91–100 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should they open source everything? I never see anyone complaining how Apple doesn't open source Safari or XCode. I mean there are plenty other totally open source editors out there to choose from.
Maybe not Safari, but they have open sourced WebKit and a lot of kernel modules and other useful things: https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25675763
So, Microsoft open sourced so many things and "it really hurt" because they didn't choose to open source everything for now? No wonder Olive Cooke chose to kill herself, and few people even showed up at her funeral. She gave almost everything she owned, yet people sent her more than 180 mails everyday, demanding more, scolding her for not giving more. The more generous you are, the more generous you must be, or you'r…
Sorry you got downvoted, but I agree. Just because Microsoft open sourced VS Code doesn't mean they have to open source anything that touches it. Microsoft are allowed to have closed source language servers and extensions! And their reasoning seems pretty straight forward: * Microsoft sells developer tools (as well as giving away loads for free!). * Microsoft has invested money into giving their products (both the fr…
You don't see anyone complaining that Visual Studio itself (the older one, not VS Code) is not open source. It's only when MS began the whole "MS hearts Open Source" campaign that their actions (voluntarily) entered this kind of scrutiny.
There's no doubt that VS Code would not have acquired the level of popularity and success had it not put on the façade of being Open Source. It is the façade that is under criticism here.
Almost the entire thread seems like a case of "give them a finger and they'll take the whole hand" Microsoft is a profit driven business, it never committed to open-sourcing every piece of software it writes, of course they're trying to somehow make money with VSCode, because it costs money to develop it. If you don't like it choose another one of the billion text editors and IDEs that exist or write a competitive la…
This is hypocritical behavior, and it does remind people of EE&E which was Microsoft’s explicit policy in the past. It’s not an exact repeat, but it does seem to rhyme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should they open source everything? I never see anyone complaining how Apple doesn't open source Safari or XCode. I mean there are plenty other totally open source editors out there to choose from.
Why? Because they're the new Microsoft that completely embraces open source, we have been told, and it was seen as paranoid and ridiculous to suggest that they were merely the old Microsoft with a new trick.
I hate to bring out the old “embrace, extend, extinguish” argument, but I honestly can’t think of any other reason for this. Visual Studio Code has gotten really popular lately, but I think very few people realize that many parts of it are closed source. And you can’t take extensions from the Microsoft store and use them in your own editor…this just seems designed to get people to use your editor, give them enough so…
It's not "embrace" because they made VSCode in the first place? I don't want to say MS is good, proprietary software is good, etc. But we're approaching the 4th decade of Free Software, and people should know better than tangling their free software with megacorp offering. I shed no tears.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really inaccurate, because: > Our long-term plan is to transition our Microsoft Python Language Server users over to Pylance and eventually deprecate and remove the old language server as a supported option.
Well it's open source, so the community can maintain and support it if it wants to. Microsoft isn't obligated to maintain and support its old language server in perpetuity. Nor is it obligated to open source it's new language server, which it clearly sees as filled with secret sauce, being best in class and providing a significant competitive advantage that it doesn't want to give away for free to all of it's competi…
They are misleading their users.
Almost the entire thread seems like a case of "give them a finger and they'll take the whole hand" Microsoft is a profit driven business, it never committed to open-sourcing every piece of software it writes, of course they're trying to somehow make money with VSCode, because it costs money to develop it. If you don't like it choose another one of the billion text editors and IDEs that exist or write a competitive la…
They did here by pushing LSP as a standard. Actually, LSP allows for closed source extensions that are generally useful: they have specially prevented that from happening here. There may be the usual “but it’s not open source” complaints here if they did that, but I suspect that people were mostly interested in the source so they could build their own version that they could use elsewhere more than that they actually…
I hate to bring out the old “embrace, extend, extinguish” argument, but I honestly can’t think of any other reason for this. Visual Studio Code has gotten really popular lately, but I think very few people realize that many parts of it are closed source. And you can’t take extensions from the Microsoft store and use them in your own editor…this just seems designed to get people to use your editor, give them enough so…
Classic bait-and-switch with their M*N to M+N argument; totally looks like Embrace-Extend-Extinguish Here’s the relevant snippet from the Pylance language server’s T&Cs > INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. a) General. You may install and use any number of copies of the software only with Microsoft Visual Studio, Visual Studio for Mac, Visual Studio Code, Azure DevOps, Team Foundation Server, and successor Microsoft product…
I agree with you that it's pretty crap, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I'm willing to cut them some slack because of how great lsp is.
Seriously, the pushing of this makes up for a lot of nonsense, especially as its a standard which means that if it's successful, Microsoft will be mostly forced to abide by that standard within their products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Because they're the new Microsoft that completely embraces open source, we have been told, and it was seen as paranoid and ridiculous to suggest that they were merely the old Microsoft with a new trick.
Who told you that? Nobody said they would open source everything. There were never plans to open source Visual Studio or Office or Windows. And why should they? Did they sign a contract in blood?