Lucid Lynx and SlickEdit 14.0.2.2

[chuckj]

I have been having a lot of trouble getting SlickEdit to run on Lucid Lynx (Ubuntu 10.04 32bits).

When I try to open SE I get many message boxes complaining about missing DLLs, etc.  Sometimes they go on forever, sometimes they stop after a couple of dozen and I can use the editor,

I found this somewhat recent thread about problems with Ubuntu 10.04:

http://community.slickedit.com/index.php?topic=5891.0

and it sounds like the problem is with the OS, and the solution might be with a recompile of the new release.  How does that apply to users like me who don't have a maintenance contract?

[chuckj]

I don't want to be ungrateful by demanding a response, so please consider this follow-up as a hopeful attempt to get some information.

I can't get SlickEdit 14.0.2.2 to run on my Ubuntu 10.04 workstation.

Is this a fixable problem?  Or will I be forced to purchase an upgrade to continue using SlickEdit?

Chuck

[ScottW, VP of Dev]

First, a word about the forums: they are not our official support channel. They were created to help users help other users. We do answer many questions here, so many that we may tend to be confusing that policy.

SlickEdit v14.0.2 is not compatible with Ubuntu 10.04. We discovered the problem as part of the beta program for SlickEdit 2010, and we were able to make a change that allows SlickEdit 2010 to run on Ubuntu. The only option I can offer is for you to upgrade to the new version.

Not-so-shameless-plug-for-maintenance-and-support: we highly recommend to all customers that they purchase a support contract for SlickEdit. This is not just so we can make more money. Your editor is an important tool, maybe the most important tool that you use. We are constantly enhancing SlickEdit. Each release contains many, many bug fixes and new features that we think the majority of users will find helpful. While any given release may not have a breakthough new feature that blows you away, the bug fixes are typically worth the $60/year to stay current. Plus that also gives you access to our Product Support.

To find out what your upgrade options are at this point, please call the sales team at 1 919.473.0070.

[buggyfunbunny]

First, a word about the forums: they are not our official support channel. They were created to help users help other users. We do answer many questions here, so many that we may tend to be confusing that policy.

SlickEdit v14.0.2 is not compatible with Ubuntu 10.04. We discovered the problem as part of the beta program for SlickEdit 2010, and we were able to make a change that allows SlickEdit 2010 to run on Ubuntu. The only option I can offer is for you to upgrade to the new version.

Not-so-shameless-plug-for-maintenance-and-support: we highly recommend to all customers that they purchase a support contract for SlickEdit. This is not just so we can make more money. Your editor is an important tool, maybe the most important tool that you use. We are constantly enhancing SlickEdit. Each release contains many, many bug fixes and new features that we think the majority of users will find helpful. While any given release may not have a breakthough new feature that blows you away, the bug fixes are typically worth the $60/year to stay current. Plus that also gives you access to our Product Support.

To find out what your upgrade options are at this point, please call the sales team at 1 919.473.0070.

Umm.  Is it really Ubuntu 10.04, per se??  or is it the kernel??  is it due to SE exploiting a bug/feature in earlier kernels??  if that, then a reasonable person would expect SE to continue to run on linux with a recompile provided by SE.  while in the windoze world, new kernels are years apart, supported pretty much forever, and not widely adopted.  the linux world isn't like that; kernels and distros change often.  if SE intends to supply a linux based product, part of the bargain is that SE should run on released kernels.  again, unless Ubuntu introduced a bug in 10.04, it really is something that SE should take care of.

[chuckj]

I am a little frustrated with this situation.

I bought the software a bit over a year ago because I was shifting to working exclusively on Linux.  The SlickEdit editor has many more features than I need or use, but I like the BRIEF emulation and how it works editing XML and HTML.  As a rule, I don't buy support for software because I buy the software for the features it has at the time, and since I had been using SlickEdit since version 9 on Windows, I felt like I understood the software.

Now it feels a bit like blackmail to be required to buy a support contract in order to continue using software I bought only a year ago.

Another thing makes me a bit reluctant to plunk down more money: the lingering timestamp issue has been a pain since I added a Ubuntu 9.10 server (I have no problems with a more heavily-used 8.04 server).  That SlickEdit has a timestamp problem where other linux software doesn't makes me skeptical about having to compile Samba from source in order to fix it.  Having to buy a support contract just to see if the fix works is a bit too much.

