Timeline on Windows and Linux build


I know this topic has been opened here but that topic has been closed for some silly reason, so Windows and Linux people need to go somewhere to chat.

Also, nobody has ever actually given a timeline. Is there one planned? If so when? I really want to know whether I should hold my breath for any days now (someone’s working on it) or check back in a month or so (way back down on somebody’s list)

(Oh and please don’t fill this topic with +1 and I want it posts. Nobody likes those, and I would rather we have a proper discussion here than it be closed again)

Where is the windows version?

You can build it if you want it now https://github.com/atom/atom#building


The timeline is answered in the FAQ, updated just this morning …

… a number of areas we would like to improve in the next few months. Our focus will be on improving performance, releasing Atom on Linux and Windows …

I’m curious though what it is that you would like to discuss? I’m willing to leave this thread open for now if it will be used for something other than platform chauvinism and complaining that the timeline isn’t soon enough to suit people’s desires. But given that the title of the topic is “Timeline on …”, I don’t see how anything else would be on topic?


Could somebody upload a .exe, so that i dont have to build it?




This should be on the FAQ page. Thank you!


I just added it. Thank you for the suggestion.


I think when people say timeline, they don’t mean “in the upcoming months”, but ideally at what milestone, what priority does this get? I think most people would like to see “we plan to have Windows/Linux builds by end of month X, or end of version Z, which we plan to release at the end of month X.”


I understand that. I also understand just how right the maxim “under promise, over deliver” is. I’m certain that when the Atom team is comfortable committing to a very specific timeline publicly, they will. Discussing it based on nothing but supposition, assumption and outright accusation is just counter-productive and is the reason why the previous topics were closed.


I agree. Overall, I think it’s hard to promise on these things, however packaging is certainly a good step in the right direction, even if it’s a beta project. Setting it up now means more adoption, more contributions.

I know packaging isn’t the hardest thing in the world, and other’s will likely end up doing packaging on the Linux front, but I do think Window’s users would like a nice exe they could run without being too concerned that it’s going to be malicious.

I don’t personally care what happens, I am able to build the project just fine, while it would be nice to not have to compile it everytime I want to update it, it doesn’t matter to me when or what they do. I just think “you can build it yourself” isn’t a constructive answer either, because people who want to use a text editor, often don’t want to have to build it on every system they may be using.


I agree that it isn’t a great answer. I also agree that it is not the answer that most people want to hear. I do feel that it is a constructive answer though because it offers an option that people might not have been aware of. A counter-productive or destructive answer would be something like: “BeOS? Who in their right mind uses BeOS anymore? Of course Company Foo isn’t going to ever support BeOS! What are you out of your mind?!?” :wink: (And before anyone accuses me of having something against BeOS or Haiku, please know that I used to run BeOS as my primary OS and still have my BeOS Developer’s Guides :P)


I’ll agree with that.


Could you maybe provide us with a build somewhere? (maybe they could even allow you to put it up on the main Atom site downloads?) I for one don’t have all the neccessary components but would love to try it. I do understand that it would be buggy and slow (as per the FAQ)

Please :slight_smile:


Could you tell me why you don’t support a download if it is buildable?


##Build error on Windows

Tried building on Windows and got the following error:

npm ERR! pathwatcher@1.2.1 install: `node-gyp rebuild`
npm ERR! Exit status 1
npm ERR!
npm ERR! Failed at the pathwatcher@1.2.1 install script.
npm ERR! This is most likely a problem with the pathwatcher package,
npm ERR! not with npm itself.
npm ERR! Tell the author that this fails on your system:
npm ERR!     node-gyp rebuild
npm ERR! You can get their info via:
npm ERR!     npm owner ls pathwatcher
npm ERR! There is likely additional logging output above.
npm ERR! System Windows_NT 6.2.9200
npm ERR! command "C:\\Users\\Yehuda\\github\\atom\\apm\\node_modules\\atom-packa
ge-manager\\bin\\node.exe" "C:\\Users\\Yehuda\\github\\atom\\apm\\node_modules\\
atom-package-manager\\node_modules\\npm\\bin\\npm-cli.js" "--userconfig" "C:\\Us
ers\\Yehuda\\github\\atom\\apm\\node_modules\\atom-package-manager\\.apmrc" "ins
tall" "--target=0.11.10" "--arch=ia32" "--quiet" "--msvs_version=2012"
npm ERR! cwd C:\Users\Yehuda\github\atom
npm ERR! node -v v0.10.26
npm ERR! npm -v 1.4.4

Does anyone have a solution?




One of my friend has built a Windows version which works, but there is still a lot of bug.


Could you tell me why you don’t support a download if it is buildable?

Probably for the same reason they didn’t provide windows/linux version at first: it requires lots of testing, understanding of the target platform, etc.

Just look at how many issues was created for windows/linux since the publication of Atom core. I can quite understand why they preferred keep the project in their hand until now.

My guess is that they made Atom sources public earlier than expected in order for the community to handle that itself. Just as Adobe did with Brackets (my primary os was still linux back then and I can testify that despite their claim of having linux builds in the roadmap it took quite sometimes to get a proper linux build). Even if you’re a big company it’s never easy to support that many platforms.

At least now people can’t complain about the fact that it’s closed source :).


My speculation of the obvious: It’s going to take a lot longer to get a working build on Windows than on Linux.

Windows is really super-finicky about how it compiles things in node-gyp, and node’s reliance on that build system makes building the app on Windows harder.

Also, binding things to the UI is much more similar between the major Linux flavors and OS X (“Just use the window manager!” :-D), than it is between Windows and OS X. It’s gotten easier to build things for Windows in recent years, but it’s still apples-and-oranges with looking at it from the perspective of porting code from an OS X build.

The fact that they have a Windows build process working at all is impressive. But, don’t expect it until well after you see a Linux release, unless they dedicate a small team just to the Windows port. Given the bottom-of-the-hill status of Windows as a development platform*, I don’t really see that much in terms of resources being given to make Atom on Windows happen that quickly.

(* Also, most of the hardcore Windows development community are going to be using Visual Studio as their primary editor, regardless of the presence of other editors.)


I’ve been working to build on windows since it was open sourced yesterday, and still have been unable to get a successful build. Several issues have been resolved though, and I would like to publicly thank @kevinsawicki on github for his quick turnaround and resolution of several key issues holding up the build.

I can’t wait to jump into this code, so I’m hoping to be able to build it successfully soon.


Also note that neither I nor, to my knowledge, @AbeEstrada are employees of GitHub or members of the Atom team. I can’t speak for Abe … but I don’t have a Windows machine to build it on to support a download with :laughing: