You also have vscode. What you don’t have is the various proprietary extensions msft makes to vscode, just as you don’t have every proprietary extension anyone has ever made to those listed platforms.
> You also have vscode. What you don’t have is the various proprietary extensions msft makes…
i’m not trying to be confrontational i promise, but i mean, yeah, youre just repeating what we’re discussing…
microsoft bangs its drums chanting “please like us again, look at how open source we are. we’re not the same abusive company we used to be… we’ve changed, really.”
to many of us, the extension ecosystem is the biggest thing separating code from other IDEs in the first place.
this is just more abusive tactics from a company with very very long history of abuse, only this time they try to hide it behind empty “open source community, look how much we love you” rhetoric.
i’ve always recommended to organizations to run fast and far from ms products. basically “if you’re looking at a long timescale, you want agility, you want to be able to easily pivot in various other directions. if you use MS, you never know where they’re going to lock you down. run fast and far from them.” and this is just another example of why.
i think the commenter above nailed it perfectly with, “they keep telling us we should be grateful for microsoft blankets infected with the smallpox.”
Software engineers have to be the most melodramatic lot in existence. Microsoft: you can use this product for your development work freely, but we have licensing in place that prevents redistribution that cuts out our core product offering because let’s be real here this is really expensive to develop and both us and our employees have bills to pay just like anyone else.
Internet personalities: the closest thing I might compare this to is the deliberate proliferation of smallpox and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of native americans. (a story which, ironically, turns out to be almost entirely fabricated to spread FUD about the us government… https://allthatsinteresting.com/smallpox-blankets)
> let’s be real here this is really expensive to develop and both us and our employees have bills to pay just like anyone else
Couldn't put it better. FOSS advocates want everything for free and source code released every time, all the time. Who's paying the bills? The rent? The mortgage?
To be precise, the system sucks, but we have to work within it, and that means profit-driven companies which pay employees liveable salaries so said employees can buy the food and shelter they need to experience a decent life.
I'll bet that 95% of FOSS developers either contribute as part their full-time job, or already have full-time jobs with the salary and flexibility that allows them to also contribute to FOSS projects in their free time. Not everyone has this luxury.
i don't care. if you don't want to write free software, that's fine with me. but don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, and don't offer me a gift and then demand payment
> but don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me it's a gift and then demand payment
Who's doing this? VS Code is free; Pylance is free, cppdbg is free, the C# suite is free. However the licences are clear; these extensions are closed source.
VS Code's core editor functionality (Monaco, LSP, DAP, etc) is fully open, and has been regularly repurposed and re-branded by several other companies. I sincerely don't see the problem. If someone else wants to write their own extensions, they are free to; these extensions are Microsoft's IP and hence Microsoft is free to do what it wants with its IP.
The disingenuity is what you are condoning. The repo is superficially organized to appear open-source but is actually a minefield.
Github will sometimes say "found other licenses"; the best Github can do is to "report" on the state of a repository; it's up to the community to decide on stricter tolerances for declaring something to be open-source, because as we see here, even a major corporation is willing to engage in subterfuge/exploitation.
Saying something is "open source" provides material benefit: it creates attention, it attracts users, it creates community. Shouldn't a project be fully in-the-spirit of open source to benefit?
There's plenty of case law around the word "free"; it's just too early for the phrase "open source" to have settled case law.
(assuming you haven’t somehow looked at a block of legal text, disregarded the opening paragraph, and assumed the rest of it somehow is to be interpreted in isolation?)
> Internet personalities: the closest thing I might compare this to is the deliberate proliferation of smallpox and the resulting deaths of hundreds of thousands of native americans. (a story which, ironically, turns out to be almost entirely fabricated to spread FUD about the us government
Hmm? I mean maybe some people believe this, but I have never heard of anyone thinking the epidemic that affected hundreds of thousands of Natives was caused by blankets. The Natives I know are well aware that it was a specific event and most Smallpox infections were caused by general contact with Europeans.
In fact, the commenter doesn't even do this, they just referenced the siege and then YOU conflated it with hundreds of thousands of deaths. Officials did intentionally infect Natives and the article confirms that, so I don't think merely referencing that fact is spreading a myth?
