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

201–210 of 277 posts

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#201

Post by [deleted] »

edoceo wrote: post #166
winkeltripel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous? The difference is that typical usage of SQLite is co-located with an application, such that you don't need encryption, and it doesn't market itself as a great database to stand up on a far-away server. VSCode is marketing these extensions with the core product, as features thereof. They seem to be much closer to critical, core functionality. I think that the…

Hmm. Nobody I know that uses VSCode uses either Remote or LiveShare. They don't seem critical or core to me.

[deleted]

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#202

Post by skohan »

jjuel wrote: post #178
skohan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this is exactly the risk: developers become dependent on the VSCode extension ecosystem, while thinking they are safely using only FOSS tools. This is the kind of double-speak which lets MS have the best of both worlds. From a marketing/developer relations perspective, developers think they are using open-source tools. But in actuality, developers are investing in workflows where MS is a critical link in the chai…

From what I can tell from the official VS Code site by Microsoft they no where say that it is a fully open source piece of software. Infact they say "Free. Built on Open Source. Runs Everywhere" So they are saying it is "Built on Open Source" which means something completely different to me. https://code.visualstudio.com

"Built on Open Source" is in the same vein as putting "Made from natural ingredients" on a cereal box. It's meant to make the product sound better for you than it actually is.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#203

Post by codemonkey-zeta »

edoceo wrote: post #166
winkeltripel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous? The difference is that typical usage of SQLite is co-located with an application, such that you don't need encryption, and it doesn't market itself as a great database to stand up on a far-away server. VSCode is marketing these extensions with the core product, as features thereof. They seem to be much closer to critical, core functionality. I think that the…

Hmm. Nobody I know that uses VSCode uses either Remote or LiveShare. They don't seem critical or core to me.

Not that they are critical or core, but that they are, in the words of the original author, "the best parts of VScode." All the core and critical features of VScode exist in every other editor. LiveShare and Remote are, as far as I and the author can tell, not replicated by any other editor, and are therefore (subjectively) the "best parts". Whether or not you know anyone who uses the features is irrelevant.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#204

Post by jaywalk »

edoceo wrote: post #166
winkeltripel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous? The difference is that typical usage of SQLite is co-located with an application, such that you don't need encryption, and it doesn't market itself as a great database to stand up on a far-away server. VSCode is marketing these extensions with the core product, as features thereof. They seem to be much closer to critical, core functionality. I think that the…

Hmm. Nobody I know that uses VSCode uses either Remote or LiveShare. They don't seem critical or core to me.

I've been using VS Code since day one, and I have zero interest in Remote or LiveShare. I can definitely see how they'd be useful in certain environments, but they just have no use to me.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#205

Post by scbrg »

untog wrote: post #162
skohan wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Conversely, I find it a bit weird when people anthropomorphize corporations as if they have personalities and traits that somehow live beyond an almost 100% turnover in staff and senior management changes. The MS of today isn’t the MS of the 90s. That’s not to say they’re virtuous and wonderful today, just that banging on about the past doesn’t really feel relevant.

> 100% turnover in staff and senior management

So, I just checked https://news.microsoft.com/leadership/. The vast majority of the people there joined Microsoft in the 80s or 90s. Two or three in the early 2000, and one after 2010. For one person it was unclear when they joined.

So, an overwhelming majority of the senior management were perfectly happy to work for the "MS of the 90s". Therefore, it's hard to see that they'd be particularly uncomfortable with the ethics of the "MS of the 90s".

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#206

Post by ClikeX »

hvis wrote: post #133
johannes1234321 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By integrating well with Azure and by making their brand attractive to developers.

You don't need proprietary plugins for that, though. To make the brand attractive, free/open source is best.

Hasn't Microsoft been a pretty attractive brand for years on end while being proprietary?

You make a brand attractive by offering a good product, good support/service, and then marketing those points.

I try to use as much OSS as I can. But free/opensource isn't the most attractive feature to everyone. And I'd say the success of so many proprietary companies is proof of that.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#207

Post by pjmlp »

jefftk wrote: post #181
pjmlp wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same WebKit that now breaks the mobile Web and it being open source is completely irrelevant.

That Apple locks down iOS very tightly is a separate problem. WebKit on Mac continues to be usefully open source, and I believe performance improvements that Apple has made for Mac Safari have been incorporated into Firefox, Chrome, etc.

Firefox doesn't use WebKit, and no it is not a separate problem because it shows how being FOSS isn't enough.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#208

Post by edoceo »

codemonkey-zeta wrote: post #203
edoceo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. Nobody I know that uses VSCode uses either Remote or LiveShare. They don't seem critical or core to me.

Not that they are critical or core, but that they are, in the words of the original author, "the best parts of VScode." All the core and critical features of VScode exist in every other editor. LiveShare and Remote are, as far as I and the author can tell, not replicated by any other editor, and are therefore (subjectively) the "best parts". Whether or not you know anyone who uses the features is irrelevant.

The person I was replying to used the words "critical" and "core".

As to best (admittedly subjective) if they are so good I'd think that one of the 100s of devs I know depend on them.

The only close one was Remote - which other editors do too - When I showed that remote drops code to the far end machine we determined that to be too risky - and went back to sshfs.

Also, if those extension are so "best" why hasn't a replica been created? Or why didn't any other editor have them? It might be those extension are not so compelling.

Also, my previous favorite editor (jEdit) had remote features back in like 2003 - maybe earlier.

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#209

Post by inkap »

easton wrote: post #126
anxmla wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4468250/windows-10-...

"As part of inking and typing on your device, Windows collects unique words—like names you write—in a personal dictionary stored locally on your device, which helps you type and ink more accurately.

If you sync your Windows device settings to other Windows devices, your local user dictionary (up to 100 KB per language and 300 KB total of hard drive space) will be stored on your personal OneDrive for the purpose of enabling sharing of your dictionary with your other Windows devices. "

And it may have been worse when Windows 10 was first released:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2974057/how-to-turn-off-wind...

Re: The best Parts of Visual Studio Code are proprietary

#210

Post by lawik »

lorenzfx wrote: post #141

I don't think this is a fair assessment. This post is about two plugins (`LiveShare` and `Remote`), both by Microsoft, not being open source. None of these plugins are even mentioned on Microsoft's Visual Studio Code homepage [0]. At least LiveShare is marketed as a separate tool for which a Visual Studio Code plugin exists (as well as a Visual Studio plugin). [0] https://code.visualstudio.com/ [1] https://visualstud…

I tried to be fair but I can't necessarily strike the balance you'd like :)

I am disappointed because I expected more openness from the new direction of Microsoft than this indicates. In most of the places I've heard of LiveShare and Remote it is discussed in the context of the larger open source efforts of Microsoft. And it really isn't part of that. Specifically on things like open source-focused podcasts and such. That's how I've come across it. I think the distinction of what parts are proprietary and what parts are open will pass most developers by while they happily think they are working with open source tools.

This is indeed about two plugins not being open source, as well as the marketplace for extensions which is dominated by open source work also being limited to Visual Studio-products only. I find this disappointing and it makes me more skeptical than I was previously.

I think Microsoft can afford and would benefit from going further in an open direction with this. Its fine to not believe the same.

Post reply on HN