There are just countless examples of people misattributing everything to be EEE. Vscode is another recent example of Microsoft still doing EEE by first creating the editor, destroying a lot of the IDE/editor ecosystem, just to eventually remove the important bits into non-free plugins, making the free version of codium basically pointless.
But that doesn't make M$ buying GitHub into EEE for example.
How is Microsoft releasing VS Code "destroying the editor ecosystem" but releasing Vim for free isn't and JetBrains charging for their IDEs isn't? This isn't "EEE" this is whining that Microsoft is competing by making software people want and that's unfair, apparently.
> "just to eventually remove the important bits into non-free plugins, making the free version of codium basically pointless."
Look at what isn't open source: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/wiki/Differences-between...
Microsoft logos and trademarks, integration with a marketplace which Microsoft run, a list of extensions Microsoft have reviewed and recommend (not the extensions, just the list), just enough of the Remote Development feature to handle connecting to Microsoft's backend for it, Telemetry, and autoupdate from Microsoft servers. Arguing those are "the important bits" is a stretch.
The C#/.NET debugger maybe, but you say that was "eventually removed into non-free plugin" - was it ever free? It doesn't sound like it. Also VS Code was popularised by JavaScript and TypeScript not C#, that's always been the province of Visual Studio full edition.
they're still free (as in beer), but their licence only allows usage with the official visual studio code distribution
The inconvenient answer: want another C# extension? Tough luck, write it yourself. This is essentially what LLVM did for C/C++ linting, and produced Clangd, and many people now consider it to be superior to the Microsoft C/C++ linter.
I’m not nearly as anti-modern-Microsoft as some of the people here, but even I know that “they have the right to” is moving the goalposts.
(Don't mind me, just the formerly confused passing through.)
That isn't what 'extinguished' meant! It was supposed to be that you and Oracle exchanged email by open SMTP, Microsoft wedged some new features into Exchange SMTP which then enough Microsoft customers relied on that Oracle rolled over to MS-SMTP, and then you practically couldn't use plain standard SMTP because everyone you wanted to email was using proprietary Microsoft SMTP.
To trivialise that by turning it into "Microsoft stopped developing a thing and I can't be bothered to fork it and develop it myself" is, well, to turn a potentially real issue (from twenty five years ago, which never happened) into empty whining.
> "And blaming it on the end-user because they fail to pick up a massive product like Atom and develop it themselves seems disingenuous at best.
Yes, welcome to the elephant in the room of Open Source, 'many eyes makes bugs shallow', and the other pretenses we don't question. But at least the principle stands - you can still get the Atom source code[3] and pay someone as a contractor to change it for you, employ some people to work on it, start up a foundation, beg someone. Compared to a closed source program built on patented algorithms when the company shuts down and nobody can practically or legally improve it, or compared to a multiplayer game with online servers which the company shuts down and you can't use the game ever again, it is different.
[1] If you think it's impossible for Microsoft to reach into your Linux machine and take your Atom editor away, you'll see why EEE is a moral-panic rather than a real thing which could ever happen.
[2] you know, like Google actually does with HTML/Chrome strong-arming through Google-custom extensions, AMP pages, and the like. You'll see that this still hasn't resulted in other people being unable to make browsers or webservers or web-like protocols (Gemini).
It is just a business strategy, that's all. And it's one that Microsoft employed successfully, and which people who join likely learn of or know of, and some of whom try to emulate to be successful at Microsoft now. And many of us don't like the effect EEE has on our industry, when Microsoft or any other entity does it. And just because Atom may not fit the strategy exactly, doesn't mean the unmistakable parallels which I already mentioned should be ignored. I personally used Atom, but more than that, I liked the world more when there was more than just one Electron based editor competing out there in the world, and we are seeing the fruits of VSCode winning so completely (both good and bad), whether through aggressive corporate strategies or not.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
I'm still using HTML today. It hasn't been extinguished because it still exists. It's like complaining that someone murdered your dog, and I point out that your dog is still alive and you say "I'm confused what that has to do with anything".
Extinguish: "To put an end to or make extinct; destroy: synonym: annihilate."
You can still use Atom, it isn't extinct, destroyed or annihilated, and that's related to it being Open Source because there is no way for anyone to annihilate it when you can have your own copy of the source.
Compare that to the proposed "kill HTML by extending it" where, if webservers only served compiled ActiveX and you could only view that on Windows with IE and IE wouldn't render HTML, no amount of 'having the source' would let you use HTML to make web pages your customers could view. You'd put HTML on your webserver and your customers couldn't view it. You'd look at the IE source code and you couldn't distribute it. HTML would be killed as an interoperable standard, It's a difference in kind.
> "It is just a business strategy, that's all."
> "We factually know that Netscape's downfall was a result of the EEE strategy [0]"
We know that Microsoft made a product good enough that nobody bothered to install Netscape. If that's all EEE means it wouldn't have been an attempt to kill HTML. From your link "Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions." - is anyone seriously saying it was ActiveX which people loved and that's why they dropped Netscape? I don't remember ActiveX playing much of a part in the internet.
The large company I work for still mandates IE11. Why do you think that is? If your corporate strategy gets you 20-30 years of vendor lock-in, then I would say it was a successful strategy.