Sublime Text 2 may be downloaded and evaluated for free, however a license must be purchased for continued use. There is currently no enforced time limit for the evaluation.
So someone should uninstall the program and download a true open source product like vscode. Because using it by the terms listed on the download page is breaking a social contract. If we don't no one will offer a free editor again?
- There is a reason they offered a free unlimited trial. They were unknown and by offering it for free they increased popularity, increased business / education licenses sold. By me switching to another editor I stop telling people I use that editor my company stops purchasing that license. We all lose. Nevermind version 3 doesn't have that wording, so version 2 can be seen as a gateway product to onboard developers into version 3.
- Even though vscode is open source by supporting that editor you are supporting big microsoft over a much smaller company. Long term this hurts small developers more. I think open source can hurt small players when used by larger corps trying to get you to buy into there paid ecosystem.
VSCode is not "true open source product". It's event not open source. It's "open core", i.e. proprietary version of "code" project with additional proprietary components: telemetry, special configuration and so on.
Using a Personal License at Work
As licenses are per-user, you're welcome to use your license key on all computers where you are the primary user, including at work.
Well, kind of (at least last time I used it, which was Sublime Text 2). They say it's an evaluation but there is no time-limit, just an annoying popup every now and then (or on start? Can't remember) but it's effectively free if you're OK with that.
Not at all because usually you have to circumvent some protection they have, and in that case the intent is to continue using the software in a way they didn't intend and probably breaking some agreement you made when installing/downloading.
In the Sublime Text case, they explicitly give you unlimited time to trial the software and buy it if you get value from it (which, if you do, please buy it [and same with other software] so we can make the world go around). Their license seems to explicitly say that you can evaluate it until you either stop using it or buy it, without breaking any agreement.
Edit: I should clarify more about my own position about it before it gets taken with the wrong idea in mind. I do agree that if you do continuously use Sublime Text (or other software with similar license/trials) and get value from it, you should absolutely buy it to support the developers. Continuing to use beyond that would not be the ethical thing to do. But it does seem like the developers of Sublime Text are confident enough that people who can afford it and gets value from it, will eventually purchase a license. Which, since the company still exists, seems to work out, and that's great to see.
> They're underpowered, but if you're just SSHing into a remote box it's a good choice.
I feel like this concept doesn't get enough attention. You'll never get a laptop (that you actually want to carry) that has as much power as a server in a rack somewhere.
Thinking of the laptop as an ephemeral mobile thin client rather than an entire workstation lets you focus on finding a laptop that's comfortable to type on and not a pain to carry.
Trying to combine all of those requirements with a lot of computing power is much more difficult and expensive.
That's one of the main issues here.
Houses should be about having a place to live, not your largest financial asset. The selfish protectionism that comes from treating housing as an investment is why so many cities are so broken.
(Most) people don't pour money into houses because they consider it an investment, they consider it an investment because they've poured money into it. The fact that real estate is scarce combined with the fact that people need a place to live causes homes to be people's largest financial asset.
People have got to save for retirement somehow. Company final salary pensions are a thing of the past. Investments in shares can go down as well as up. The government can’t or won’t help. What do you expect people to do? Sacrifice their own wellbeing for your unearned benefit?
> Investments in shares can go down as well as up.
So instead, homeowners vote for policies that make sure that they somehow get an asset that is guaranteed to go up. That's an unearned benefit, it's one that comes at our expense, and it's an expense that they sure as hell didn't have to deal with when they were getting established in the world.
they sure as hell didn't have to deal with when they were getting established in the world
No. Those people built the communities you find so desirable to live in, sometimes from scratch, sometimes by regenerating a dilapidated area. The value you crave would not even exist if not for them. And now that the hard work is done, you expect to waltz in and have it for the taking?
Millennials think they are the first generation ever to live through hard times. While raking in fortunes their parents and grandparents could only dream of, working for tech unicorns.
Most Millennials do not work for tech unicorns. Most Millennials do not even live in urban centers, most are living a very conventional suburban lifestyle.
Everyone else wants to think of Millennials as the first generation that is uniquely self-absorbed or whiney.
Really? How many cities were founded from scratch by Boomers? I'm in California, so let's think of the places that are having serious housing crises.
Oakland? San Francisco? Santa Monica? Los Angeles? Well before Boomers.
The small cities that are trying to bring in businesses without building any housing? Palo Alto? Menlo Park? Berkeley?
All of these places were within 25% of their current size by 1960. Boomers didn't build any of these communities from scratch; they may have grown up in them, but they're not special unique forebears that made everything around us.
