A few things to point out:
- Microsoft created this extension and pays money to develop it
- Despite that, they give it to programmers for free. It is still free of charge.
- They explicitly said that using it outside of their products is forbidden (according to article: at least 5 years ago), they just didn’t enforce it
- Someone (here: Cursor developers), despite that, used it in their products and started to make money from it
What exactly are you mad at? When will programming community finally understand that Microsoft is not a non-profit company and its primary purpose is to make money?
The problem is that they’re killing competition. Treating a company with the market dominance of Microsoft like a normal company would be fatal for humanity. Because they are eliminating innovation by Cursor and they do not need to do this to finance their own innovation. Effectively, humanity gets less innovation by Microsoft doing this.
But Microsoft developed it in the first place. It’s perfectly within their rights to pull it and developers making money off of their work isn’t bad either. I love a good pitchfork to corporate, but this is honestly fine.
Well; companies used to get anti-trust laser canon’ed from orbit for less; but good luck with that in modern America
I think owning a platform like GitHub and acting like you can profit out of your code (not your product) isn’t good news.
Don’t be upset it took people a long time to realize Visual Studio Code is fauxpen source, just be glad they’re finally realizing it. No need to be condescending and make people feel ashamed over it.
Because a .vscode still pollute most open source projects. It"s annoying that they get people hooked on it that could use better tools instead.
Better tools such as…?
Neovim plus tmux.
Another reason to hate LLMs on the list.
I heard Theo talking about this and I think he guessed that they don’t want to maintain these against forks is the number of people raising issues that are not related to the extension and more due to the fork.
His video goes into a lot of good detail as to what’s likely going on.
What Theo also says is that remember that they don’t make any money off of VSCode at all.
Good example why you don’t want to use and rely on proprietary software (the extension is not 100% open source as I understand), if there are free (as in source code and license) alternatives.
Developers developers developers
I. Love. This. Company!
https://skipvids.com/?v=8fcSviC7cRM (it’s just a frontend to not use YouTube directly)
Lol.
Microsoft
C/C++ extension
VS Code
so sad 🎤 🎻😢
Not an issue. Install Clangd and CodeLLDB. They are much better anyway (see my other comment).
The real golden jewel that Microsoft keeps to itself is the Remote SSH extension. There’s no open source alternative as far as I know.
There’s also Pylance but that only matters if you’re using Python.
sounds like M$'s real face : Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish
I would say they are doing the same with Linux, but I’ll just wait for it to become obvious.
A company that is known for doing shitty things does shitty things.
Color me fucking surprised.
Honestly, at this point, I have ZERO sympathy for people who are still actively using microsoft products and running into problems.
They pulled the same thing with their widely used office format: base capabilities are standardised but most useful stuff is proprietary extension.
Just violate their rules and enable the microsoft extensions on forks
Does Nano and GCC still work ok?
Only if you are desperate or masochistic.
Maybe it’s just me, but I never got that thing to work right anyway - with VSC. It keeps running amok and using up all the CPU time doing stuff it should not be doing, trying to analyze every single file in my VM every single time it is started.
So… good riddance.
It looks like the extension is licensed under MIT https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-cpptools You can “simply” fork it and provide builds yourself, right?
Not the case. There are binary components.
It doesn’t matter though because the Clangd & CodeLLDB extensions completely replace it and are actually waaaaaaay better.
With Microsoft’s C++ extension it always rinsed the CPU - there were files I had to avoid opening because then it would analyse them and I’d have to kill it. The code intelligence also seemed very “heuristic” and was quite slow.
Clangd fixes all of that. It’s fast, doesn’t choke on huge files, and if you have
compile_commands.jsonit’s actually the first properly fast and robust C++ IDE I’ve ever used. You know if you’ve used a Java IDE the code intelligence just works and is fast and reliable. It’s like that.
Maybe we need a new movement (or revisit past ideas from the 70s) that focuses on ensuring the openness regarding freedoms of computing (😉) that combat proprietary SaaS offerings? idk.
This is why OSS as an org needs a change IMO. Licenses like SSPLv1, where software can be supplied for free with options that allow a company to make money without risk of a cloud vendor snapping up their software (think Redis, MongoDB, etc) need a place at the table.
Licenses like SSPLv1
The SSPL requires that all software used to deploy SSPL software is open sourced. If I deploy my software on Windows, do I have to provide the source code for Windows? What about the proprietary hardware drivers, or Intel Management Engine?
The SSPL is not the next generation of licenses, it is effectively unusable. And both Redis and Mongo, dual licensed their software as the SSPL, and a proprietary license — effectively making their entire software proprietary.
make money without risk of a cloud vendor snapping up their software (think Redis, MongoDB, etc) need a place at the table.
Except Redis, and Mongo were making money. They had well valued, well earning SAAS offerings — it’s just that the offerings integrated into existing cloud vendors would be more popular (because vendor lock in). They just wanted more money, and were hoping that by going proprietary, they could force customers away from the cloud offers to themselves, and massively increase their revenue… They did not get that.
Another thing is that it’s not “stealing” Mongo/Redis’ when cloud vendors offer SAAS’s of Mongo/Redis. Mongo/Redis, and their SAAS offerings, are only possible because the same cloud vendors put more money than Mongo/Redis make yearly into Linux and other software that powers the SAAS offerings of Mongo/Redis, like Kubernetes. Without that software, Mongo/Redis wouldn’t have a SAAS offering at all.
I definitely think that it’s bad when a piece of software doesn’t get any funding it needs to develop, especially when it powers much more modern software, like XZ. But Mongo/Redis weren’t suffering from a lack of funding at all. They’re just mad they had to share their toys, and tried to take them away. But it didn’t even matter in the end.
deleted by creator
An AI company not respecting copyright and licensing? I’m shocked.
