Install Atom editor in ubunut mate?

[arnausd]

I just recently bought a Pinebook and I tried all the tutorials about how te get Atom editor working on pinebook but they all fail at some point and I'm not able to get it.

Does anyone know how to get it or did anyone could install it on his Pinebook?

[pfeerick]

I don't know if you've seen this yet, but apparently it has been an open issue since 2015 (atom not effectively working on ARM, anyway). There is mention by several commenters on that thread that a specific fork of Atom is however ARM friendly, and they have it working on the Raspberry Pi. Might be worth a look?

Addendrum: You may need to enable multi-arch support...

sudo dpkg --add-architecture armhf
sudo apt update

[arnausd]

Hii, thanks for the reply, I tried a couple of times (a few weeks ago I tried without adding architecture) and it seems not work, at least for me.

[combs]

There's a .deb of the armhf build here... trying to get its prerequisites installed:
https://github.com/hypersad/atom-armv7l/issues/16

[combs]

Yes, it's possible to use the armhf build. The overall sequence...

- Grab that .deb link
- Add armhf architecture to apt/dpkg
- apt-get update
- Grab the git repo for atom-armv7l using git clone
- Extract the .deb using dpkg -x /
(Don't install it using dpkg -i, because it requires python, and python for arm64 seems to conflict with python:armhf
- Install all of the prerequisite libraries in :armhf variants
apt-get install libgtk2.0-0:armhf libudev1:armhf libgcrypt20:armhf libnotify4:armhf libxtst6:armhf libnss3:armhf libcap2:armhf

- Also get these to forestall weird gtk errors later
apt-get install libatk-adaptor:armhf libgail-common:armhf libcanberra-gtk-module:armhf libxkbfile-dev:armhf

- Also get these to allow cross-compilation for node_modules (package errors)
apt-get install libc6-dev-armhf-cross linux-libc-dev-armhf-cross g++-arm-linux-gnueabihf gcc-arm-l inux-gnueabihf

- Start the atom binary from /usr/share/atom/atom (not just /usr/bin/atom) , it will complain about missing .so --run through each of these,google them to get package name, and apt-get install them too
- Finally, start the atom binary, it will start in a weird state after a few minutes. Quit it again
- In the git repo, chmod 755 and run atom.firstboot.sh
- It will complain about a missing apm binary
- Make a symlink from the right file in /usr/share/atom to the place it expects it
- set the CC and CXX vars to force armhf compilation when installing node modules:
export CC=/usr/bin/arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
export CXX=/usr/bin/arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++

- Run atom.firstboot.sh again
- Some packages have to be forced to particular versions... apm default installs a version more recent than is actually compatible with atom 1.15.0:
apm install tabs@0.101.0
apm install tree-view@0.214.1
apm install settings-view@0.248.0
apm install status-bar@1.8.5
apm install symbols-view@0.115.2
apm image-view@0.61.1


- restart atom
- if you get weird stuff, check atom dev tools Console tab for error messages, probably other missing .so libraries/packages
- ...
-  profit!

[MarkHaysHarris777]

I would recommend against running armhf, and especially I would recommend against running a mix of aarch64 and armhf ( 32bit with 64bit ).

The aarch64 64bit ArmV8 will run as much as 2.5 to 3 times faster than the armhf !  YMMV.  But, often trying to mix 32bit and 64bit causes subtleties (nuances) of problems where the two will interfere;  although, it is possible to run them together on a 64bit machine ( and folks do that all the time ) I don't recommend it;  particularly if the reason is to get an editor !  There is nothing particularly so special about any editor that warrants running 32bit code to get it !

That's just an opinion, ofc.

[combs]

I would recommend against running armhf, and especially I would recommend against running a mix of aarch64 and armhf ( 32bit with 64bit ).

The aarch64 64bit ArmV8 will run as much as 2.5 to 3 times faster than the armhf !  YMMV.  But, often trying to mix 32bit and 64bit causes subtleties (nuances) of problems where the two will interfere;  although, it is possible to run them together on a 64bit machine ( and folks do that all the time ) I don't recommend it;  particularly if the reason is to get an editor !  There is nothing particularly so special about any editor that warrants running 32bit code to get it !

That's just an opinion, ofc.

Oh sure. But Electron on aarch64 is kind of a mess at the moment  and Atom is pretty special. Think I'd go through all that hassle if it weren't? 

I don't mean to start the editor wars here. But it has a lot of interesting automations and plugins. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it

[hene]

Okay so before anyone else tries ExaGear + Atom. Not worth it. Performance is really bad. You can start Atom but input lag is few seconds.

[robbiemacg]

Atom, being among the most resource intensive editors in use today, might not be a great choice on this setup. I like Atom a lot, use it at school often... on a light-weight system I theme emacs to resemble Atom.
Do what you will, but be prepared to have your system clobbered.

[combs]

It works okay with the armhf setup (exagear is x86 emulation?). Takes 55 seconds to start and become responsive with my pile of windows, tabs, and plug-ins. Timecop looks like a bloodbath, haha.
Typing is maybe a 1/4s lag with lots of syntax highlighting stuff enabled.
Still not the same as a "real computer" but a lot better than it sounds like you're getting with exagear. Just plan on burning like 3 hours to get all the armhf stuff set up.