
VSCode: The Biggest Threat to Innovation of Our Time [video] - xingyzt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjY5qND8c7U
======
aazaa
This is a surprisingly well-produced video given the likely audience. That
said, a similar line of reasoning was also applied to Microsoft in the 1990s
and Internet Explorer, which was distributed for free.

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.

~~~
Gibbon1
One of the things I argued back when the Mono Project first showed up and
everyone and his dog was pissing on it because C# -> Microsoft -> the devil.
Is historically Microsoft behavior towards developers using it's tools has
been benign. I think that dates back to when Bill Gates realized in the mid
70's that trying to sell tools was a bad business model.

I worry a lot less about Microsoft and tooling like VSCode than I would about
anything developed by FAANG or god forbid Oracle.

~~~
rumanator
> One of the things I argued back when the Mono Project first showed up and
> everyone and his dog was pissing on it because C# -> Microsoft -> the devil.

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.

~~~
Gibbon1
Mono was a non Microsoft implementation when it first came out. People said
that if you used Mono Microsoft would come after you. And nothing happened.
Eventually they bought it to keep it alive. I think that the last ten years
validates my claim.

It's really sad that few developers used it, just like the Linux desktop is
sad.

~~~
rumanator
> Mono was a non Microsoft implementation when it first came out.

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/dont-
depend-on-mono)

[https://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-
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.

~~~
Gibbon1
> It wasn't but that's besides the point.

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.

------
supertomcom
Well-produced. Don't really agree with the points the author is making, but
see where they're coming from. Charging a fee won't solve the problem, though,
they had the most expensive operating system in the world, but I won't get
into the details on that, as I think it's the wrong approach.

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.

~~~
rumanator
> 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.

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.

~~~
supertomcom
No.

I'm advocating that Apache Foundation (or similar) oversee the direction of
the project to ensure that equality is maintained

~~~
rumanator
Yes, you really are. The Apache Foundation is already free to do what it
wishes to do with vscore, isn't it? I mean, the vscodium guys already do it,
right? Whay stops you or anyone in the Apache Foundation from doing the same?
What input do you actually need from Microsoft to achieve your goals?

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.

~~~
supertomcom
Just to be clear, I'm not the OP (meaning, video producer). I really don't
think it matters that MSFT controls it, I use VSCode, and I like 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.

------
BearOso
I like vscode. C or C++ coding with it is better than most editors I’ve tried
(thanks to clangd), and it doesn’t force you into a complete IDE-based
toolchain.

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.

------
ta17711771
OT, sorry. Just desperate: Has anyone figured out how to build .msi from VS
Code/vscodium, etc?

