Does Atom have an emacs keybinding mode?
Early Thoughts on Atom
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#32The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.
Could it be forked and rebranded like iceweasel?
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#33It's definitely slick. While comparisons with ST are obvious, I find it a touch more polished. One example is that the "find all" results page is automatically updated whenever you modify the results. So, if you replacing a bunch of text, the results are updated in real-time each time the files are saved. Two gripes that I have so far are: - The actual integration with GH does not work for me. E.g. Git blame does not…
Settings (Cmd+,) -> Tree View -> Hide Ignored Names
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that mean that you haven't yet tried Atom on your laptop? I haven't however haven't heard complaints about performance...
It's definitely slower than Sublime Text 3, but not by much and it's a pretty high bar.
How much slower? Slower doing what?
It feels snappier to me at everything except for opening large files, but it's a beta – it's to be expected.
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#35The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.
GNU does the same thing.
I didn't know that – can you send me a link or give me some more context for it? My Google-fu didn't turn up anything.
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#36The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.
If they are clear up front then it isn't really a trick. If they want to distribute the contributions, they will have to make it clear up front.
I think calling it "hackable" is a little bit of a fudge on Github's part, but from what I can see of Atom, it's open enough that I'm okay with their characterization. Certainly it's more open and hackable than github.com itself.
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#37The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.
GNU does the same thing.
Short answer: No, they don't.
Long answer: Some GNU projects require copyright assignment to the FSF. The most well known example would be GNU Emacs. However, unlike GitHub or another for-profit business, the FSF is a non-profit charity dedicated to free software. Additionally, there is a clause in the CLA to ensure that contributions cannot be made nonfree. I have made some small contributions to a handful of GNU projects at this point and I have not yet had to assign copyright for any of them.
The copyright assignment situation with the FSF and the GNU project is dramatically different than the potential situation that I've described about GitHub. I hope I've made things clear.
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#38Sorry for the grovel, but still looking for an atom invite. Would like to try it out for myself, and of course I'm impatient.
Email me at me@christianbundy.com. :)
After receiving 80+ emails, I'd like everyone to know that I don't have any more invitations. Check out ##atom-invitations on irc.freenode.net!
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#39The glaring ethical issue remains that the core of Atom is nonfree. From what I've read, the source code will be viewable but not redistributable and the public can submit pull requests. If this is true, it means that GitHub is intending to trick users into providing gratis labor for their product without retention of copyright for their contribution.
Why exactly should it bee free? Its free for beta, and i could speculate that the price for the editor is somewhere between 30-50 dollars.
So if its too ethical to pay for quality software, just think about your own job, you get paid, right?
Sublime is not free, still people create packages for it, for free.
Do you mean that if the code is open to everyone, the software should not cost?
Kind of weird, using open source software to create software to make money, but not being able to sell software for money if its opensource.
Re: Early Thoughts on Atom
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they are clear up front then it isn't really a trick. If they want to distribute the contributions, they will have to make it clear up front.
I think calling it "hackable" is a little bit of a fudge on Github's part, but from what I can see of Atom, it's open enough that I'm okay with their characterization. Certainly it's more open and hackable than github.com itself.
I would go in the other direction and say that 'hackable' is so fuzzy that it doesn't mean anything.
"I hacked this wood and made a spoon."
"I hacked my breakfast."
I do get that there was at some time a group of people where it had a clearer meaning.