Sublime Text is not open-source but it has a sane price and a WinRAR-style trial. I use it because it feels a lot snappier than other editors/IDEs I’ve tried when browsing large files.
On the one hand, it’s a shame that it’s not open-source, but on the other hand, developers have to make a living from something.
On the one hand, it’s a shame that it’s not open-source, but on the other hand, developers have to make a living from something.
I’m pretty sure most people here, at least I hope, who use open source and free software directly money donate to developers. I know of plenty of developers who do get paid writing open source through such donations or via funding, e.g. NLNet or grants. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your statement, are you saying Sublime Text isn’t open source because they believe those ways are not appropriate for them?
I wrote a whole comment in which I mused about the reason why Sublime Text isn’t open-source. However, a brief search found one developer’s answer: They just don’t think that typical FOSS funding is sustainable for their particular project.
FWIW I’m donating every month to CodeMirror author, donates to Vim, etc. I’m not saying they are wrong, nor right, solely that implying (but maybe I misunderstood the comment) that somehow open-source and getting paid are antagonist is IMHO damaging to FLOSS broadly.
That’s a fair point. Still, I think it’s also worth acknowledging that getting paid to develop open-source software can often be more difficult than getting paid for proprietary work. According to Tidelift State of Open Source Maintainer report, 44 % of FOSS maintainers aren’t getting paid for their work but would like to. Interestingly, 36 % of FOSS maintainers are getting some monetary compensation.¹
(I’m responding mostly because I found that survey. Interesting numbers.)
¹ I thought this number would be smaller. Alas, I am a pessimist.
I use it because it feels a lot snappier than other editors/IDEs I’ve tried when browsing large files.
Snappiness is definitely something I appreciate. So, if it blows everything else out of the water in this respect, that I might have to concede. Thank you for mentioning this particular aspect of it!
On the one hand, it’s a shame that it’s not open-source, but on the other hand, developers have to make a living from something.
I wholeheartedly agree. But, I prefer the capability to donate to the open-source software developers that I love to support.
Btw, I would like to take this chance to thank you and @winety@lemmy.zip for the civil, respectful, engaging and informative conversation you were having elsewhere!
SublimeText?
Looks cool. Thanks!
Uhmm…, did I understand correctly that it’s not open source?
Not op but no it’s not.
Thank you for the clarification!
While I didn’t mention it explicitly in the post, I do intend to stick to open source.
Sublime Text is not open-source but it has a sane price and a WinRAR-style trial. I use it because it feels a lot snappier than other editors/IDEs I’ve tried when browsing large files.
On the one hand, it’s a shame that it’s not open-source, but on the other hand, developers have to make a living from something.
I’m pretty sure most people here, at least I hope, who use open source and free software directly money donate to developers. I know of plenty of developers who do get paid writing open source through such donations or via funding, e.g. NLNet or grants. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your statement, are you saying Sublime Text isn’t open source because they believe those ways are not appropriate for them?
I wrote a whole comment in which I mused about the reason why Sublime Text isn’t open-source. However, a brief search found one developer’s answer: They just don’t think that typical FOSS funding is sustainable for their particular project.
FWIW I’m donating every month to CodeMirror author, donates to Vim, etc. I’m not saying they are wrong, nor right, solely that implying (but maybe I misunderstood the comment) that somehow open-source and getting paid are antagonist is IMHO damaging to FLOSS broadly.
That’s a fair point. Still, I think it’s also worth acknowledging that getting paid to develop open-source software can often be more difficult than getting paid for proprietary work. According to Tidelift State of Open Source Maintainer report, 44 % of FOSS maintainers aren’t getting paid for their work but would like to. Interestingly, 36 % of FOSS maintainers are getting some monetary compensation.¹
(I’m responding mostly because I found that survey. Interesting numbers.)
¹ I thought this number would be smaller. Alas, I am a pessimist.
Snappiness is definitely something I appreciate. So, if it blows everything else out of the water in this respect, that I might have to concede. Thank you for mentioning this particular aspect of it!
I wholeheartedly agree. But, I prefer the capability to donate to the open-source software developers that I love to support.
Right indeed, not sure why it was implied that open source software couldn’t be a financially viable option for developers too.
Couldn’t agree more.
Btw, I would like to take this chance to thank you and @winety@lemmy.zip for the civil, respectful, engaging and informative conversation you were having elsewhere!
Ah! Isn’t it wonderful when we discuss to learn rather than be right? :D
It’s definitely not faster than vim, fwiw.
Thank you for this crucial piece of information! Much appreciated!
As such, Sublime Text has (kinda) lost all of its relevancy for me.
Removed by mod
If I said I knew exactly what I was talking about, I’d be lying. But it’s generally accepted that funding of open-source is not in an ideal state.