Atom Now Available on Windows
atom.io
atom.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
In 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.
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.
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.
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?