closed products always have that visual polish
A lot of open/free projects are indeed "hobby" projects (and not in a good way) -- but to claim that all of them are bad? Compared to what? The shareware scene from the 90s?
Creating a Pull Request doesn't mean that the developer of the open source project has to accept it verbatim if it doesn't fit with the 'vision.'
[Also, I'm pretty sure that the parent to your post was talking about bugs that probably don't involve visuals.]
What makes you so sure of that?
> At work that makes little difference to me.
Clearly implying that Open Source is a productivity increase. I am asking why.
I'd put what you're saying in the "warm fuzzy feeling" department as in the real world the majority of developers, even if Sublime Text died, would just sit by patiently and wait for someone else to release a replacement. Most lack the skills, time, or both to develop a project like Sublime Text.
If something breaks or development stalls or he wants new features and the developer has abandoned the project he can then pick it up himself if he wants.
That said, I agree that just because people can contribute to software doesn't mean they will. I'm certainly guilty of just living with bugs or functionality gaps in open source software that I use, lazily waiting for someone else to address it the same way I would if it were something developed privately.
Open Source doesn't imply that there's a productivity gain. For obvious reasons I'm a lot more comfortable using OS tools at work.
The product itself may be relatively bug-free, but that is not really the issue. RHEL7Beta was relatively bug-free, but I would not advise you to use it for most purposes.
I think I'll do so now for exactly this reason.
It's ridiculous in my strong opinion.
This is like someone trying to get me to buy a domain on Godaddy just because I like to use Heroku for hosting. I don't use Paypal.
Alternative Payment Methods PayPal is currently the only way to purchase a license for Sublime Text. However, for most countries a PayPal account is not required; you can purchase as a guest using a credit card. Unfortunately, PayPal requires users in some countries, such as New Zealand, to create an account.
Its competition. Thats the market segment they are aiming to attract and serve. They aren't claiming to be Sublime Text, they are claiming they want to be better than it. Its the market leader in that area, and if that is the segment they are interested in serving, imho it wouldn't make sense to not compare themselves to Sublime Text.
> Also, I think it's weird that the fact that it's made in Go is part of the pitch. I mean, unless I'm contributing... I don't care.
Play the other side. You're interested in an open source alternative to Sublime Text, and you love working in Go. Is it relevant now? Because I'm willing to bet by its open source nature, they are as interested in attracting committers as they are users at this point.
Sure, but, they're using sublime text's brand to draw attention to their own project. If they called themselves, say, "Cherry edit" and just had a comparison matrix to sublime text without saying "we want to be sublime", I bet this wouldn't have made it to the front page. They're piggybacking off the other projects success by invoking its name and lineage, while positioning themselves as a competitor by undercutting the price (in this case: free).
That's what I mean. It's not illegal or whatever, it just feels like poor sportsmanship.
Pretty close, calling your project Lime text is pretty sketchy IMHO.
> it wouldn't make sense to not compare themselves to Sublime Text
But they aren't comparing themselves, that would be a feature page showing how many features they have. Instead they are branding themselves in a very similar way.
As for price, I was happy to pay for the editor, even though I use vim most of the time, I am happy to support modern editors and use them.
Also, I think it's weird that the fact that it's made in Go is part of the pitch. I mean, unless I'm contributing... I don't care. You could write it in brainfuck if it does the job.