I'll probably buy the support contract, but I'm not particularly happy about it.

[colonel_coder]

I am a little frustrated with this situation.

Your feelings are understandable.

I bought the software a bit over a year ago because I was shifting to working exclusively on Linux.  The SlickEdit editor has many more features than I need or use, but I like the BRIEF emulation and how it works editing XML and HTML.  As a rule, I don't buy support for software because I buy the software for the features it has at the time, and since I had been using SlickEdit since version 9 on Windows, I felt like I understood the software.

You might be able to find a free editor that provides BRIEF emulation with XML and HTML.  You might even be able to force VI to do what you want.

Now it feels a bit like blackmail to be required to buy a support contract in order to continue using software I bought only a year ago.

Well, to be fair, Ubuntu 10.04 did not exist a year ago.  How could Slickedit predict that Canonical would put out a version of Ubuntu that would not work with their software?

Another thing makes me a bit reluctant to plunk down more money: the lingering timestamp issue has been a pain since I added a Ubuntu 9.10 server (I have no problems with a more heavily-used 8.04 server).  That SlickEdit has a timestamp problem where other linux software doesn't makes me skeptical about having to compile Samba from source in order to fix it.  Having to buy a support contract just to see if the fix works is a bit too much.

I am going to throw some stones at the Samba maintainers here.  Apparently, this problem existed back in 2002 to 2005 when I was doing a lot of development using Slickedit on Windows and editing code on Samba shares on RedHat 8 and 9.  Looking at the change logs on the Samba site, it appears that they have been fixing this problem over and over again since then.  My guess is that they are continually mucking with the time stamp code and they are fixing errors that they introduce themselves.  You can't blame Slickedit if that is the case.

I'll probably buy the support contract, but I'm not particularly happy about it.

Nobody likes to feel like they are paying twice for software.  On the other hand, I enjoy the improvements that come with each new version of Slickedit.  I also like having the option of going to the "Support" link on the Slickedit site and opening a support case.  You do not get that kind of support with VI.

[colonel_coder]

You might find this post helpful:

    http://community.slickedit.com/index.php?topic=6184.0

[ScottW, VP of Dev]

chuckj: can you provide details about the problem you are having with SlickEdit and Samba? Please describe the local machine you are working on, the remote machine you are accessing, the version(s) of Samba involved, and the sceanarios that demonstrate the problem. I'd also like to hear about the other Linux software that is not having a problem.

We just worked through an issue with colonel_coder related to Samba. See http://community.slickedit.com/index.php?topic=6134.0. In the end, it turned out to be a bug in Samba that was the result. As part of our investigation we determined that SlickEdit is using the timestamps from the file system to record to determine if a file needs to be reloaded. At this point, we are not aware of any problems in how we are handling this.

We are committed to make sure that we work well in this kind of environment, but we can't reproduce any problems in our own testing. So, the information about your issue would be a big help.

You don't have to buy a support contract just to try the newest version of SlickEdit. You can always download a trial and see if it addresses any issues you've experienced in a previous version or if it contains any new features you find helpful. If the system fusses at you for having already done a trial, just call sales and they'll set you up with another trial or extend your existing trial.

I'm sorry that this has been so frustrating for you. We do our best to keep SlickEdit running on several platforms. You may be surprised to learn that Linux requires as much effort as all the others combined. The distributions are constantly changing and there are many differences between all the variants. So, there are many configurations and use cases that we simply haven't tested in-house. So, we need your help to figure out what we might be doing wrong, here.

[chuckj]

I have been participating in discussions of two problems in two different threads.

One problem is the time stamp issue.  I consider this merely an inconvenience.  I have been dealing with for over a year without complaining because I thought my setup was causing the problem.  It happens only when I work on files that are stored on a newer Ubuntu Server 9.04.  Most of my network work is on an older server running Ubuntu 8.04 LTS and I am not having any timestamp issues there.

The second problem is more serious, since building a new workstation using Ubuntu 10.04,  I can no longer run Slickedit 14.0.2.2.  As I reread my original post, I realize I was not very clear about my concern.  I found a thread that discussed what seems to be the same problem I'm having.  The archived thread simply ended when people were able to download a new release candidate that worked with the new Ubuntu release.

