171–180 of 343 posts
If you're really that concerned about using propriety software why not help build the emacs or vim ecosystem instead?
I don't understand that reasoning. Wouldn't an editor ecosystem based on Codium be as open-source as Emacs' and Vim's? Are you referring to some difference in their specific licenses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of your points also apply to open source software, and aren't strict requirements for proprietary software. - discontinued: Atom just got discontinued. It's open source. Photoshop on the other hand has withstood the test of time. - Audacity's 3.0 update removed a feature I relied on. I wasn't forced to update to it, sure, but proprietary software doesn't force updates either. - Being able to fix your own bugs is…
> discontinued: Atom just got discontinued. It's open source. Photoshop on the other hand has withstood the test of time. But if I want to use Atom I can fork it, or keep the source around. It doesn't go away from my environment until _I_ say it does. And Photoshop has become more and more user hostile over time. > Audacity's 3.0 update removed a feature I relied on. I wasn't forced to update to it, sure, but proprie…
This is technically true, but in 99% of the cases is not realistically true. Most developers who use said FOSS external dependency do not want to actively maintain it themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing to do with freedom. People are naturally cheap. I don't think this is true. Look at bars. I can go to a liquor store and buy alcohol at a fraction of what it costs in a bar and invite my friends over to drink together. Yet, bars which charge a massive markup on the same exact alcohol, do not seem to be in danger of going out of business. Or look at coffee. You can buy a bag of Starbucks coffee in the grocer…
That's paying for convenience which is a different behavior.
What I find truly bizarre is how many software engineers, who are aware of how much they earn and how long it really takes to make software, are so resistant to paying anything for tools that make their job easier and faster. It blows my mind. Take the Jetbrains IDEs. I don't mean to offend any VSC fans out there but the Jetbrains IDEs are simply better and more mature in every single way. For individual use, most of…
I mostly write C++ and I would love to use CLion, but my employer won’t pay for the license fees, so my choices are VSCode or Eclipse.
If it costs $200 or whatever and would clearly save you more than that in time ($200 is a few hours of developer time) then surely it's worth it. I guess the problem is that the process isn't in place to make buying CLion easy, so there'd be a lot of administrative overhead. Or no-one cares about maximising productivity. Or it's not clear to them that CLion actually is better than alternatives. Or maybe they want all developers using the same tools so any process improvements are shared.
None of those seem like great reasons tbh, but I did just make them up as part of a strawman to lambast your employer.
Of all actors, one should probably trust the privacy protections and off switch of a BigCo, like Microsoft, since they tend to know what would get them in trouble. On the other hand, you may not be able to rely on the open source plugin developers to do things right and protect your privacy, however, it usually can be a problem that can be fixed [1]. Do you read the source code of all of your plugins? Open source developers may have good intentions, but they may not be following telemetry guidelines or best practices.
What I find truly bizarre is how many software engineers, who are aware of how much they earn and how long it really takes to make software, are so resistant to paying anything for tools that make their job easier and faster. It blows my mind. Take the Jetbrains IDEs. I don't mean to offend any VSC fans out there but the Jetbrains IDEs are simply better and more mature in every single way. For individual use, most of…
> What I find truly bizarre is how many software engineers, who are aware of how much they earn and how long it really takes to make software, are so resistant to paying anything for tools that make their job easier and faster. It blows my mind. We're not resistant to paying, we're resistant to rent-seeking. I would, and have, happily buy a piece of software I use regularly. What I will not do is a pay a monthly fee…
> None of these things are a big ask.
So let me get this straight. You expect (a) a software developer to create a piece of software (b) support in perpetuity (i.e. provide bug fixes) and you want to (c) only pay them once for that. Think about this for a second, especially part b, and explain to me how that should work.
Now you might say "no but what I meant is that every time a new release comes out I pay"...so then I, the software developer, will just do a new release once a year and charge you each year. Does it magically then not become "rent seeking" any more?
The other two points are perfectly reasonable.
I originally read it as a different editor entirely than VS Code. The slight startup delay for VS Code vs. for example Notepad++ is quite annoying. I wish there was software as cool as VS Code, but with ultra low startup time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of your points also apply to open source software, and aren't strict requirements for proprietary software. - discontinued: Atom just got discontinued. It's open source. Photoshop on the other hand has withstood the test of time. - Audacity's 3.0 update removed a feature I relied on. I wasn't forced to update to it, sure, but proprietary software doesn't force updates either. - Being able to fix your own bugs is…
> - discontinued: Atom just got discontinued. It's open source. Photoshop on the other hand has withstood the test of time. If you like Atom and still want to use it, you can fix potential bugs yourself and make it evolve, you can't with a proprietary one. You can also fork if project take a different direction that you would like. When gnome3 came up, some people who preferred the gnome2 desktop metaphor started mat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing to do with freedom. People are naturally cheap. I don't think this is true. Look at bars. I can go to a liquor store and buy alcohol at a fraction of what it costs in a bar and invite my friends over to drink together. Yet, bars which charge a massive markup on the same exact alcohol, do not seem to be in danger of going out of business. Or look at coffee. You can buy a bag of Starbucks coffee in the grocer…
That's paying for convenience which is a different behavior.