> No. Those people built the communities you find so desirable to live in, sometimes from scratch, sometimes by regenerating a dilapidated area. The value you crave would not even exist if not for them. And now that the hard work is done, you expect to waltz in and have it for the taking?
Good luck with your desirable community as it closes itself to everyone, grows old and turns into an old-age home /s.
Just stop this characterization of all Millenials, will you? Young people are the future and they are contributing into the welfare programs that go into supporting old farts. Old farts who neglected the infrastructure, squandered billions in foreign wars and much more in toxic financial instruments and just elected the most unqualified idiot as the most powerful person in the world.
>So instead, homeowners vote for policies that make sure that they somehow get an asset that is guaranteed to go up. That's an unearned benefit, it's one that comes at our expense, and it's an expense that they sure as hell didn't have to deal with when they were getting established in the world.
The 0.1% sure know how to get the 99% to viciously attack one other over the scraps that fall from their table.
Most assets have been going up in value. It's because of wealth inequality reaching staggering levels. It isn't because of homeowner voting patterns and it isn't the fault of homeowners. They just didn't do as badly out of this problem as non-homeowners.
We’ve established there are ways and reasons for people to influence what happens on nearby land they don’t own themselves. Now we are merely quibbling over the details.
But we are not just talking about “homes” but “homes in a specific neighbourhood” and you can easily say they don’t “need” to live there in particular.
Problem with that is now you have people who can't afford to pay that tax, because they're the people who bought when housing was inexpensive, not because they're rich. Taxing those people out of their homes is not the answer either.
Exactly. This is why Proposition 13, limiting annual property tax increases, passed in California in the 70s. (It's now widely maligned by outsiders, but they're usually not interested in the history.)
Housing can go down too. It's gone up for a long time because of incredibly low interest rates, foreign buyers, etc., but there have been very long stretches of time in the past where it went down and it may easily happen again. All kinds of things could pop the bubble: rising interest rates, somewhere else for Chinese money to go, geographic diversification of hot industries, etc. These things are actually more likely to result in severe drops in price than anti-NIMBY/YIMBY efforts. Supply additions will gradually stabilize or drop prices while macroeconomic shifts can collapse them suddenly.
Look at the Japanese housing market for an extreme example of what can happen. After an insane housing run-up it's been a flat or depreciating asset for decades.
There are no safe single classes of asset. If you put all your money in a house you're not diversifying.
but there have been very long stretches of time in the past where it went down and it may easily happen again
But that is contrary to the Millenial narrative that every previous generation had it easy! And that they are uniquely in the entire history of the world hard-done-by.
No. They're upset because the cost of housing isn't high simply due to gentrification, but due to an artificially created shortage, which can be easily remedied if not for the stubbornness of the people who got there first.
> Because they've been unsuccessful in completing the reboot, releasing the sources is a way of apologizing.
Where are you getting that this release is an apology for the failed Kickstarter? Can you point to source at Nightdive saying this, or are you just speculating?
Linking this without context suggest it's an answer to the parent's question, which was asking for proof this was an apology.
The post is them stating that they're releasing the source code as a celebration of a big update, not as an apology. The only people saying it's an apology are speculating.
Bridge burning is never a good professional move, and the author goes out of his way to be rude about it. I'm not sure what positive effect they thought this would have.
Based on this post I can't say I'd want to work with the author either.
I think it is a good thing he wrote this piece. It is better to go into an interview knowing about possible negative outcomes. I wouldn't mind working with people who speak their mind. Actually I prefer it.
Ars seems to imply that there will be two M.2 ports that users can populate.
"Instead of adding more expensive graphics memory, why not let users add their own...The Radeon Pro SSG features two PCIe 3.0 M.2 slots for adding up to 1TB of NAND flash, "
> People who need to hide things have encrypted options. People who don't, also have options. I don't see the problem.
This viewpoint is tricky. This basically turns encryption use into a big target on a user. If only people who have something to hide use encryption, then everyone using encryption must have something to hide.
Also, your argument makes the assumption that everyone grasps the value of all of their information. Not everyone understands how much of their life can be found out through their Google Maps history.
I prefer to look at it from the perspective of my life not being anyone else's business. If my local MP came up to me and asked me who I'd talked to and where I'd been for the last week, I'd tell them to sit and spin. Why should passive surveillance be any different?
There are a few people in my office (web dev shop) that have Chromebooks. With a little tinkering to open them up, they're perfect.
I mean really, 99% of the time all you need is a web browser and a connection to remote into the machine that's doing the real lifting for you.
My favourite part is the disposability. If it gets trashed or stolen, all I have to do is sign in to a new chromebook and generate new keys to be back up and running.
