Atom Text Editor

Does anyone here use the Atom text editor? I've been using it recently and it's made me quite happy. Very simple to use, which is something that I like, and plenty fast on a modern machine.

atom.io/

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
atom.io/packages/column-select
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Reported. Use vim faggot. If you really need point and click, try notepad++

kill yourself faggot, Atom is free open source software.

Atom was shit and slow the last time I used it (about 2 years ago), but if it works for you, knock yourself out. Nobody really cares that much about your editor unless you're sharing plugins or information, as long as you can work on the code the same.


Atom is FOSS, you fucking idiot. It's MIT-licensed.

6/10 for getting a few newfags to reply

I see what you did there

Nice features and modular design concept but slow as shit. I'd support anyway because it's a strong oss competitor to sublime, but it's also ran by faggots and pushes this retarded "muh hacker's editor" image so no thanks, I'll wait till someone competent makes a clone.

I like Sublime more because of all the plugins and addons.

MIT license does not imply free software. The only thing guaranteed with the MIT license is that you're allowed to modify and redistribute the MIT licensed software. However, you're not guaranteed access to the corresponding source code of the program that you use; you may be forced to modify the program without access to the source code.

The accurate way to refer to the situation is that Atom is FOSS and is licensed under the MIT license.

How does it feel, knowing you're such a newfag that you can't even detect the same troll response to a thread we get once a week on average?

It was my priveledge


Have you tried nano? It's pretty good and usable by even total illiterates.

Can you be more of a faggot.

The Free Software Foundation disagrees with you.

gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

What you need to understand is that the MIT license is not a copyleft license. Liberal licenses (like the MIT) of a software title is no guarantee that the title is free software; you have to look closely and judge on a case by case basis whether the specific title is indeed free software. Why is this so? It's because nobody is required to distribute the source code along with the binary program. This is the nature of all liberal free software licenses: it is possible to redistribute them as liberally licensed proprietary software.

What does Holla Forums think of Lighttable?

No shit. What you need to understand is that not all free software licenses are copyleft licenses, but that doesn't make them any less free software licenses.

You didn't say that the MIT license isn't a copyleft license, you said it's not a free software license, and you're wrong. If you want to redefine the term free software, take it up with Stallman and the FSF. I'm sure they'll listen to you, a random imageboard retard with poor reading comprehension.

This is a strawman argument. Look very carefully about what was written there. I did not say that MIT license is not a free software license. I said that you need to judge an MIT licensed software to figure out if it is free software or not free software. You cannot assume the MIT licensed software is free software.

I wasn't trying to say it's 2hard5me, it's pretty easy. But they really emphasize this "hackableness" in their marketing which to me is ridiculous: First of all atom is clearly an ezmodo editor for lazyfags. Nobody using this shit wants to "hack their editor", they want shit to work with minimal setup and look pretty. Atom are encouraging cancerous normie behavior by trying to make them feel like elite hackers because they downloaded a few plugins and wrote a fizzbuzz in it.

I know what marketing is thinking, "if we make users feel smart for using our product by giving them fake compliments they will prefer it". But users attracted by this will also have high attrition rate. If you had to pay for Atom up front like a car or clothes, trying to sell the mental state would make sense, but with a free program IMO it's a waste of effort.

you only work with small files, and you have inferior reaction time so you don't notice how atom's response time (to key presses) massively sucks dicks.

in a similar scenario, atom indeed can be good enough.

I've recently been working on some arduino code. The editor that comes with the arduino IDE sucks some major dick. I've used emacs in the past along with vi but I'd be fucked if I could remember the key combinations to use them.

It's not that slow, in all seriousness, but on the other hand I'm not running any plugins with it.

An editor written by a cuck.

Looks like macfagware.

notepad++ and vim is made by cucks

Patricians use sublime text or brackets

Sublime is fine, but God Emperors use emacs.

Copyleft should just die.
RMS wanted to force his communistic ideas but people who can actually code and use brains decided to just ignore his GPL license with its "spread like cancer" phylosophy (because it forces you to use the same shitty license on your product).
The BSD-like licenses are pretty much the only good ones. Better than that is public domain or licenses like CC0 but it's harder to make them work worldwide thanks to laws shenanigans.

i liked it a lot for coding in haskell. got a bunch of school projects that require microshit so i dont use it much lately

i always end up going back to sublime text. spacemacs is nice though.

???
if i release code for free use, i dont want it to counter-intuitively have it being used in proprietary software. eg: the bsd network stack being used in windows xp

If you believe copyleft is communism, then I have a bridge to build with you.

