I wish the vscode remote dev functionality didn't require a binary server/remote side component. I have a bunch of users who want to use it, but it's not compatible with the system libraries on our servers and dev environments.
That was a year I'll never get back, but I do highly recommend the fun of leaving _vti_bin/ directories laying around with funny-behaving things in them. Every few months I still see evidence in my personal site logs of a script kiddie slowly becoming enraged as they figure out I left them a busy box to play with.
https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/remote/remote-overview
It seems like it runs all the functionality on the remote end, and the vscode instance you're running on the machine in front of you is just the GUI. To install this, you need ssh access, and then it drops some binaries on the remote system and uses ssh to start them up -- so it looks to a layman trying to get this working that "it only needs ssh", but that's just for the install stage. These binaries only work with more recent releases of glibc.
You know what's interesting about some of the features listed on that page:
- Develop on the same operating system you deploy to or use larger or more specialized hardware.
- Sandbox your development environment to avoid impacting your local machine configuration.
- Make it easy for new contributors to get started and keep everyone on a consistent environment.
- Use tools or runtimes not available on your local OS or manage multiple versions of them.
- Access an existing development environment from multiple machines or locations.
We have all those already with the way our development environments are setup, but the reason people want to use vscode is for the editor, no one asks about the above things.
I don’t understand what VSCode could provide that would be useful while not executing any code on the server side. It sounds like what you’re really asking is that vscode be made compatible with older version of glibc?
I am asking that vscode be made compatible with older, established builds of glibc; or that the server component be open source so it's potentially possible to get it to work.
> Codespaces sets up a cloud-hosted, containerized, and customizable VS Code environment. After set up, you can connect to a codespace through the browser or through VS Code.
(But that wasn’t what the parent was referring to...)
Bet you a dollar the GitHub mobile app that's going to come out pretty soon will also be totally proprietary with no source provided. It's a growing trend in developer tooling: even Docker's desktop versions (not Microsoft's fault, but still) are not even open source (much less free software).
It's going to be really sad in a few years when Microsoft starts turning the screws to extract more revenue from this free software ecosystem (GitHub/npm) that they are coming to exert major control over.
Soon, the most common "industry standard" tooling for the largest and most popular software development ecosystem (javascript) will rely heavily on proprietary software that spies on you continuously while you use it, just like Windows.
Stable version already came out a while ago, been using it on my phone. Also, GitHub the website has never been open source and they never pretended it was or was going to be, so no one was holding breath for source code of the mobile app.
They actually have a whitepaper that predates acquisition on exactly this:
https://resources.github.com/whitepapers/introduction-to-inn...
The company has always been unethical; Microsoft didn't change that.
The analogy seems clear to me: The web is to IE as git is to VSCode, eh?
At the very least, it makes it harder for an editor to be a competitor to VSCode w/o integrating with GitHub (not just git) now, eh?
It took until Phoenix (now Firefox), for there to be something better that grabbed the attention of developers and those sick of being stuck with IE. It became Firefox and Mozilla hatched a pretty effective plan to steal market share. For all of Mozilla's recent failings, we forget (or weren't around to remember) the success of Firefox was pretty impressive as it was a grassroots effort.
Because it looks like a good analysis of this part of Microsoft's strategy to turn "Open Source" into a spyware-laden sausage machine for Azure.
Calling it spyware is hyperbolic.
Keep it up Microsoft.
> Microsoft has been providing some amazing tools completely free of charge
Yes, and they are the opposite of a no-profit.
This are just the first steps: "embrace" and "extend".