UltraEdit for Linux? Could it (finally) be?

[zridling]

The long-rumored UltraEdit for Linux (and Mac), officially named UEX, has only been vaporware to date. But the alpha has been announced and beta testers are being called for.

[attach]

[mitzevo]

Wtf? UltraEdit has been out for how long now? I don't think Linux users will even give a toss and stick to the many awesome nix editors like vi/vim/nano/blah/blah/blah

[Josh]

I was thinking the same thing. There are so many freeware and superior editors on linux that I do not think a serious user would even consider ultraedit. Plus, from what I hear and have experienced with a buddy of mine, getting a new key from this company everytime a major version is released is a pain if you are a lifetime user.

[mrainey]

getting a new key from this company everytime a major version is released is a pain if you are a lifetime user.

Roughly once a year, you have to request a key if you want to upgrade.  Not much of a big deal.

Zaine, why are you so excited about UEX if there are already a bunch of superior editors for Linux?

[mwb1100]

There are so many freeware and superior editors on linux that I do not think a serious user would even consider ultraedit.

I suspect that the market for this product is not Linux/Unix die-hards, but UltraEdit Windows users who migrate to Linux. Whether or not this market segment is large enough is apparently going to be tested.

[Darwin]

getting a new key from this company everytime a major version is released is a pain if you are a lifetime user.

Roughly once a year, you have to request a key if you want to upgrade.  Not much of a big deal.

Zaine, why are you so excited about UEX if there are already a bunch of superior editors for Linux?

Yes - my experience with this is that it is a non-issue, as new versions come out every 14 months or so and the whole process is automated. Collectorz lifetime licenses, on the other hand, CAN be a bit of a PITA to update, but that's really because they haven't put in place a mechanism to automate the process - you have to write to support and wait for them to write back.

Note that EditPad Pro was available in a Linux version but that the developer abandoned it due to lack of interest. My suspicion is that this is a very competitive market with well-established players (both FOSS and shareware) and that mwb1100 is right - IDM must be after those Windows users migrating to Linux.

[Josh]

Plus, it seems our own zaine is overly upset about said issue as well: See here:

http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/UltraEdit/976352095/1

[zridling]

I'm not so much 'excited' since I don't use it anymore, but it's good news whenever a great program makes itself available on another platform. UltraEdit's advantage has always been its customizability. My direction these days is that in a perfect world, the OS shouldn't matter as much as the apps. By making so many good apps cross-platform, you simultaneously reduce the necessity for being locked-in to any one platform, thus increasing my freedom to choose which OS I want to use without losing the investment I've put into licensing over the years.

I've really enjoyed the Kate Editor on (KDE) Linux for a while. Josh is right to point out my frustrations with IDM. As a lifetime user, I shouldn't have to beg/request/ or prove my license to them every year. Put me on the 'lifetime' mailing list and just send me the code when you release the version. I don't have to use it, but I've already paid for it.

[Josh]

Software moving to *nix is nice, but I do not think every application will do so or will benefit as such. The problem I see with linux is that most software is freeware, or F/OSS if you will. As such, if a payware application moves over, it has the added disadvantage of having users say "I have x hundred apps that are free and do the same thing, why should I PAY for this?". UE Might be a nice editor, although updated far too frequently with MAJOR revisions, but I do not see it making a dent unless it either lowers its price to cater to the "All Software Should Be Free" crowd, or opens its source so a spin-off could be made.

[zridling]

Software moving to *nix is nice, but I do not think every application will do so or will benefit as such. The problem I see with linux is that most software is freeware, or F/OSS if you will. As such, if a payware application moves over, it has the added disadvantage of having users say "I have x hundred apps that are free and do the same thing, why should I PAY for this?". UE Might be a nice editor, although updated far too frequently with MAJOR revisions, but I do not see it making a dent unless it either lowers its price to cater to the "All Software Should Be Free" crowd, or opens its source so a spin-off could be made.

Good points, Josh. It will be interesting to see how well it does and whether it was worth the port effort in a couple of years.

[Paul Keith]

Software moving to *nix is nice, but I do not think every application will do so or will benefit as such. The problem I see with linux is that most software is freeware, or F/OSS if you will. As such, if a payware application moves over, it has the added disadvantage of having users say "I have x hundred apps that are free and do the same thing, why should I PAY for this?". UE Might be a nice editor, although updated far too frequently with MAJOR revisions, but I do not see it making a dent unless it either lowers its price to cater to the "All Software Should Be Free" crowd, or opens its source so a spin-off could be made.

The flaw with this argument though is that the same case holds true for Windows. In fact the only case it doesn't hold true is for Mac and even then, instead of increasing business, usually people just find free alternatives to stuff they feel Apple didn't do well.

I think at the end it all falls down to the quality of software and userbase. The problem here isn't that most Linux users are using freeware, the problem here is that most Linux users are still technical users so the audience is different.

[Josh]

Technical users or not, I still find many of the people I help with computer problems have moved from payware to freeware. Payware applications are running into the disadvantage of being such when a freeware version of the application comes out in their market niche. I can't tell you how many people I have seen stop paying for antivirus subscriptions, perhaps the most paid for software on Windows, to freeware alternatives that are recommended by various newsletters and blogs. I really do not feel it comes down to quality because, in my experience, most F/OSS software either lacks something that the payware version has, or is in general tacky in operation.

[Paul Keith]

Well I can't speak for your other examples since you didn't mention any but with regards to antiviruses. Free versions of AV are better or at least Avira is better than McAfee, old Norton and even to an extent did well against Nod32. In fact the payed for version of current AVs is so broken in the sense that often times the added benefits are fluff or can even add frustration like Internet monitoring guard which 9 times out of 10 is less safer than actually switching to Opera or Firefox NoScript.

Payware isn't dead though. There's lots of Wilders Security people using and recommending Mamutu, PrevX, ShadowProtect, ShadowDefender, DeepFreeze... it's just traditional AV is starting to become useless or better to the point you can't improve it anymore. Just recently Avira released version 9 of their software which also contains a real-time spyware guard in the free version. That's better than MBAM's or SAS's free packages.