I don't think this is a really major problem. They are extensions. If you have a problem with the license, you are free to stop using them. You are also free to make your own implementation. And...
I don't think this is a really major problem.
They are extensions. If you have a problem with the license, you are free to stop using them. You are also free to make your own implementation. And heck, you can make your implementation work with other editors as well.
Open-core software gives something valuable to the world. Building an alternate ecosystem using the same core would be a smaller problem than building from scratch, sort of like building a new...
Open-core software gives something valuable to the world. Building an alternate ecosystem using the same core would be a smaller problem than building from scratch, sort of like building a new Linux distro instead of writing a new kernel. But still, building an entire alternate ecosystem is quite a hard problem. You can see another example of this with Android, where the alternate ecosystems are a lot smaller and worse in a lot of ways than the one Google supports.
I think people try to round this off to either good or bad, but it's decidedly mixed. A strong competitor makes it hard to build a pure open source community, if that's your thing. And yet, it's a large, valuable amount of contributed code to work with, and should we expect the big tech companies to do everything for us? Isn't it enough that they've done some of the work, and we can use it as a base?
Apparently we do expect it all to be given to us for free. (I guess I do too since I'm not coding much.) Laziness is often reasonable. It's deferring a lot of work that will have to be done to replicate the closed-source parts if it comes to that. On the other hand, should that day come, we'll have a better idea what we want to build.
I guess that's enjoying the benefits of civilization, even if it's not an entirely open-source civilization. I do admire the early adopters who do it the hard way, though I'm not yet willing to follow them.
Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. I think you've got to the core of why this article was irritating me. Even if these parts are not open source, they are still freely-provided assets that...
Thanks, I appreciate your perspective.
I think you've got to the core of why this article was irritating me. Even if these parts are not open source, they are still freely-provided assets that Microsoft has provided everyone with no discernible ulterior motive. And that's something of value that ultimately benefits the world at large.
Would the world be an even better place if these extensions were open source? Absolutely; I wouldn't ever deny that. But by no means does Microsoft owe that to us.
You know how lots of us were very suspicious of 'Microsoft <3 Linux' and all that? Yea stuff like this is why. Following the letter of open source licenses while violating the spirit is exactly...
You know how lots of us were very suspicious of 'Microsoft <3 Linux' and all that?
Yea stuff like this is why. Following the letter of open source licenses while violating the spirit is exactly the sort of stuff Microsoft (and the other giants tbh) excell at.
I think it's important to push Microsoft to open source these things, but as an avid open source and free software proponent, I don't think they're violating anything. Microsoft is a massive,...
Microsoft is a massive, Fortune 50 company. They predate the Free Software Movement by 10 years, and were a huge adversary to it for decades. That they've open sourced so many things already is a miracle, and it's not particularly surprising if they're facing hurdles with the parts of it that touch the Microsoft infrastructure
Author calls these "the best parts" (and really, they're not), but the reason they think that is because those parts are what uses MS infrastructure. Live Share. Remote. Marketplace. It's extremely likely these bits weren't open source because parts of the infra cannot be open source and is tainting them.
Again, important to push for it, but the cynicism is not in good taste.
SCO was pretty black and white. They were the literal definition of a patent troll, and their cases have continued at least until 2016. And its not just the litigation. It was the abuse of...
SCO was pretty black and white. They were the literal definition of a patent troll, and their cases have continued at least until 2016.
And its not just the litigation. It was the abuse of monopoly which which decimated all other OS platforms. Linux was a frequent target as the rising star amongst the fragmented and expensive Unixes. It also fundementally breaks Microsoft's sales model.
Threatening OEM with higher prices if offering other OS vendors pre-installed
Secure boot very well could have completely cut out other OS vendors from machines with Windows
Lawsuits against companies which would hurt Linux (Tomtom over fat32)
Settling anti-monopoly lawsuits by donating large quantities of OS licenses (and making monopoly stronger!)
Undermining Java, which had huge potenial to offer OS choice.
Screwing over OS/2
Subtly and not subtly breaking compatability with other office suites, which were available for other OSes. When governments started mandating open document standards, Microsoft lied about their openess.
When a customer does manage to switch away, suddenly prices plummet and cheap re-onboarding.
Microsoft fights dirty. They always have, from the very beginning. They didn't really start coming around to open source until they had to run Azure on Linux. Many of us who were there for the death of anti-trust will never believe Microsoft at their word.
That's the case on Windows, but the Linux binary is open-source as defined by the OSD. That's also why it's simply called "Code", not Visual Studio Code. Disclaimer: This might just be the case on...
