Good, but not new. Windows Atom users existed for a while now. They could compile themselves (quite problematic, I tried), or use unofficial, but well maintained builds: http://atom.someguy123.com/
In the end, my congratulations to the Atom team finally getting Windows officially supported. Now we need only Linux on board as well.
People argue it is very similar to Sublime, but is open source, thus has higher community support and promising future.
I would not compare Atom to emacs or vim. On the other hand, Windows always frustrated me of low text editors choice, Atom might quickly earn its name on Windows platform.
So far I'm having a hard time discerning its value over the Windows release of Geany. I'm not saying that it doesn't have that value, I'm just struggling to find it. Having said that, choice is generally perceived to be a good thing.
I use and like Geany on Linux. GTK apps on Windows have always been buggy for me though. Geany had a strange issue where it would sometimes maximize larger than the screen, so the only way to get control of the window again was WindowsKey+DownArrow.
I also have trouble finding nice themes for Geany.
Sublime and Notepad++ are much more polished, but I plan on giving Atom a legitimate trial now that there's an official build.
Currently full of Bugs, Emacs not!
Currently supports a few OS, Emacs supports a lot's!
It's is slow, Emacs not!
<and so on>
Ok the list is full but i'm not really sure about Atom. Maybe it could replace ST in the future, since the developer is away. But i guess to take Emacs or Vim will take much more time.
Atom is simply not ready yet for production.
Atom has some Emacs-like qualities. See for example a game for destroying the window contents: https://atom.io/packages/asteroids This is the kind of thing we saw in emacs.
It will depend on exactly which feature set you use, but it's under active development and has improved a lot recently. There's still a lot of open feature requests, but a lot of non-trivial actions work. Most of the missing or buggy motions are very simple fixes, and contributions are welcome.
The heck is Chocolatey and why am I expected to trust them as a distributor of clean binaries? Rhetorical question.
I've been using Windows as a primary OS for over 20 years and there's no way in hell I am installing some random "package manager" just to get some other piece of software. This is not how things work on Windows. I am willing to assume that GitHub knows how to build and look after their distributions to keep them clean, but I am not going to extend the courtesy to Chocolatey, because they are basically no-ones, regardless of how nice and well-intentioned they are.
KevinSawacki who owns the atom repo on Github is one of the maintainers, and chocolatey has been around for a while now. The reason they suggest chocolatey is because there's no auto updater for Windows atom yet, instead they recommend you use the update function from chocolatey.
With my builds, I had to announce them and poke some people who use my builds actively because of this issue, so that they would download the new version.
Nice to know, but it doesn't move a needle a bit. I have no desire to establish trusting relationship with Kevin, but I am willing to trust GitHub.
Adding a simple update checker is as trivial as pulling a URL and seeing if the response contains a version number that is greater than your own. How is this too hard to add and how it justifies adding some random dependency that needs full admin rights to run?
Pray tell how does being "quite well etablished" translate into being competent sysadmins and ensuring that they don't get compromised and won't end up pushing a whole load of crap on my box on the next update?
That is an argument against literally every updater or automatic check for updates. It applies equally to Chocolatey and to any auto-updater they could have used for Atom. Please go back and find a better reason.
I am not making up reasons, so you can keep "go and find a better one" to yourself.
There are no bulk auto-updaters on Windows except for Windows Update, which is professionally provisioned. If Chocolatey wants to act as one, it needs to measure up.
I am not making up reasons, so you can keep "go and find a better one" to yourself.
There are no bulk auto-updaters on Windows except for Windows Update, which is professionally provisioned. If Chocolatey wants to act as one, it needs to measure up.
Chocolatey is fairly well established as wrapper around nuget that grabs windows binaries - indeed it's currently the only source type that microsoft's own package manager (oneget) supports (although they intend to provide others see http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2014/04/03/...)
That's cool. There's no need to rant about it though. Why are you posting this? Are you expecting someone to come and change your mind? Are you expecting your totally original words of wisdom to cause everyone to abandon the project? Or are you just looking for a sandbox?
Not a rant. Consider it a public service announcement.
They are doing it in a way that is inherently wrong and doesn't work for a lot of people. And since they are being very casual about it, they get a louder message than they would've got if it were just one of the options.
Then you should also be giving chocolatey a good look before rejecting it out of hand. It's a good system, it works, and it has wide support. It may not be quite as popular as Steam, but rejecting it purely based on 'I don't know it' is short-sighted.
I have the same reservations as eps. It's not how Chocolatey works, it is how it's administered.
With Steam and Microsoft I can be reasonably certain that I will not be getting an infected update. With Chocolatey, being a smaller entity, I have to assume the opposite until proven otherwise. It may work, it may have wide support, but none of it matters, because it may get me screwed. Bluntly put, Chocolatey is simply not trustworthy.
That's a risk you take with all package managers. The ones on linux operate on basically the same principle, with (usually) even less oversight. It's a public gallery that everybody can publish to, so the trust/distrust should be put on the package level, not the platform. Chocolatey also won't install anything unless you ask it to, so if you don't consider them trustworthy, do your homework and check if the package is legit before installing it.
> The ones on linux operate on basically the same principle, with (usually) even less oversight. It's a public gallery that everybody can publish to, so the trust/distrust should be put on the package level, not the platform.
Just so you know, this is not true with any Linux distribution package manager that I know of. Packages and updates are always vetted by maintainers before they are available to user systems. Trust is intended to be at the distribution level; for Debian, for example, you can be confident that every package in the stable repository is fairly secure, tested software, and as long as you don't enable the non-free repo, every package is free and open source software as well.
This may or may not be true for Chocolatey, I don't know.
A packaged installer would be nice, but this is an IDE, so I'm not too surprised it can be installed using a package manager that may not be mainstream.
I am concerned at the tone of your response and am sad so say I expected this to be at the top. I don't think your post is nice or adds value to HN. Consider saying nothing at all.
I am concerned that you decided to publicly school me on my commenting style. I don't think you comment is nice or adds value to HN. Consider saying nothing at all.
I am with eps here. I would rather manually update something then use an relatively unknown package manager. Even if the package is from Github and MS is behind the package manager.
As a long Windows user, I too was skeptical of Chocolatey (somewhere on the spectrum of "what's the point" to "oh no, more garbage"). An endorsement from GitHub makes me think twice, but I can totally understand your point of view -- it feels a little silly to install a package manager to install a single program.
I test-drove it for a while and it ended up replacing ST3 in my toolkit/workflow. Until I switch to vim completely, Atom is filling in the gaps quite well.
Still? I see quite a bit of people moving to it recently, around me at least.
For me, it has completely replaced textmate/sublimetext (except for one huge file from time to time, but I use command line head/sed etc for that too).
My favorite point is that it comes with a default configuration which works for me, which means installing it on a machine let me work straight away.
What does it offer you that Sublimetext doesn't? I've been thinking about taking a look at Atom for a while but wouldn't mind hearing something from the (or a) horse's mouth.
Just an honest curiosity - what new atom.io can bring to Windows users? I understand the situation on OS X is dire with only a handful of capable text editors (a fact that drives me crazy when I need to do something non-trivial on OS X I am used to do on Windows), but on Windows you have a plenty of excellent programmer-friendly text editors/IDEs that seem to have more features than atom.io or sublime (even with live editing, multiple cursors etc.). Yes, I am using both atom.io and Sublime on OS X because I have no choice, but on Windows?
54 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 62.9 ms ] threadIn the end, my congratulations to the Atom team finally getting Windows officially supported. Now we need only Linux on board as well.
I would not compare Atom to emacs or vim. On the other hand, Windows always frustrated me of low text editors choice, Atom might quickly earn its name on Windows platform.
I also have trouble finding nice themes for Geany.
Sublime and Notepad++ are much more polished, but I plan on giving Atom a legitimate trial now that there's an official build.
Ok the list is full but i'm not really sure about Atom. Maybe it could replace ST in the future, since the developer is away. But i guess to take Emacs or Vim will take much more time. Atom is simply not ready yet for production.
Or when you don't want one of those at all.
https://sublime.wbond.net/browse/popular
I've been using Windows as a primary OS for over 20 years and there's no way in hell I am installing some random "package manager" just to get some other piece of software. This is not how things work on Windows. I am willing to assume that GitHub knows how to build and look after their distributions to keep them clean, but I am not going to extend the courtesy to Chocolatey, because they are basically no-ones, regardless of how nice and well-intentioned they are.
With my builds, I had to announce them and poke some people who use my builds actively because of this issue, so that they would download the new version.
Nice to know, but it doesn't move a needle a bit. I have no desire to establish trusting relationship with Kevin, but I am willing to trust GitHub.
Adding a simple update checker is as trivial as pulling a URL and seeing if the response contains a version number that is greater than your own. How is this too hard to add and how it justifies adding some random dependency that needs full admin rights to run?
There are no bulk auto-updaters on Windows except for Windows Update, which is professionally provisioned. If Chocolatey wants to act as one, it needs to measure up.
There are no bulk auto-updaters on Windows except for Windows Update, which is professionally provisioned. If Chocolatey wants to act as one, it needs to measure up.
They are doing it in a way that is inherently wrong and doesn't work for a lot of people. And since they are being very casual about it, they get a louder message than they would've got if it were just one of the options.
Chocolatey isn't new, they run on Microsoft technology (nuget), and they have support from Microsoft themselves.
With Steam and Microsoft I can be reasonably certain that I will not be getting an infected update. With Chocolatey, being a smaller entity, I have to assume the opposite until proven otherwise. It may work, it may have wide support, but none of it matters, because it may get me screwed. Bluntly put, Chocolatey is simply not trustworthy.
Just so you know, this is not true with any Linux distribution package manager that I know of. Packages and updates are always vetted by maintainers before they are available to user systems. Trust is intended to be at the distribution level; for Debian, for example, you can be confident that every package in the stable repository is fairly secure, tested software, and as long as you don't enable the non-free repo, every package is free and open source software as well.
This may or may not be true for Chocolatey, I don't know.
I am concerned at the tone of your response and am sad so say I expected this to be at the top. I don't think your post is nice or adds value to HN. Consider saying nothing at all.
Do you feel the same way about Ninite?
For me, it has completely replaced textmate/sublimetext (except for one huge file from time to time, but I use command line head/sed etc for that too).
My favorite point is that it comes with a default configuration which works for me, which means installing it on a machine let me work straight away.
http://www.proton.io
I recommend using the official builds from now on, as there is no reason for me to continue building stable builds of Atom for Windows