I have to agree. I registered just to say I agree. I've been using Linux for... 8 years? UE, though, is probably the single best editor I have used, though I had my doubts when a windows sysadmin showed it to me for the first time.
Re: Features of UE missing in emacs/xemacs?
In terms of features, none. But can you really afford to lose man-months of work while your developers erase everything they've spent years learning about text editors and IDEs from their brains, and re-learn everything from scratch using emacs' totally non-standard controls, terminology, and techniques?fortran2000 wrote:For those who have tried both worlds, what features in UE do you find either missing or extremely akward to achieve under Emacs/XEmacs? Notice I'm not talking about the learning curve here, or "user-friendlyness", but rather about features and efficient use, even if the curve is too steep
Efficient use is impossible if you have to learn a completely new set of techniques just to move the cursor around.
Please explain why your customers are being tortured by not having Linux edition for paying users? This thing is amazing and the only thing perhaps holdig IDM back is the freeware nature of Linux systems though I know not much.. I use Mepis live CD install and wish for wider Linux knowledge in life!Dynamical.biz wrote:I can not remember during how many years I've been working with ultraedit, 8-10 years?, from the early versions
one of the things that stop me moving to linux is not having UltraEdit for this OS
when could this be possibe, I don't mind buy it again but it could be great not depend on Bill's stuff
25236 is the number of views this post has received. 75 posts. I think people just click here to download and see the "I WISH". Note the company IDM or ULEAD has not made this post.. Had they done so that 75 might be 750 and the views would have been in the 100,000 just becasue of the need and interest.
Possibly because getting a Linux version isn't as simple as saying "oh, people want a Linux version, I'll wave my magic wand and make one"?
Making a Linux version costs money and takes time, and at the end of the day, there's nothing to guarantee that all the people who claim they'd buy a Linux version would actually do so. IDM has to carefully consider whether that's a risk they can take and an investment it's worth making.
Bear in mind that UltraEdit is already one of the most pirated shareware programs on Windows. Now add to that the fact that 99% of Linux users think it's morally wrong to pay for software. It doesn't add up to a great business prospect, does it?
Making a Linux version costs money and takes time, and at the end of the day, there's nothing to guarantee that all the people who claim they'd buy a Linux version would actually do so. IDM has to carefully consider whether that's a risk they can take and an investment it's worth making.
Bear in mind that UltraEdit is already one of the most pirated shareware programs on Windows. Now add to that the fact that 99% of Linux users think it's morally wrong to pay for software. It doesn't add up to a great business prospect, does it?
Has anyone tried running UE under WINE?Add my company to the list of people willing to pay for a Linux version of UEStudio. We bought UE for our Windows test machine, but all 30 of the developers use Linux and Ajunta. We need a good editor. I would buy a license for all 30 developers if a quality Linux version came out.
- 2
In search for an answer to the question I posted yesterday, I found UltraEdit in the Wine app database. Go to the link below and click on your version for a rating. UE v10.10a received a "Gold" rating so far.
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=65
I would like a Linux-native UE as much as everyone else here, but if the advocates on this forum could dedicate some testing time in conjunction with the site above (i.e. add test data, post comments, etc.) we may find that we have a viable solution until UE is eventually (maybe) ported! I am currently migrating between machines right now, but as soon as I get the new Linux box up and running I plan to do the same, because UE is too useful to give up!
Incidentally, I've never considered the basis of the OpenSource movement to be rooted in the opinion that paying for software is evil; if I did, I wouldn't be a licensed UE user. However, it is based on collaboration in the interest of producing better products, which is why every person's testing effort is so important!
Cheers!
-B
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=65
I would like a Linux-native UE as much as everyone else here, but if the advocates on this forum could dedicate some testing time in conjunction with the site above (i.e. add test data, post comments, etc.) we may find that we have a viable solution until UE is eventually (maybe) ported! I am currently migrating between machines right now, but as soon as I get the new Linux box up and running I plan to do the same, because UE is too useful to give up!
Incidentally, I've never considered the basis of the OpenSource movement to be rooted in the opinion that paying for software is evil; if I did, I wouldn't be a licensed UE user. However, it is based on collaboration in the interest of producing better products, which is why every person's testing effort is so important!
Cheers!
-B
I have used UltraEdit for several years, and now with a growing interest in Linux, I also support the idea of UltraEdit for Linux and certainly would continue to support the IDM products financially. Other software programmers (such as JG Soft ) have ported their editors to Linux in spite of any concerns (misconceptions) about the attitudes of Linux users being primarily software pirates and expecting everything to be free.
I expect that WindowsXP is the last version of Windows I will install on my personal computers since many Linux distributions are now as easy to install as Windows. As others have expressed, I want to continue to use UltraEdit, and not be forced to change to some other editor that is more difficult to operate and I don't want to have to use WINE.
I expect that WindowsXP is the last version of Windows I will install on my personal computers since many Linux distributions are now as easy to install as Windows. As others have expressed, I want to continue to use UltraEdit, and not be forced to change to some other editor that is more difficult to operate and I don't want to have to use WINE.
