Just like many other products, developers have bills to pay.
Vim?
The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
111–120 of 277 posts
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#112Earlier 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…
Most developers don't care they just want to get to job done. Many of them use IntelliJ, etc. which is not free software either. Those who care about using fee software already know about these things, because they check before starting to use a new software.
There is a difference: intellij/Jetbrains don't claim to do OpenSource.
Microsoft markets them as OpenSource player and Viscose as OpenSource IDE and if you don't look at the license terms you miss the part.
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#113I can be counted as one of the skeptics of MS's open-source efforts. It just seems to me that MS's history and recent investment in open-source puts us in a quantum state between two possibilities: 1. MS has changed their ways, and has become an altruist organization which just wants to give developers things of value for free so they might hopefully choose Azure when they decide what cloud provider to run on. 2. MS…
As far as I'm aware of, Microsoft is not even trying to put their own services forward. For example neither Github nor Azure are the defaults in VSCode. Go to the source control section and use what ever source control tool you want, VSCode does not even suggest you use Github. They also don't bundle extensions like LiveShare with VSCode, by including it into the VSCode installer they distribute on their own website.…
> but I dislike it when people are so desperate to blame Microsoft for mistakes it did in the past
I find it a bit weird when people anthropomorphize corporations and feel bad for/protective of them.
And let's be honest, we're not talking about "mistakes", we're talking about a decades-long strategy which was methodically executed to cultivate good will, and then take advantage of it to destroy competitors.
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#114Yes 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…
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.
They are components from VisualStudio proper. Probably derived from a quite old code base. On old code bases you easily have the situation that parts of it are licensed from other vendors or contractors. Digging through old contracts and history of the code can be a notable effort.
Microsoft did the digging with their C++ standard library, which is derived from Dinkum's STL.
I observed that a bit with Sun and Solaris/OpenSolaris where in the final release was one component missing.
So even with will this won't come for free.
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
By integrating well with Azure and by making their brand attractive to developers.
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#116Earlier 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…
I think it's often easy to unknowingly use or rely on a proprietary extension, such as in Visual Studio or even a particular browser's features.
When an extension requires you to get out your credit card then this isn't possible. If it costs $2000 you can assume it's proprietary.
So I think the issue for VScode is more nuanced: proprietary extensions are not clearly marked or separated from the open source feature set.
Another good example to consider is whether people feel deceived by various Linux distributions who bundle one-click or automated install of proprietary blobs.
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
>The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA
The blog author complained about "Live Share" as one example. As far as I can tell, "Live Share" is not in the builds one downloads from Microsoft's "Visual Studio Code" website: https://code.visualstudio.com/download
The Live Share feature is downloaded from a separate web page: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=MS-vsliv...
This separation seems similar to SQLite Encryption Extension. Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous?
The github page for "Visual Studio Code" prominently displays "Open Source" in its title: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode
I'm willing to be convinced that it's a marketing deception and "open source" should be removed but so far, I haven't seen any precedent from other hybrid open/closed source projects justifying that.
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it does, the IP address alone is viewed as PII.
What makes you think they log IP addresses?
Under GDPR any kind of data processing falls under the protection umbrella. And that includes the data processing that automatically happens during the creation of a TCP/IP connection - where the recipient party automatically gains knowledge of the IP address of the other side.
For a web site itself this is generally fine as it is a technical necessity and intended by the user... however stuff that is not necessary to fulfill the user intention such as any kind of tracking or telemetry is opt-in only.
And yes this was and is the explicit intention why the GDPR was passed in the first place: get rid of involuntary tracking, telemetry and other data thefts.
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#119Yes 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…
> Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is.
VS Code is as open source as it claims to be.
> If people were more aware about this, they might think twice before using VSCode for everything and getting lock-in
Are there many software developers who are not aware that most open-source software can run proprietary extensions?
I personally don't use any of Microsoft's services. Therefore, the entire claim that "the best parts of VS Code are proprietary" is completely false for me.
Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment neatly alludes to the difference between the Open Source philosophies and the Free Software philosophy, and the biggest point of difference is "freedom for whom?" wherein OSS is about freedom for developers and FSF is about freedom for users. Most users don't actually fall in either camp, and largely care about free as in beer (gratis), or possibly free as in doesn't require complex purchasing processes…
Well, FSF is about freedom for users with the technical expertise to modify the software and understand its source code.
>Well, FSF is about freedom for users with the technical expertise to modify the software and understand its source code.
FALSE, example some guy pays me to modify a GPL script/program and add some integration for his business. If I am a jerk I don't give him the source code only an obfuscated binary. This guy is not an expert but if I would have respected the license and give him the source code then he can in future hire a new developer to update the application when a new change is needed.
Conclusion is that I do not need to be a developer to benefit from free software I can always find somebody that I can pay to fix or add something I need.