I didn't want to download a new release because I don't have a support contract, so I would have to pay for a new release.  I am frugal by nature, and I try to avoid buying new things when I'm happy with the old ones (we still drive our '95 Subaru and '00 Odyssey we bought new), so before I started down that path, I wanted to know what my options are, hence my original post.  Since Slickedit worked before 10.04, it seems likely that the problem is with Ubuntu/Linux rather than Slickedit.  I was and am willing to admit my gamble didn't pay off and that I might be on the hook for buying an upgrade.

However, returning to the timestamp issue, it concerns me that my other software has no trouble with timestamps, only Slickedit.  While the SAMBA drivers may bear some responsibility for the problem, there is clearly some other issue that points to Slickedit.  It has been suggested that people experiencing the timestamp problem should compile SAMBA from the latest source code.  This feels like an unfair burden on users to fix the problem.  Furthermore, I suspect that it's the SAMBA on the server that's the problem, because my one workstation has different timestamp-related outcomes based on the version of the server I'm accessing.  If so, many users won't be able to update the problem software on servers they don't administer.

So it comes down to my not wanting to pay for a product that's not yet working, and that the only possible solution not yet documented to work (as far as I can tell from the forums).

For the record, I did look at colonel_coder's thread, but I couldn't see how ia32_libs would help me.  I tried to load it from the repositories (as he had), but it wasn't there.  Googling ia32_libs took me to pages that suggest (to my perhaps naive mind) that it's a library for 32bit compatibility on 64bit systems, and that's why I was having trouble getting it.

I hope you can post progress on these issues.  I'm comfortable and productive using Slickedit, so I want to continue using it.

Thanks for your reply,
Chuck Jungmann

[colonel_coder]

For the record, I did look at colonel_coder's thread, but I couldn't see how ia32_libs would help me.  I tried to load it from the repositories (as he had), but it wasn't there.  Googling ia32_libs took me to pages that suggest (to my perhaps naive mind) that it's a library for 32bit compatibility on 64bit systems, and that's why I was having trouble getting it.

For the record, that was buggyfunbunny's thread, not mine.

[ScottW, VP of Dev]

Thanks for the reply, Chuck.  Let me try to tackle each issue:

Ubuntu 10.04 was released after SlickEdit v14.0.2.2. A change that was made in that version prevents SlickEdit v14.0.2.2 from running. The problem was discovered very late in the development cycle for SlickEdit v15, but we were able to make a change that allows SlickEdit v15 to run on Ubuntu 10.04. We can't guarantee that a version of SlickEdit will run on future versions of an OS. So, the solution to this compatibility issue is to upgrade to SlickEdit v15. You can download a trial version to verify that the new version correctly runs on your machine.

I believe that you are right, that the ia32_libs is for running SlickEdit on 64bit systems. Currently, we only build a 32bit version, so we require the 32bit libraries to run.

As for the timestamp issue, I can't do anything to help you with that unless I can get some details. I need a description of what SlickEdit is doing wrong and what you are seeing in other software that leads you to think this is an issue with SlickEdit. Then we can try to reproduce it in-house or send you some debug code that will give more information about what's going on.

I'm a little confused by your last post because you seem to say that you think it's a problem with SlickEdit, but then you wrote:

Furthermore, I suspect that it's the SAMBA on the server that's the problem, because my one workstation has different timestamp-related outcomes based on the version of the server I'm accessing.

If you have a verifiable problem with SlickEdit on Samba, particularly a current version of Samba, I'd like to get to the bottom of it and see if we can't fix it. Even if we've coded this correctly but we can find a way to make it more reliable, I'd be very interested in discovering that. But as I've said before, we've thoroughly researched this issue and cannot find any problem with how we've coded this. So, without the details I don't have anywhere to begin.

Please try to hurry with this. We're close to wrapping up our work on v15.0.1, which is the last planned update before we start working on SlickEdit 2011.

[buggyfunbunny]

This thread:  http://community.slickedit.com/index.php?topic=5913.0
which may be Patient Zero, includes a posting that it's not just Ubuntu 10.04.  Which in turn leads me to suspect that it's the kernel that's changed.  Which leads to the question:  did SE exploit (succumb to) a bug in previous kernels?  And if so, why is it unreasonable for owners < 15 to expect that SE will continue to run on later kernels?  Do you (have you?) taken the same posture with Windoze users?  Does SE14 (or 13 or 12) run on Win 7?  That's an honest question, since I've no Win 7.  If so, why aren't *nix owners accorded the same expectation?