Sure enough. VS Code is fully MIT. The binary distribution has a separate license to allow telemetry and protect Microsoft trademarks and stuff.
That's the case on Windows, but the Linux binary is open-source as defined by the OSD. That's also why it's simply called "Code", not Visual Studio Code.
Disclaimer: This might just be the case on arch-based distros which compile from source. I haven't checked the *buntus.
If you get the Linux version from the VSCode website, you get a pre-compiled binary with the proprietary bits left in and the full name "Visual Studio Code". This comes as either just the app in a...
If you get the Linux version from the VSCode website, you get a pre-compiled binary with the proprietary bits left in and the full name "Visual Studio Code". This comes as either just the app in a tarball, or packaged up in a .deb or .rpm. I'd presume the debs and rpms are available in some repos somewhere. Arch users can find this version in the AUR.
I don't think this is a really major problem.
They are extensions. If you have a problem with the license, you are free to stop using them. You are also free to make your own implementation. And heck, you can make your implementation work with other editors as well.
Open-core software gives something valuable to the world. Building an alternate ecosystem using the same core would be a smaller problem than building from scratch, sort of like building a new Linux distro instead of writing a new kernel. But still, building an entire alternate ecosystem is quite a hard problem. You can see another example of this with Android, where the alternate ecosystems are a lot smaller and worse in a lot of ways than the one Google supports.
I think people try to round this off to either good or bad, but it's decidedly mixed. A strong competitor makes it hard to build a pure open source community, if that's your thing. And yet, it's a large, valuable amount of contributed code to work with, and should we expect the big tech companies to do everything for us? Isn't it enough that they've done some of the work, and we can use it as a base?
Apparently we do expect it all to be given to us for free. (I guess I do too since I'm not coding much.) Laziness is often reasonable. It's deferring a lot of work that will have to be done to replicate the closed-source parts if it comes to that. On the other hand, should that day come, we'll have a better idea what we want to build.
I guess that's enjoying the benefits of civilization, even if it's not an entirely open-source civilization. I do admire the early adopters who do it the hard way, though I'm not yet willing to follow them.
Thanks, I appreciate your perspective.
I think you've got to the core of why this article was irritating me. Even if these parts are not open source, they are still freely-provided assets that Microsoft has provided everyone with no discernible ulterior motive. And that's something of value that ultimately benefits the world at large.
Would the world be an even better place if these extensions were open source? Absolutely; I wouldn't ever deny that. But by no means does Microsoft owe that to us.
You know how lots of us were very suspicious of 'Microsoft <3 Linux' and all that?
Yea stuff like this is why. Following the letter of open source licenses while violating the spirit is exactly the sort of stuff Microsoft (and the other giants tbh) excell at.
I think it's important to push Microsoft to open source these things, but as an avid open source and free software proponent, I don't think they're violating anything.
Microsoft is a massive, Fortune 50 company. They predate the Free Software Movement by 10 years, and were a huge adversary to it for decades. That they've open sourced so many things already is a miracle, and it's not particularly surprising if they're facing hurdles with the parts of it that touch the Microsoft infrastructure
Author calls these "the best parts" (and really, they're not), but the reason they think that is because those parts are what uses MS infrastructure. Live Share. Remote. Marketplace. It's extremely likely these bits weren't open source because parts of the infra cannot be open source and is tainting them.
Again, important to push for it, but the cynicism is not in good taste.
Can anyone provide more info on this, what was happening back then ?
SCO was pretty black and white. They were the literal definition of a patent troll, and their cases have continued at least until 2016.
And its not just the litigation. It was the abuse of monopoly which which decimated all other OS platforms. Linux was a frequent target as the rising star amongst the fragmented and expensive Unixes. It also fundementally breaks Microsoft's sales model.
Microsoft fights dirty. They always have, from the very beginning. They didn't really start coming around to open source until they had to run Azure on Linux. Many of us who were there for the death of anti-trust will never believe Microsoft at their word.
That's the case on Windows, but the Linux binary is open-source as defined by the OSD. That's also why it's simply called "Code", not Visual Studio Code.
Disclaimer: This might just be the case on arch-based distros which compile from source. I haven't checked the *buntus.
If you get the Linux version from the VSCode website, you get a pre-compiled binary with the proprietary bits left in and the full name "Visual Studio Code". This comes as either just the app in a tarball, or packaged up in a .deb or .rpm. I'd presume the debs and rpms are available in some repos somewhere. Arch users can find this version in the AUR.