4 ms·

Nice in theory but in reality, top Google result for 'no nag sublime' would be a snippet of how to git clone and patch out the nag, widely distributed from day

Nice in theory but in reality, top Google result for 'no nag sublime' would be a snippet of how to git clone and patch out the nag, widely distributed from day one. At least with current ST the 'tutorials' for this tend to involve hex editors or scripts that can be quietly subverted by the author.

carussell 9y ago
Sure. And how much of a dent in revenue to the author would this lead to? Keep in mind the context of this conversation is a conjecture that Sublime's nag screen led to purchases out of convenience for the users making those payments (who could've easily patched the binaries but didn't). Disagree with that premise if you want, but if so, clarify that you're doing that.
- nilliams 9y ago
  Huh, I started that premise and I'm continuing to argue it. You might be thrown off by HN's busted comment nesting. If my last comment wasn't clear, I think the dent in revenue would be considerable for fully open-sourcing Sublime as it would make it too easy for people to patch out the nag.
  - carussell 9y ago
    Distributing those patches would be against the license. I'm looking for any indication that the set of people willing to a) download a patch; and b) use tools to apply it on their own; and c) build it; and d) be unmoved about the ethical implications of the whole thing; is at all significantly larger than the set of people willing to open a hex editor to poke at some bytes for the same purpose. > Huh, I started that premise and I'm continuing to argue it. You might be thrown off by HN's busted comment nesting. I'm asking that your argument is internally consistent—that you're not trying to advance some thought, and the backtrack to a position where you advance another one that's at odds with the original. I don't see how this suggests that there's confusion about how to read threaded comments.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

carussell 9y ago

Sure. And how much of a dent in revenue to the author would this lead to? Keep in mind the context of this conversation is a conjecture that Sublime's nag screen led to purchases out of convenience for the users making those payments (who could've easily patched the binaries but didn't). Disagree with that premise if you want, but if so, clarify that you're doing that.

nilliams 9y ago
Huh, I started that premise and I'm continuing to argue it. You might be thrown off by HN's busted comment nesting. If my last comment wasn't clear, I think the dent in revenue would be considerable for fully open-sourcing Sublime as it would make it too easy for people to patch out the nag.
- carussell 9y ago
  Distributing those patches would be against the license. I'm looking for any indication that the set of people willing to a) download a patch; and b) use tools to apply it on their own; and c) build it; and d) be unmoved about the ethical implications of the whole thing; is at all significantly larger than the set of people willing to open a hex editor to poke at some bytes for the same purpose. > Huh, I started that premise and I'm continuing to argue it. You might be thrown off by HN's busted comment nesting. I'm asking that your argument is internally consistent—that you're not trying to advance some thought, and the backtrack to a position where you advance another one that's at odds with the original. I don't see how this suggests that there's confusion about how to read threaded comments.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]