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

121–130 of 277 posts

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#121

Post by easton »

als0 wrote: post #116
jasode wrote: post #103

Earlier 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…

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 se…

Someone can correct me, but the last time I installed the remote extension pack I’m almost certain that a notification popped up that said “By using this extension, you agree to the license terms...” which is unique to the Microsoft closed source extensions.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#122

Post by vezycash »

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…

Google does the same or even worse with "open source" Android and chrome.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#123

Post by easton »

pjmlp wrote: post #98
thisiswater wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author puts it: "It makes me less certain that this isn't the Extend in Embrace, Extend, Extinguish."

Google has largely outpaced Microsoft on what concerns Extinguish.

Can you give some examples? I haven’t seen Google close source something lately, except for Go’s package hosting server (which makes me inclined to believe you, I just haven’t heard of other instances).

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#124

Post by lucideer »

vezycash wrote: post #122
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…

Google does the same or even worse with "open source" Android and chrome.

Exactly. And it's important to write articles like this about VSCode, Android, Chrome, and any others engaging in this (increasingly common) marketing approach.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#125

Post by yurlungur »

I can see how remote can be a vital plugin these days for some...although I can't say it makes vscode what it is. there are workarounds and it's not like remote doesn't have its own problems.

LiveShare though doesn't convince me because there are existing ways of code sharing and collaboration that doesn't involve google doc style live sharing at all. In fact that pattern sounds a bit weird to me. I guess it enables pair programming if you really need it but it's completely useless to me. I use git+reviewboard to share my code and they work just fine.

That said, I do think the author's larger point stand. Microsoft's good will to be open source extends only to where it wishes and in this case it's a rather limited range. I believe in the spirit of sharing code and I think sharing more is better than sharing less, which is better than not sharing at all.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#126

Post by easton »

anxmla wrote: post #86
d4rti wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be quite hardline on this matter myself, but I found the julialang [1] discussion on this topic quite a persuasive argument in favour of default telemetry. I think it's a difficult ethical question, because there are balancing concerns and interests, and most behaviour doesn't easily fall into the obviously wrong or obviously right categories. [1] https://discourse.julialang.org/t/pkg-jl-telemetry-should-be…

There is a difference between, say, Debian popcon (which is opt in during install) and the 50 MSFT tracking options that are enabled despite having ticked the "no" box during install. One of which is a keylogger! Windows 10 is pure evil.

Do you have a link for the key logger?

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#127

Post by Jnr »

hvis wrote: post #104
coldtea wrote: post #100

Earlier 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?

I saw somewhere that they will offer the remote development in the browser as a paid cloud feature. They can also at any time make those proprietary features non-free. Perhaps when they get a large enough user base or new CEO or something like that.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#129

Post by est31 »

lucideer wrote: post #124
vezycash wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google does the same or even worse with "open source" Android and chrome.

Exactly. And it's important to write articles like this about VSCode, Android, Chrome, and any others engaging in this (increasingly common) marketing approach.

And users can help by actually using VSCodium, LineageOS, Linux distro Chromium builds, non-Xcode clang, etc. instead of the proprietary variants.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#130

Post by fadzlan »

The extension by design is made to be optional to use and are not integral (I would argue) to the vanilla experience of VS Code.

That also means that if other people wants to create their own proprietary extensions they can do so. The basic experience of the plain VS Code does not change.

Now one can say indeed that the Remote and also LiveShare is the best extension there of, and since the extension author decides not to share the code, then it stays proprietary. It's just that this time the author is Microsoft itself.

But because the extension itself is not integral to the VS Code itself and merely an extension, there is no stopping anyone to create open source version of the same experience.

However, where I have issues with is that, if you were to base you own editor with VS Codium (the open source, without the telemetry), you still can't use the service that is the extension marketplace for VS Code. Yes, even if it still works, and even if the extension itself is open source. Hence, just because VS Code has a lot of extensions that is open source, does not mean it is readily reusable, because the extension service is off limits.

Of course, one can also publish the same extension in another public directory if they want, but currently there is no such directory exist. And it has to be republished to the new public extension directory.

So yes, VS Code is open source, but the access to the extensions is not currently.

Post reply on HN