Who want a Linux release version?

So, I am.

And I’m ready to pay for it. :smiley:

Next one.

Scrivener on Linux is mostly great, but it still has some significant bugs.

I’ll be delighted to pay for it once those are fixed. I would be less happy to be asked to pay for the current beta.

I more think about crowdfunding to engage development.

I’d wish a version as good the official for Mac. And, in this case, I would pay as, in fact, I did when I had a Mac machine.

Actually, I’m fine without one.

Yeah, but we all know you’re weird. :smiley:

That is true.:stuck_out_tongue:

What would it take to have a stable Linux release that could be sold with the same confidence as the Mac and Win versions? I mean, sure, it’d take a few extra support staff versed in the various “distros” (I believe you cats are callin’ 'em), but what technically?

For example: Are the “distros” so varied that they’d need dedicated releases? Does the interface need a radical rework / skin? Do certain functions rely on OS systems (like the Mac one uses the OS text engine) that would need to be completely worked up from scratch (obviously not something as central as the text system needs it or you wouldn’t have a beta, but I guess things like spelling, PDF conversion and other discrete tasks could fall under that category?)

Would you be happy to pay a reduced fee for an unsupported but non-time-limited version?


The Linux version now works better than the windows version (via WINE) did for me at release. I’d definitely pay money for it. For me, as long as I’ve got the tar.gz (that is, distro-independent version) I’m fine. I can’t speak for others, though.

I think after all the hard work we Linux beta-testers have put into identifying bugs and supporting each other, it would be a nice gesture for L&L to reassure Linux users that we are not going to be left without any product at all. Ideally I hope they might pledge that if they decide not to proceed with the Linux product, they will produce a final Linux beta release with no time restriction on it.

I’m happy to pay for market-ready releases, as I said above, but I agree with this post that crowdfunding in advance might not be feasible.

If L&L were to decide not to proceed with Linux development, then perhaps someone else might develop an open source product which is compatible with the .scriv format (if that is legal).

I spent money on the WINE version of Scrivener, but ended up being very disappointed in it (found it pretty much unusable, actually). Then I finally downloaded the .deb file of the current Scrivener for Linux installation. I’m very happy with it, find it nice and stable on my Kubuntu desktop, and so on. However, I’m reluctant to use it for long projects, knowing that it’s going to expire on January 1, 2016. That’s less than six months away, and without assurance that there will be a version after that, I don’t know if I will continue to use it.

I would be happy to spend money on a Linux version, even though I’ve already spent money on the WINE version.

So there are no bits that don’t work? The only thing is that some people might need help getting it installed and running in the first place, and there’s no official technical support?

I wouldn’t go that far. The basic ‘engine’ works just fine: composition, gathering, splitting, and compiling, etc. But there are a number of peripheral issues such as .pdf, the scratchpad, and … for 64-bit versions, the spell-checker difficulties, etc. All these can be seen & reviewed in the various threads here on the Linux forum. Those users for whom these issues are deal-breakers have pretty much gone silent or left; others who value the basic features just chew on their knuckles but otherwise stay quiet.

Some hint that the expiration deadline will be revisited with another beta upgrade, or at least some word that the current version won’t be dumped and left to expire would be a good thing. Most everyone here has been pretty patient and understanding, yes?

Personally, I’d think that with the massive slow-motion train wreck otherwise known as Windows 10, that L & L would be more seriously looking to the alternate Linux universe. It’s not difficult to compile for the major Linux distributions. Mozilla Firefox is an outstanding example.

I love how after every Windows release, there are always predictions that the Linux desktop market is going to become a serious alternative. The fact of the matter is, Linux is too scattered and widespread for the majority of consumers to ever get into it. If someone gets confused with an upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, do you REALLY think they’re going to dive into Linux and figure that out?

There’s a reason Apple’s MacOSX laptops have been quietly gaining marketshare. That and Android – not a trad Linux distro – will be the winners IF there is a large-scale revolt from Windows. But I submit XP as counter-evidence – most people stick with the older stuff that they know and find ways to keep getting it onto their newer hardware.

No, I don’t expect the majority of disaffected Windows users will switch to Linux. Nor does anyone I know claim that Linux will become a majority desktop. However, for those of us who seek an alternative to Windows, Linux is one of two alternatives available. Switching to MacOS with its accompanying hardware and software investment is very expensive, so Linux is worth investigating.

I’m a bit puzzled why a simple suggestion that L&L increase its focus on the Linux beta of Scrivener should elicit such a negative response. As for Windows 10, the earlier reference to the Guardian article pretty much summarizes a growing dislike and distrust of the release. Which is good reason for some to seek an alternative.

I’d buy Scrivener for Linux… even though it works pretty well under Wine.
I’d just rather have a Linux version.

