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:
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.
They’ve not “abandoned” Linux… they’ve never actively developed for it. The Linux version is unofficial, provided by the team out of the kindness of their hearts.
They’re nicer people than me.
Thus this version doesn’t “officially” exist, therefore any expiration date is inconsequential as we’ve no meaningful expectation of the present non-existential version’s presence? “Poof” it’s gone? Therefore, what’s all the fuss about? It’s not here, it don’t exist, it’s a mere shade … thanks to the kindness of their hearts, it’s a birthday gift that vanishes once the cheering stops?
Most Linux advocates here have been quite patient, understanding the development pressures of market goals on a limited team. But to depend heavily on a Linux beta that can go “poof” on the first day of the new year is not a comforting thought … given the total absence of any comment or assurance for lo, these many, many months now.
Best I remove the Linux version from my systems while time remains to grieve, and confine my writing to my old time-worn Mac OS “Tiger” system which was never so lacking as to require additional thousands of dollars of replacement costs to remain on the Apple treadmill.
Well, actually… yes. They’re being very nice. They’ve offered much more than an inch, but if people start demanding that proverbial yard, they may well stop. I know I would. But as I noted, the good folks at LitNLat seem to be much nicer people than me.
That’s cutting your nose off to spite your face. The worst case scenario if LitNLat do decide to stop providing the Linux beta is you have to move to running a paid for Windows licence under WINE. Not ideal, but probably still a better alternative than a non-Scrivener solution if you’re the kind of writer who benefits from Scrivener’s features and approach. But if you’d rather move to something else than use WINE, I suggest continuing to use the Linux beta, and then compiling to something suitable like RTF at the end of December. You can make the jump to something less Scrivener then in the event they decide to abandon providing the fruits of their hard labour to you for free.
This is not entirely correct. It was developed on cross-platform qt libraries, which is what made the port easier to do than most, and the fact that 64 bit packages of Scrivener were made available suggests that something was done behind the scenes to make them available.
I don’t want a yard. I want to know whether or not I can keep using Scrivener as part of my workflow. If you use something, it’s entirely reasonable to want to know if you can continue to use it. I’m not just playing around with Scrivener – at the moment it’s part of my publishing workflow, and I’m currently creating a new workflow (one I like a lot less) that doesn’t depend on it, because I have no way of knowing if Scrivener for Linux is going to be around in 2016. So far the L&L folks have given no sign whatsoever whether or not they’re going to extend it.
I can’t go by what they’ve done in the past, because in the past they released updates to LinuxScriv a lot more regularly. I can’t go by any public or official statements, because they haven’t made any. And I can’t go by any unofficial statements, because y’all don’t know any more than I do. Scrivener is a great program, and I’d love to see it continue to exist on Linux, but I’m not going to bet my second career on it.
Scrivener is a fantastic program. Unfortunately it looks like it’s going to be a fantastic program for Mac and Windows only. I’ll be very happy to be proven wrong.
WINE is extremely useful. It is not, however, the cure for all your ills. I used to run the (paid for and registered) windows version of Scrivener exclusively under WINE, but recent releases of Scrivener for Windows don’t run very consistently. Lately Scrivener under WINE crashes any time I try to do anything in the Binder. Rename a section? Crash. Move a section? Crash. Add a new section? Crash.
Hanging users out to dry isn’t nice. Even if it’s only a very small percentage of them.
Well, the clue’s in the forum heading: Scrivener on Linux (Unofficial). The LitNLat staff don’t frequent this sub-forum. Talking about it here is much less likely to attract their attention as this sub-forum is for Linux users to support each other.
Back in 2012, this same conversation took place. I reached out to the Management, resulting in the following statement:
But, as you say… past performance is no guarantee of future intent. If you’re not happy using unofficial software in beta stage in your primary workflow, or if you’re not happy with potentially having to move to WINE based solution should LitNLat decide to stop providing extensions, then you should do exactly what you’re doing: Not use Scrivener for Linux.
