Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

underjord.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 277 posts

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#101

Post by coldtea »

dependenttypes wrote: post #57
sudhirj wrote: post #3

Yes and no. The complaint is that some widely used extensions are proprietary. If these extensions require MS servers, then they have every reason to be. Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic, they're not obligated to release them. If we're debating the OSS credentials of VSCode, it'll need to be based on the code already released (which makes it a pr…

The issue here is that Microsoft pretends to be FOSS-friendly while they are not. > Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic It is when you are going to potentially get into legal trouble for improving said software. Or when your code is leaked due to an extension whose code you can't inspect. Coldtea: Notepad++ is foss. > the same thing that happened to…

>Or when your code is leaked due to an extension whose code you can't inspect.

Yeah, the same thing that happened to all those people using XCode, Visual Studio proper, IntelliJ, Notepad++, Sublime Text, and so on.... Oh, wait, it hasn't...

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#102

Post by mschuster91 »

blackoil wrote: post #48
mschuster91 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think that turning it on by default is unethical Not to mention illegal in the EU without explicit informed consent. Accept-by-default etc have been ruled illegal by courts many times.

Does telemetry include any GDPR data?

Of course it does, the IP address alone is viewed as PII.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#103

Post by jasode »

CiTyBear wrote: post #14
sudhirj wrote: post #3

Yes and no. The complaint is that some widely used extensions are proprietary. If these extensions require MS servers, then they have every reason to be. Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic, they're not obligated to release them. If we're debating the OSS credentials of VSCode, it'll need to be based on the code already released (which makes it a pr…

I don't think it says "Software not open-source is bad". But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. In my circles, developers could swear VSCode is fully open source without even knowing VSCodium. If people were more aware about this, they might think twice before using VSCode for everything and getting lock-i…

>But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is.

Honest question...

Is SQLite also deceiving people about its "open source credentials" because the Encryption Extension is proprietary and costs $2000?[1]

... because as far as I can tell, most conversations do refer to SQLite as "open source" without always bringing up the encryption extension as a disclaimer in every online discussion. SQLite's creator, Richard Hipp, has a company selling a commercial license for the encryption add-on but it doesn't seem to tarnish the "open source" perception of SQLite.

[1] https://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/see-step1

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#104

Post by hvis »

coldtea wrote: post #100
nyanpasu64 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remote doesn't use Microsoft servers, it uses your servers. C# debugging doesn't use Microsoft servers. C++ debugging doesn't use Microsoft servers. Microsoft only broke these extensions on VSCodium to cripple open-source builds.

Or, you know, to actually make money from an editor they created, offer the core and tons of functionality for free and as FOSS, and spend millions employing people to work on, but adding some non-free value-added extensions... (Which even them, they offer free as in beer).

So how does it make them money?

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#105

Post by [deleted] »

blackoil wrote: post #48
mschuster91 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think that turning it on by default is unethical Not to mention illegal in the EU without explicit informed consent. Accept-by-default etc have been ruled illegal by courts many times.

Does telemetry include any GDPR data?

[deleted]

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#106

Post by esperent »

blackoil wrote: post #48
mschuster91 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think that turning it on by default is unethical Not to mention illegal in the EU without explicit informed consent. Accept-by-default etc have been ruled illegal by courts many times.

Does telemetry include any GDPR data?

Not a complete answer but at least they have made some effort to consider this.

If you think it's not good enough, you could raise an issue on the code repo. I've found them quite responsive there.

https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/getstarted/telemetry#_gdp...

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#108

Post by shaan7 »

nudpiedo wrote: post #69
shaan7 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not understand people with allergy to non OSS. Maybe this will help: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24047877 `I don't think it says "Software not open-source is bad". But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not".' > just for the sake of keeping OSS folks happy. Heh. Maybe it is just me but that sounds very condescending.

I agree with you if the optic is just that it is marketed as OSS but it is in fact not. I woudl still argue that this is the state of the art in nowadays OSS, like for example Mongo or other OSS projects which use OSS for marketing purposes and some key features are then later propetary or licensed differently

> state of the art in nowadays OSS

I agree with that, in fact it has been for quite a while. There are lots of OSS projects which have companies selling proprietary extensions for. For example, The Qt Company sells a proprietary plugin that automatically generates QML from Photoshop designs. Most people are fine with that because it is a very niche feature and not something that is the value proposition of the OSS project (Qt in this example).

OTOH, the OP feels like LiveShare, Remote and Marketplace are VSCode's primary value proposition - in which case it is fair to object to it being marketed as OSS. (although I personally consider only Marketplace to qualify)

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#109

Post by jcelerier »

coldtea wrote: post #99
jcelerier wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes and no. The complaint is that some widely used extensions are proprietary. If these extensions require MS servers, then they have every reason to be. Even if they don't, there's nothing wrong with a company holding back some stuff they consider strategic, they're not obligated to release them. that is kinda debatable, considering that those are extensions to an LGPL-licensed core (Blink, the rendering engine us…

Blink appears to has this license: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80b...

this is the license of google's additions - this does not negate the license of individual source code files:

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/109acd80b...

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#110

Post by est31 »

jasode wrote: post #103
CiTyBear wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it says "Software not open-source is bad". But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. In my circles, developers could swear VSCode is fully open source without even knowing VSCodium. If people were more aware about this, they might think twice before using VSCode for everything and getting lock-i…

>But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is. Honest question... Is SQLite also deceiving people about its "open source credentials" because the Encryption Extension is proprietary and costs $2000?[1] ... because as far as I can tell, most conversations do refer to SQLite as "open source" without always bringing…

The main way SQLite is used around the world is as a library component of a larger application. The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA.

Also, lots of people seem to value the proprietary extensions a lot more than people value the encryption extension of SQLite.

Post reply on HN