Personally, I found Linux Mint Cinnamon to be more than ready for prime time. The installation was simplistic and brief… It would take someone prone to confusion to be challenged by it at all. I found it intuitive and logical. The interface, simple and elegant. The availability of applications, more than sufficient for my needs. It is very reminiscent of my Windows 7 desktop. I’m sure it’s not for everyone… neither is Windows.

The hardest part of switching to Linux was simply deciding to do it.

I’m working only on Linux for 10 years and I never want to go back to other OS, and it’s true, the more difficult is to jump into the void!

This. Reformatted my Windows partition in 2005 or 2006. Haven’t looked back. I’m not sure what I’d do if Linux wasn’t an option…probably switch to one of the varieties of BSD. (Started on Debian. Got tired of package managers and switched to LFS. I didn’t have time to maintain my own distro–essentially what you’re doing with LFS–so switched to Slackware.)

I have used the Mac version of Scrivener, and thought it was great. I’m now running almost exclusively on Linux. I would happily buy a Linux version, if one were made available.

I installed the Scrivener Linux Beta a while back, and it seemed to run good. I then uninstalled it. I am a writer, not a software tester. I can’t do my work on a product that will die in six months. I am currently writing in LibreOffice. LO works, but I would be a lot happier to be able to use Scrivener.

I would pay for it.

Having said that, yes, the current version needs to be fixed up a bit. That is clearly what the developers would want to do, that is why the current version is Beta, etc.

But there are other things to consider. Many regular Linux desktop users work hard to never pay for anything. There is probably little overlap between the community of writers and Linux users. If everybody who is active and interested in Scrivener for Linux on this list bought a copy, would that fund it? Not sure.

If I was the developer, I would consider coming out with a functioning (bug-free-ish, fixed up install to allow in line spelling without extra work,etc.) version of Scrivener for Linux and include the licence for that with the paid lic. of any other version. A Linux-only version could, for a while, be lower cost or free. Then, run it that way for a while.

Once there is a post-Beta version of this software for Linux, available in any way (free, paid) it would get a lot of publicity. It would be a big deal in the Linux community. I would personally get involved in helping that happen.

For now I think there is a second thing we (Linux users) should consider.

In addition to what you might pay (or not pay), what features would you do without? Scrivener has a LOT of features, some of which are essentially redundant in basic function though diverse in implementation. For example, you can put notes on a project on a car, in a project note file, in a scene note file, and things that might be in notes can also be in various kinds of pre defined or user defined meta data.

I wonder if there is a subset of features that this community could say, “don’t bother with the first non Beta release, we can live without it for now” that would make the developers produce a sigh of relief and encourage them to move forward.

A similar approach might be to ask the developers. What five or six (or more) features would you like to remove from SfL for now in order to make it possible to move forward with an official release that simply lacked those functions, with the promise that future versions would have that?

Also, should SfL have special Linux features? For example, the default should, perhaps, be to treat scenes as files and have that be normal, so Linux users can edit specific scenes, without any trouble at all, using their favorite editor (emacs, gedit, vi, etc.). That would make Scrivener very Linuxy (culturally) and would attract more users.

Here is the market, perhaps: People who got a Mac, love their Mac, but eventually came to the point where they can’t keep using a Mac because, say, the latest version of the OS requires that they buy a totally new computer (as happened a few years ago). The Apple ecosystem requires the kind of investment that makes it ideal for people with real jobs or industry support.Scrivener is ideal software for writers. Therefore there should be a small but steady flow of Mac users switching to Linux. That, to me, is what SfL is for. A small but important market.

Views on this board seem to vary between:

  • Scrivener Linux is ready for release now, shut up and take my money
  • it needs more work before being issued as a paid release
  • the price is good, keep it in beta forever
  • don’t bother, I’m happy running the Windows version in WINE

I’m not sure this board is a representative sample of the Linux Scrivener market as a whole. If there is a Linux release, that will open up a big new market of people who didn’t know about the beta or who were put off by the idea of using a beta.

Personally I don’t want a Linux version to be radically different. I, like many people, use multiple platforms, and I prefer the software to work as similarly as possible. And it’s essential for me that the folder/file structure be the same so that a Scrivener file can be accessed and edited on different OSes.

I’m a bit confused by Gregladen’s point about treating scenes as files. Isn’t this already the case (in /Files/Docs)? The scenes don’t have friendly names, and of course they’re in .rtf. Personally I wouldn’t want to edit them in vi, but I believe there’s an .rtf plugin for vim if that’s your bag.

I’d be happy to contribute to a bug prioritisation discussion - on a new thread or better still on a bug tracking site.

But first I’d like to hear something from the developers. For all I know L&L may have already decided to abandon Linux. Before I spend time listing bugs, I’d like to know someone at L&L is reading this.