Well, I think there is an strighter way for IDM Computer Solutions, Inc. people to "port" UltraEdit to Linux.
It can be done through Winelib.
I'm pretty sure IDM people knows about this but who knows... take this as my "2 cents".
From Winelib user's guide:
"Winelib is a development toolkit which allows you to compile your Windows applications on Unix."
And that's it. As stated in Winelib's documentation it could be as simple as changing a bunch of Makefiles. I presume UltraEdit uses MFC, so it's a bit trickier than that. But, it stills being much easier -and faster- porting UltraEdit this way.
You can find more information about it here:
Winelib User's guide
Here is an screenshot I have just taken of a recent Wine version (v0.9.9) running latest UltraEdit-32 version (12.00+1):
![]()
Regards.
Ignacio.
It can be done through Winelib.
I'm pretty sure IDM people knows about this but who knows... take this as my "2 cents".
From Winelib user's guide:
"Winelib is a development toolkit which allows you to compile your Windows applications on Unix."
And that's it. As stated in Winelib's documentation it could be as simple as changing a bunch of Makefiles. I presume UltraEdit uses MFC, so it's a bit trickier than that. But, it stills being much easier -and faster- porting UltraEdit this way.
You can find more information about it here:
Winelib User's guide
Here is an screenshot I have just taken of a recent Wine version (v0.9.9) running latest UltraEdit-32 version (12.00+1):
Regards.
Ignacio.
Here's yet another vote for UE on Linux. I've been using EditPad, which is nice editor, but not is the same league as UE. I'd gladly register UE on Linux as well as Windoze.
I sell my own software, and will tell why I don't have a Linux version.
It's simply statistics and a few calculations.
The Linux market share for desktop machines is about 2%, Windows - 95%. Given the fact most Linux users are accustomed to free software, a Linux version of my product will likely increase my sales with 0.5% or so.
Porting a software from one OS to another is not easy, and I have limited developer resources. On the other hand, I have 7-8 competitors for the Windows product.
No doubt using my limited resources to improve the Windows product will have many times greater financial effect (likely 100+ times) than developing a Linux version.
It's simply statistics and a few calculations.
The Linux market share for desktop machines is about 2%, Windows - 95%. Given the fact most Linux users are accustomed to free software, a Linux version of my product will likely increase my sales with 0.5% or so.
Porting a software from one OS to another is not easy, and I have limited developer resources. On the other hand, I have 7-8 competitors for the Windows product.
No doubt using my limited resources to improve the Windows product will have many times greater financial effect (likely 100+ times) than developing a Linux version.
- 1
Well if you're a small shop and up against competition don't you think a port to Linux would broaden your availiblity, hence sales?
Basicly it comes to point of what the nature of your software is. Ultraedit would be a perfect port and recieve an excellent response, why? It's geared towards the programmer and sysadmin. It's a prime market for Ultraedit, I'm currently trying v12 using Cross Over Office, so far it's working alright, a few things are buggy, but nothing major so far. Will I buy v12? Not at this point because it doesn't work flawless under CX Office and they don't have a native Linux port.
If it was ported to Linux it would be a fairly simple task to port to OS X, Solaris (x86 and Sparc), etc.., you know there's a fairly good market there for a great editor like Ultraedit, I think they're missing the boat here.
My Two bits
Basicly it comes to point of what the nature of your software is. Ultraedit would be a perfect port and recieve an excellent response, why? It's geared towards the programmer and sysadmin. It's a prime market for Ultraedit, I'm currently trying v12 using Cross Over Office, so far it's working alright, a few things are buggy, but nothing major so far. Will I buy v12? Not at this point because it doesn't work flawless under CX Office and they don't have a native Linux port.
If it was ported to Linux it would be a fairly simple task to port to OS X, Solaris (x86 and Sparc), etc.., you know there's a fairly good market there for a great editor like Ultraedit, I think they're missing the boat here.
My Two bits
It's difficult to comment on your experience without knowing what your software is. You say yourself that you have numerous competitors on Windows... UltraEdit is in a slightly different position. True there are many other text editors on Windows, but there are no other "World's Best text editors" on Windows... many people in this thread have stated that UltraEdit is the only thing stopping them moving to Linux full-time. My company (an Internet Application developer) is in the same situation. If we could save thousands of dollars a year we pay to Microsoft, we'd happily pay hundreds to IDM.hveld wrote:It's simply statistics and a few calculations.
The Linux market share for desktop machines is about 2%, Windows - 95%. Given the fact most Linux users are accustomed to free software, a Linux version of my product will likely increase my sales with 0.5% or so.
You also state that Linux users are used to getting software for free, and while this is true, they are also cognisant of the effort involved in development, and do not mind paying reasonable amounts for good software. UltraEdit is best of breed. Linux users would pay for it.