Seems a bit of an extreme reaction, given everything we know, though.
Therein lies the difference in our opinions. I don’ know how LitNLat view you, but I don’t consider you a user of supported / paid software. You can stop giving things away for free whenever you like, and people shouldn’t judge you if you choose to do so.
But in any case, if you’re concerned (and I really don’t see a reason why you should be - January is a long way away; we all used to work on short <1month timers), instead of posting a question in the unsupported forum, I’d suggest emailing the team via the normal support channels. You’ll be in a queue for someone to respond in that case.
What you consider me is largely irrelevant. I am actually two people in L&L’s eyes – one of me is the user of the free version of Scrivener for Linux. The other bought the full version of the Windows software.
I agree! 
Except: There is no free version of Scrivener for Linux. There’s an unsupported beta version of Scrivener for Linux that you might be confusing it with?
Two other things to leave you with:
It’s almost like talking to me, isn’t it?
I thought piggy was on record as saying, talking to you was like communing with nature. 
urbandictionary.com/define.p … 0Nature%20
I think he was thinking of the stoned where folks throw rocks at you though.
That’s very cruel of you 
But is it wrong?
[size=150]YEAH!![/size]
NSFW: youtube.com/watch?v=ZjibEkDoXQc (Not really a response. I can’t help myself when someone asks, “Was I wrong?”)
One of the best movies, ever.
Hi, to all of you,
I would like to buy Scrivener for Linux … I would never buy a copy for Windows neither for Mac. It’s some years I’ve been waiting for it, but …
I would rather prefer to buy another software less efficient less fast less organized , damn it when it doesn’t work but never never buy one of that I mentioned.
Just to let you know … I had to devices … one running under windows and onther one running under Os … I asked Marco, a friend of mine that drives lorries … to smash my two devices under a very havy lorry … after that I saw this … I began to sleep at the night.
I thank God that Linux has let me forget Windows and Mac … and I have never wanted to install wine on my previus version of Ubuntu let alone my recent Mint 17.2.
To tell you the truth I can’t understand why L&L have made the decision to dismiss Scrivener Linux version, perhap the BIG have made pression to kill a beautiful baby …
Take care of yourself … the end of the year isn’t far but the time left can let the events to take two possible directions …1) L&L will come back on their decision (at least they can live the actual software without expiring on the first of January 2016 … 2) we have time to evaluate some different software… A third one, but ??? an open source in the world of Linux that is growing more and more.
Best wishes …
(I hope my poor English will be understandable)
Yes, they are, so this should be easy. I would like to see a: names be non arbitrary, b: the option to have only text (and within that use markdown, which the Scrivener editor would interpret), and c: locking related issues be addressed if any.
There is a way to define a project as one explicitly rather than implicitly made up of files. That may only apply to or be needed on Mac, though. Not sure.
Other people edit like this too. This must have come up before - if L&L haven’t implemented friendly .rtf names I expect they have a reason.
Indeed, this is only an issue on a Mac. Projects appear as folders on Linux & Windows.
I suppose the neatest solution to both issues would be to have an option on the ‘sync with external’ setting to allow syncing the rtfs only as an explicit folder where the section title creates the .rtf name. Syncing to a separate folder might be preferable to changing the file names within the project folder, since it would discourage accidental editing of the core .scriv files while editing the rtfs in Multimarkdown or vim or WordGrinder or whatever else. It would also avoid any locking/improper exit issues.
That would be quite a big enhancement though.
As for asking Scrivener to store files in Markdown (as opposed to importing and exporting it), I wouldn’t hold your breath - there is a whole ecosystem of Scrivener/Markdown users and I think Scrivener is well aware of them and is supporting them just the way they want. Perhaps you’re doing this already, but you can write in Markdown syntax in Scrivener (though you’ll need to fiddle a little in order to preview the output), use a command line editor to tinker with the .rtf files as you feel inclined, and then use the ‘Compile for MultiMarkDown → HTML’ feature in Scrivener to output the Markdown as html when you’ve finished.