On Sunday 08 Nov 2009 08:35:58 Dotan Cohen wrote: > > Putting the forums in BCC is a good start, but what would work even > > better is if you actually posted it separately. The way you posted it > > makes it extremely difficult for people to answer you publicly. I suspect > > the only reason this was posted at all was because one of the other > > admins manually approved it (which I wouldn't, by the way, for the reason > > stated above). > > I see, thanks Shachar for the explanation. This is how I learn! >
This is also how I learnt recently, after sending an email to several lists with different subscribers, and being told it was not advisable. Trial by fire. ;-) > > I'm not going to buy it as I > > don't need it, in fact I didn't even test the betas due to university > > time constraints! If anyone wants my discount, just ask. > > > > But that's just the point, isn't it? > > I am not a coder, therefore I do not need a coder's text editor. But I > figured that given the nature of this list, someone here might be > interested. > And it is naturally on-topic here. I can also forward your message to Hackers- IL / Perl-IL / etc. (separately of course) where there are other programmers. > > Even on Windows, you rarely have to go with commercial solutions. There > > are free (which are free) solutions that do an excellent job. On Linux > > the market is even more saturated. > > I would say that there are a few markets which are saturated for free > (foss or money) solutions, yet there is room for a high quality > commercial product. Office suits, for example (I would gladly pay for > MS Office if it ran on Ubuntu and saved in compliant ODF, it really is > a good program). Or even web browsers (I would pay for Opera if they > still required it, it is that good). :-) Yes, I can think of other niches that exhibit a lot of FOSS , non-FOSS freeware and commercial and/or prorietary solutions: * Bug trackers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems Bugzilla seems to be the most visible , but there is no clear winner here, and there are many commercial (and even very pricey) solutions despite a lot of high-quality free software offerings. * Version control systems - http://better-scm.berlios.de/ - a lot of high- quality open-source options, but still commercial options such as Perforce , Rational/IBM ClearCase , and other smaller options are doing fine. * SQL databases - several high-quality and/or common open-source options, and there's still room for some commercial competition. Etc. Regarding text editors, I myself am pretty happy with gvim and vim ( http://www.vim.org/ ) as my text editors, but I'm also using kate and other editors for editing mixed Hebrew/Latin text and naturally often use the built- in text editors of applications (like KMail here or Firefox's <textarea>'s edit box). I'm not sure if there's a lot of market for non-free editors on Linux - most low-cost, but non-FOSS development tools I've heard about for Linux failed to sell a lot. But naturally UltraEdit for Linux may be an option for people who are used to UltraEdit on Windows, or for people who would like to use a common editor on both platforms and don't want to get used to a Windows-specific editor. I wish UltraEdit the best success in making money, directly or indirectly, of the Linux version. However, like I said, I'm happy with Vim, and due to a previous bad experience with a non-free software package[BitKeeper], I prefer to avoid depending or getting used to non-FOSS software as much as I can. {{{{ [BitKeeper] - see http://better-scm.berlios.de/docs/shlomif-evolution.html and http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/bk_suitability.html }}}} > > > As a point of proof - even the beta testers don't need the program. > > This beta tester is not a coder! > Right. > > In any case, now is a good time to show the commercial viability of > > Linux and support UltraEdit. > > > > That sentence would have been appropriate had the people of the list > > decided to use UE without paying. I'm sure you don't think we would, for > > the sake of showing economic viability, buy products we don't intend to > > use, do you? > > I certainly do not expect one to purchase software that he does not > need. I asked under the assumption that someone here may be > unsatisfied with VIM/Emacs/Eclipse. Yes. BTW, is there a shareware version of UltraEdit available for download for a free-as-in-beer trial? > > > This is not a cynical question. Can you provide us with anything UE does > > that is not available in any number of free automatically installed > > editors, most of which are the default text handlers anyway? I'm asking > > because the question of economic viability stems from demand and supply, > > not from spending money on ideologically buying something you don't need. > > Start here: > http://www.ultraedit.com/products/ultraedit/what_can_ultraedit_do_for_you.h > tml > > > In other words, it's UE that need to supply the viability, not the > > community. The community just needs to be willing to spend the money > > where the product justifies it. > > Agreed. I agree too. It seems that in the Linux world (and UNIX world in general) there's much less market for shareware and other low-cost software than for Windows or Mac OS (either Mac OS X or the pre-X Mac OS "Classic"). I don't know the reason for that, but part of it may be due to the inherent diversity of Linux, the BSDs and UNIX (including a proliferation of CPU architectures and many distributions), and the aversion of many "hard-core" Linux enthusiasts from using software that isn't open-source or to recommend it to their friends. If free, Unix-based, operating systems take over the world (and I sure hope it will happen, and I am actually trying to assist it happening myself), we may see a huge decline in the amount of shareware being produced. That may not be a bad thing as most shareware out there is bad, most shareware authors sell very few licences[Ettlinger] , a lot of shareware has high-quality open-source alternatives (or can easily be duplicated using some hackery by half-clueful programmers), and the culture of open-source software may be a good or better substitute, even if we take earning a living from it as a consideration. As ESR notes in the Magic Cauldron (see http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/ar01s03.html ) most of the software out there does not have any direct sale value, but is written primarily for its use value. {{{{ [Ettlinger] - in an interview I conducted with him: http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/interviews/adrian-ettlinger.html A shareware author (among many other claims to fame) said that: <<<< It's not a very high volume business; we've only sold about 4,000 copies over, let's see, about 8 years now. >>>> I believe most shareware out there sells much less than 4,000 copies. }}}} There are very few people who got rich out of selling shareware, but there are also quite a few successful companies delivering open-source or mostly open- source products. If you're into selling or distributing software, you are likely destined to not become very rich. So it's probably not so bad. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ "The Human Hacking Field Guide" - http://shlom.in/hhfg Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice. _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
