VSCode: The Biggest Threat to Innovation of Our Time [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
I didn't buy the argument then, and I don't buy it now. What's happened is that an area of software has evolved to the point that the profit from selling it outright has turned negative.
In the early 2000s Microsoft's cart was upended in a two-pronged attack. Apple developed the iPhone and Google developed Search. Both were entirely new platforms without any connection to Microsoft. Microsoft has tried and utterly failed to enter these markets.
That's what monopoly in software encourages - radically new platforms rather than incremental improvements to existing products.
With VS code, there's nothing to be done here. At some point a fundamentally new way to write software will take shape, and VS Code will fade into the background.
I worry a lot less about Microsoft and tooling like VSCode than I would about anything developed by FAANG or god forbid Oracle.
That's not true at all.
The main problem with the whole MS/Mono/C# thing was that Microsoft was openly being hostile to FLOSS in general and Linux in particular, thus gained a well earn reputation of not being a trustable entity. Thus at the time adopting any technology churned by Microsoft was clearly a serious liability.
It's really sad that few developers used it, just like the Linux desktop is sad.
It wasn't but that's besides the point. Mono posed a serious risk because of how Microsoft's threatened all potential users of Mono due to all the loopholes in Microsoft's promises, along with Microsoft's lack of credibility.
https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
https://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono
> People said that if you used Mono Microsoft would come after you. And nothing happened.
The people said the exact same thing about Oracle and Java, and here we are.
Just because you believe someone won't pull the trigger on you that doesn't mean it's a good idea to let them put a gun to your head.
That actually is the point. Mono was an independent implementation. And C#/.net was much less encumbered than 'open source and free, write once run anywhere' Java. Free as long as you aren't trying to embedded anything but one full stack implementation controlled by Sun. Otherwise you paid through the nose.
Consider as well the beloved Sun sued Microsoft for implementing their own compatible version of Java. And later Oracle tried to sue the pants off Google for just using Java based API's.
So the actual history disproves the conventional wisdom.
Seems to me the "simple" fix here is for MSFT to hand vscode off to something like the Apache Foundation (independent organization) for management and oversight. The community could/should push for that to protect it's interests and then we can close this case.
Vscode is already licensed under the MIT license.
There are already FLOSS forks of vscode, such as vscodium.
The solution you're advocating is not a solution at all. In practice you're just advocating that MS should stop investing the company's resources to develope the product, because orgs such as the Apache Foundation are already free to fork the project and work on it themselves.
I'm advocating that Apache Foundation (or similar) oversee the direction of the project to ensure that equality is maintained
Let's be honest here: your problem actually lies with Microsoft getting it's money's worth by paying their people to do their work. That's what's bothering you. MS started the project, paid everyone's salaries, managed the project, and once it started delivering arguably the best editor around... Now you want to push it out? Why?
If you really care about what you're advocating then just click on "fork" and be the change you want to see in the world. Then let us know what came out of it.
But, I also understand that "well, you could just fork it" doesn't fix the problem the author brings up. Who owns the marketplace around VSCode? Who controls what is allowed in? What if MSFT decided to not allow GitLab extensions, or AWS extensions to further its own products? MSFT _has_ done these things in the past.
I'm just saying that handing the governorship of the project to an independent organization would address these issues. MSFT could still build and contribute to it, but the project direction, the telemetry, the ecosystem, could be managed by an independent agency, and that would solve the issues the OP has with the product.
What’s to complain about? It’s free and better than your products that sell for money? I can’t perceive any lock-in. It’s just as easy to use it to target entirely non-Microsoft platforms, which is what I do.
I’ve never heard of this Omatum Studios. With the recent turmoil from Slack, I wonder if there’s some connection to the ire.