I add my voice to the plea for a Linux version, with the guarantee that I would buy seven licences on day of release (10 if there's a Mac OS X version).
you should change your point of view a bit, I guess.
Most, if not all posts in this thread are from the point of view of a user - no doubt, many users want and will pay for a Linux version. Try to see it from the developer's point of view.
From this [developer] point of view, you will clearly see that for all practical purposes, the Linux OS simply *does not exist*.
The Mac OS simply does not exist.
UE is no doubt the best editor around. But you should not underestimate competitors, no matter how much less powerfull their products are.
Most UE users hardly use more than 20% of UE features. These 20% may be more user-friendly in another Windows product - and if so, most users will buy this product instead of UE.
So if I was IDM, I would focus all my resorces on improving UE for Windows. Developing and releasing a non-Windows version makes sense only on over-saturated markets.
Most, if not all posts in this thread are from the point of view of a user - no doubt, many users want and will pay for a Linux version. Try to see it from the developer's point of view.
From this [developer] point of view, you will clearly see that for all practical purposes, the Linux OS simply *does not exist*.
The Mac OS simply does not exist.
UE is no doubt the best editor around. But you should not underestimate competitors, no matter how much less powerfull their products are.
Most UE users hardly use more than 20% of UE features. These 20% may be more user-friendly in another Windows product - and if so, most users will buy this product instead of UE.
So if I was IDM, I would focus all my resorces on improving UE for Windows. Developing and releasing a non-Windows version makes sense only on over-saturated markets.
Poor Ian. He sits down 12-odd years ago (that'd be pre-1994) and decides "I want to write a decent editor that can allow me to do hex editing as well as edit normal text files."
Mainstream desktop (x86) OS at the time: Windows 3.1, OS/2 Warp, Novell Netware, even a good bit of DOS still around. Smart money would have been on Windows even then, that's what he goes with (a decision probably made easier by the large number of development environments around at the time).
Then there's the choice of development languages: C, Smalltalk, Turbo Pascal, and quite a few others that are now gathering dust within the mainstream development community. Java didn't exist until early 1996, and C++ wasn't standardized until 1998.
Linux existed but only in a *really* hacker sense...and let's not even go to Internet technologies at the time. Newsgroups were around to be sure, but the most common community interactions were at dial-up BBS (Compuserve anyone?) on private boards.
Had Ian been able to forsee the future he'd have sat down and written platform-neutral code...but my guess is that this was a utility that has evolved over time with a lot of user requests for features (not to mention things he wanted to do with the tool himself).
I frankly think he made the right choice: add/enhance features for the broadest target (Windows).
Rather than trying to "port" to Linux or OS-X (which would franky have my vote over Linux), Ian would be better-served to come up with a Java-based version of UE. Who knows what the next 5 years will bring...BeOS could come back! Plus, supporting "Linux" isn't exactly a simple thing do to...the best he'd manage is to come up with a 'use at your own risk' policy.
Yes, Java is the way to go. But you can imagine the engineering effort involved at going to Java, particularly in a product that has developed in such an evolutionary mode.
Depending on how messy it'd be, there might be a way for Ian to coordinate a "restricted open source" project to get a community of developers who could do a lot of the brute-force work for him. Then offer a "free" version with basic features (including a couple of 'teasers') and a "enhanced" version with the whole whack of cool features.
My $0.02...
Mainstream desktop (x86) OS at the time: Windows 3.1, OS/2 Warp, Novell Netware, even a good bit of DOS still around. Smart money would have been on Windows even then, that's what he goes with (a decision probably made easier by the large number of development environments around at the time).
Then there's the choice of development languages: C, Smalltalk, Turbo Pascal, and quite a few others that are now gathering dust within the mainstream development community. Java didn't exist until early 1996, and C++ wasn't standardized until 1998.
Linux existed but only in a *really* hacker sense...and let's not even go to Internet technologies at the time. Newsgroups were around to be sure, but the most common community interactions were at dial-up BBS (Compuserve anyone?) on private boards.
Had Ian been able to forsee the future he'd have sat down and written platform-neutral code...but my guess is that this was a utility that has evolved over time with a lot of user requests for features (not to mention things he wanted to do with the tool himself).
I frankly think he made the right choice: add/enhance features for the broadest target (Windows).
Rather than trying to "port" to Linux or OS-X (which would franky have my vote over Linux), Ian would be better-served to come up with a Java-based version of UE. Who knows what the next 5 years will bring...BeOS could come back! Plus, supporting "Linux" isn't exactly a simple thing do to...the best he'd manage is to come up with a 'use at your own risk' policy.
Yes, Java is the way to go. But you can imagine the engineering effort involved at going to Java, particularly in a product that has developed in such an evolutionary mode.
Depending on how messy it'd be, there might be a way for Ian to coordinate a "restricted open source" project to get a community of developers who could do a lot of the brute-force work for him. Then offer a "free" version with basic features (including a couple of 'teasers') and a "enhanced" version with the whole whack of cool features.
My $0.02...
