Microsoft subtracts C/C++ extension from VS Code forks

Post by mort96 » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 2:42 PM UTC

concerndc1tizen wrote: post #256

mort96 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But VS Code is not even open source, so even people who only care about open source should be worried about using VS Code.

I feel like comments lately have become full of false statements. VSCode is MIT licensed. But the extensions aren't, which locks you into the Microsoft distribution of VSCode. And that's how they turned an open source product into a monopoly-enhancing tool.

    Visual Studio Code is a distribution of the
    Code - OSS repository with Microsoft-specific
    customizations released under a traditional
    Microsoft product license.

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 2:45 PM UTC

mschild wrote: post #260

pjmlp wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean transparent like the way they added AI to their products?

I'm unaware of how they added it. Was there controversy around it?

Post by flufluflufluffy » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 2:47 PM UTC

surajrmal wrote: post #263

int_19h wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing for it to not be open source. It's another thing for its license to explicitly prohibit its use with any other IDE, even if it's API-compatible, even if it's literally exactly VSCode recompiled with another name. And it's yet another thing to proactively insert checks for that.

Why? If I listed an app on the google play store but intentionally limited it from working when installed by alternative means (eg someone relisting it on an alternative app store without my permission) would that be problematic? Why is this different?

Post by Melonai » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 2:57 PM UTC

rs186 wrote: post #8

The intellisense from clangd is much better and faster than the Microsoft C++ extension, if you can set up a compile_commands.json. Although debugging still relies on the Microsoft extension. Although I don't think it's going to be hard to create an extension just for debugging (if it does not already exist?)

Post by mrj » Fri, Apr 25, 2025, 2:58 PM UTC

sgerenser wrote: post #224

bombcar wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An Enterprise customer of Microsoft agrees to be audited by MS. In exchange they pay a certain amount for effectively “unlimited use” of the appropriate software. In the past this meant volume license keys that would always activate; wouldn’t count how many devices, etc. And MS audit would check that what you reported was what you had. And could result in big increases in contract pricing. Now that everything is clou…

That was one aspect of the auditing, but they also sent audit notices to random small and medium businesses who were not volume license customers. Basically fishing for license violations, which obviously were very common (and usually unintentional) back in the 90s and early 2000s. Things like installing windows XP or Office on multiple machines without buying extra licenses. AFAIK it was mainly a scare tactic to pre…