Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sublime Text 3.0

sublimetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 694 posts

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#231

Post by gkya »

As an enthusiastic Emacs user I can say that Sublime Text is one of the best text editors out there, together with Emacs and Vi-family. I've only sporadically used it but it's really nice. If I was using my "text editor" only for text-editing (I use Emacs apps like Gnus, Elfeed and Org-mode, and really enjoy Elisp and the programmable environment it provides), I'd definitely use it.

One thing that I don't understand is though, when I buy ST, what do I buy? I've only seen others use full versions but as far as I can tell it's only the [UNREGISTERED] bit in the titlebar and the random "please buy me" popup. It's understandable that one would pay merely to sustain its development but is there any actual differences?

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#232

Post by beefhash »

whalesalad wrote: post #99
Nvorzula wrote: post #60

I took a dive away from Sublime Text over to Atom a few years ago because I was starting up some contract work, didn't want to pay for a copy, and didn't want to continue doing the hokey thing of using a friend's license for work purposes. So I got use to Atom just fine, plus the UI is nice. I mean, Atom is nice. The package management is all there and frequent updates are great, but...I don't write JS/HTML/CSS/PHP.…

Kind of shocked that you weren't able to stomach the cost of Sublime as an independent contractor. Invest in your self!

Avoiding unnecessary costs is a solid business decision.

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#233

Post by rattray »

meritt wrote: post #210
ythn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer VSCode if the hardware can handle it, but otherwise Sublime is my goto. If Sublime ever had as good Git support as VSCode I would permanently switch back to Sublime

Text editors shouldn't come with hardware requirements.

All software has hardware requirements.

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#234

Post by Karunamon »

cdnsteve wrote: post #214
mstade wrote: post #70

I honestly can't believe I'm saying this, but: can you please enable me to buy a new license for 4.0 even though it may not even be on the road map yet? Or switch to / enable a subscriber model which is paid yearly and gives access to all upgrades? I rely so much on sublime for my day to day work and I fear the $80 or whatever I paid for it whenever ago is too cheap for the amount of value I'm getting out of it, and…

Also, I don't see Sublime in the MacOS App store. I'd suggest it get added there, even if you have to charge more due to the percentage that Apple takes.

The sand boxing requirements plus STs plugins may make that a non starter.

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#235

Post by eberkund »

wslh wrote: post #165
mstade wrote: post #70

I honestly can't believe I'm saying this, but: can you please enable me to buy a new license for 4.0 even though it may not even be on the road map yet? Or switch to / enable a subscriber model which is paid yearly and gives access to all upgrades? I rely so much on sublime for my day to day work and I fear the $80 or whatever I paid for it whenever ago is too cheap for the amount of value I'm getting out of it, and…

Would a crowdfunding campaign help to fund a product like Sublime Text which has a lot of traction? I think so.

It has worked in the past, for example: I would consider the recent FontAwesome 5 kickstarter campaign a huge success both from a funding point of view and the backers getting what they wanted. This was only really possible in my opinion due to the reputation Dave Gandy built up by releasing the open source version of FA prior. One needs only to look at the myriad of failed software kickstarters for examples of what happens when a unknown person who hasn't proven they are capable of delivering what people want tries the same thing.

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#236

Post by kabdib »

I bought ST2 in 2013, and I'm a littled bummed they pushed the "your license works for ST3" back that far. They deserve more; I might buy another copy anyway.

(My favorite editor is an Emacs clone called Epsilon. It hasn't been updated in a decade, but it still works great. On the other hand, it hasn't been updated in a decade and I think the writing is on the walls, and I'll have to move to something else. 25 years of muscle memory are hard to deal with, though. I'd definitely throw some money the author's way if he ever decided to do a new release).

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#237

Post by tempay »

cdnsteve wrote: post #214
mstade wrote: post #70

I honestly can't believe I'm saying this, but: can you please enable me to buy a new license for 4.0 even though it may not even be on the road map yet? Or switch to / enable a subscriber model which is paid yearly and gives access to all upgrades? I rely so much on sublime for my day to day work and I fear the $80 or whatever I paid for it whenever ago is too cheap for the amount of value I'm getting out of it, and…

Also, I don't see Sublime in the MacOS App store. I'd suggest it get added there, even if you have to charge more due to the percentage that Apple takes.

I suspect it wouldn't work with the sandboxing required for the mac app store.

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#239

Post by cdnsteve »

Karunamon wrote: post #234
cdnsteve wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I don't see Sublime in the MacOS App store. I'd suggest it get added there, even if you have to charge more due to the percentage that Apple takes.

The sand boxing requirements plus STs plugins may make that a non starter.

Ah right. Thanks

Re: Sublime Text 3.0

#240

Post by eberkund »

8draco8 wrote: post #225
eberkund wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, for every one person like this there are probably many who would not renew if they went subscription. It's not like they rely entirely on new customers, the company only has two employees and I'm sure ST3 will be out for a few years and then ST4 will come along. Software companies existed long before "cloud licensing" became the norm.

I am not fan of replacing classic pricing model with recurring payments but instead of forcing recurring payment, allow that option for extra feature. Make the base app as it is now and add something on top of that for small fee. Like I suggested earlier, make small cloud service for syncing configs, addons and projects between installations. It's not a big thing, not deal breaking, it can be even done using rsync by…

I would be okay with them having an optional cloud service for syncing settings.

But the issue you talk about is where major version upgrades come in. Sublime text could cease all development tomorrow and not pay another cent towards development, should people have to continue to pay to keep using it? If new major feature are requested then that is grounds for charging and upgrade fee, otherwise I don't see why people should pay.

Post reply on HN