[ScottW, VP of Dev]

We take the same stance on all OSs. The version we sell is tested on the supported versions of the OS and we make no claim that it will run on future versions. I do believe that earlier versions of SlickEdit run on Windows 7. If they do, it is because of the effort Microsoft puts into maintaining backward compatibility. I believe that SlickEdit 2009 was the first version to list Windows 7 as a supported OS. If SlickEdit 2008 was not able to run on Windows 7 and that was discovered at the same point in our development cycle, we would have told the Windows customers to upgrade to SlickEdit 2009.

The thread you referenced was for a different problem (something to do with fonts), which was also fixed in v15. As with the issue in this thread, I told the customer that we won't be fixing that in v14. That post was dated April 14, 2010. The incompatibility discussed in this thread didn't show up until very late in the Ubuntu release cycle--I'm reasonably sure that SlickEdit ran fine on beta 1, but then we got problem reports under beta 2 (available April 8 ) or the release candidate (available April 22). So, he was likely running beta 1 or beta 2 when he posted this problem.

[chuckj]

I'm sorry that I'm not being clear.

I agree with you about the difficulty in dealing with *nix compared with Windows, and I accept that I will need to update my software if I update to version Ubuntu 10.04.  That's what I meant when I said that I gambled and lost by not getting the service contract.  In fact, Windows users had similar problems with Vista, didn't they?

This reply only concerns the "timestamp" issue, which happened before Ubuntu 10.04.

I work at home.  Prior to upgrading to 10.04, I was working on a computer with Ubuntu 8.04.  I also have a few servers for different purposes and clients.  One server has Ubuntu Server 8.04.  In the two years that I have used my workstation to edit files on my 8.04 server, I never got an inappropriate message indicating that a file had been edited and that I might want to reload it.

I built a new server last year for a client, and I installed Ubuntu Server 9.04.  On that server, I constantly get the inappropriate message about the file having been edited since I last saved it, that is, every time I switched buffers.  I didn't comment early because I thought it was a configuration issue on my part, but I finally realized it wasn't my problem, so I started this thread:
http://community.slickedit.com/index.php?topic=6102.

The reason I think the problem is with the server (and I'll readily admit I may be jumping to a faulty conclusion) is that the workstation remained constant, and the bad behavior occurred on one server and not another.  If my 8.04 workstation edited files on my 8.04 server, I had no problem, when I used the same workstation to edit files on my 9.04 server, I got the inappropriate messages.

I just went to confirm that I wasn't having the problem with the oXygen XML Editor and I am ashamed to admit that I see the same problem as with Slickedit  (in my defense, I only use the program to debug XSL transformations).  That is, on my current workstation (10.04), if I open a file on my 9.04 server, make a change, save the file, switch to another window and back to oXygen, it tells me that the file has been changed.  If, on my 10.04 workstation, I edit a file, save, and switch windows on my 8.04 server, I do not get any inappropriate messages.  So...I retract my suspicions concerning the timestamp issue.

For completeness, I also just tested gedit.  Interestingly, if I use gedit instead of Slickedit or oXygen, I get appropriate messages for files on both servers.  By appropriate I mean that if I make a change to a file and save it, switch windows away from and back to the gedit window, I get a changed file message if I used another window to change the file, and I don't get a message if the file hadn't been changed.  So gedit, at least, does something right.

I would be happy to run debugging scripts on my computers if that would help you.

Thanks you for continuing to reply to my concerns.

Chuck Jungmann

[colonel_coder]

To Slickedit developers:

Out of curiousity, which time_t in the following structure is used to decide a file needs to be reloaded:

Code: [Select]

           struct stat {
               dev_t     st_dev;     /* ID of device containing file */
               ino_t     st_ino;     /* inode number */
               mode_t    st_mode;    /* protection */
               nlink_t   st_nlink;   /* number of hard links */
               uid_t     st_uid;     /* user ID of owner */
               gid_t     st_gid;     /* group ID of owner */
               dev_t     st_rdev;    /* device ID (if special file) */
               off_t     st_size;    /* total size, in bytes */
               blksize_t st_blksize; /* blocksize for file system I/O */
               blkcnt_t  st_blocks;  /* number of blocks allocated */
               time_t    st_atime;   /* time of last access */
               time_t    st_mtime;   /* time of last modification */
               time_t    st_ctime;   /* time of last status change */
           };