Using a permissive license says either "I don't care about this shit, do what you want" or "I'm a cuck, take my work for free and do whatever you want".

How can someone be so cuck to work for free on free software and then let jewish evil Google to use his software to spy on people and earn evil jewish shekels?

It's Google and google shills who defend cuck licenses

That's precisely the reason why big companies (who would otherwise want to use and contribute (and they would contribute much better than the activists from GNU) to Libre Software) just ignore everything licensed under GPL.
To be honest, seeing this whole thing with people confusing "selling product to earn money" with "being evil" is kinda annoying. People just want to create a thing and sell it. It just so happens that open source code kinda gets in the way. Yeah, averagenerates might buy your shit but people who can compile will just go get the source for free and compile it.
Shit like this is the reason why "neo-communism" has arrived with the appearance of Patreon and similar shit. Can't wait to earn money monthly for doing nothing so I could spend those money donating to someone else.

Makes perfect sense.

The MIT license is a free software license, and any software distributed under it is, by definition, free software. Once again, if you disagree, take it up with the FSF.

This is an assumption that you cannot hold to be true for all cases. The reason why copyleft was created was because you cannot assume that a liberally licensed software title is also free software, you have to judge the facts to discover if the software is free software. The development of copyleft licenses ensures that the licensed software is indeed free software.

An example of this is the Cedega software which was forked from Wine software when it was licensed under the X11 license. The Wine fork hasn't changed license today - it's still X11 licensed. However, users are not allowed to access the full source code of Cedega, only to portions of it. Users do not have access to all the parts of the Wine fork that's under X11. Even for the source code that is available, users are not allowed to redistribute that code as free software even though it's licensed under the X11 license.

Are you stupid?

Let's go over the Four Freedoms:
gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

The MIT license does not put any such restrictions on the user
Again, the MIT license does not restrict you
Check
Again check

So the MIT license is Free as in Freedom. However, there is nothing in it that says that someone using MIT-licensed code must grant you those freedoms. The license does not inhibit your freedom, but it does not prevent something else from doing so.


You are under the assumption that every normalfag knows how to compile source code. By your logic no craft would exist because everyone could just go to the hardware store, get the materials and tools and just do it themselves instead of hiring a professional.

The reality is that most people don't know what to do with a tarball they downloaded. The danger from random normalfags just grabbing your source code is negligible. You don't even have to host your source code online to qualify as Free Software, just put it in a tarball and include it with the binary. This misconception that libre => gratis is what is keeping Free Software perpetually down.

...

I think you read it wrong, man. No, I don't think that *normalfags* can compile. The problem is the software that is used by the people who are smart enough to compile (or even more). I'm not talking about something like a web browser, some application, or hell, even some product from Adobe. I'm talking about things like libraries, compilers and all other stuff that is used as building blocks for something else.

strawpoll.me/12284018

>>>/bog/

This is the very basis of my argument: do not assume a liberally licensed software is also free software. This is why I say that you have to judge on a case by case basis that the software is indeed free software. The MIT license does not restrict users in itself. What can restrict users are additional factors:
* the distributor of the software withheld the source code of the program. Users cannot practise freedom 1 without the source code.
* the distributor can apply additional restrictions to installation, operation, and distribution of the software

Cedega is not free software while being licensed under the liberal X11 license.

What's a good FOSS text editor that lets me select columns like in Sublime? I've been using Sublime for awhile but it doesn't respect muh freedoms so I'm looking for an alternative. Atom apparently does not have this feature.

except Atom does, you braindead cuck.

Still curious.

Atom is still shit and slow. There's a noticeable delay between hitting a key and a character appearing when you've got even a mildly complex project open.

I really just want Kate to have per panel open files, instead of per instance. If I close a file in one panel, I don't want it to close in all panels. Whoever designed it like that is an absolute fucking retard.

Emacs, if you're willing to invest a little time in learning it and getting used to it.

Does this work for you?
atom.io/packages/column-select

vim

It's not fast at all.

A program is only fast when old hardware runs it fast, not when """modern hardware""" does.

This is why everything should be developed on 5+ year old hardware. Once a developer has his shit running fast on 5-10 year old hardware, it's going to run well for virtually all of his potential users.

...

All developers should have 486 with 8 MB RAM, and an ISA bus VGA card. Also, no mouse. Make it all work with keyboard first.

Just like Emacs was 25 years ago. i.e. not at fucking all