An AI company not respecting copyright and licensing? I’m shocked.
holy shit! the thing I’ve been warning developers who promote and use this shitty tool has finally happened.
shockedpikachu.jpeg
if you write fossy software, don’t use products made by fossy enemies.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
they’re desperate to do it and have their buddies at IBM to help too.
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.
Yeah, they have already done this with other extensions like Python, this is not new behavior.
Honestly the biggest reason to stay away from VS CodeWhat are other free and good ide’s though?
Closest? VScodium lol
Kate, KDevelop, QtCreator are the ones I use.
Stallman was right, episode five billion.
Just violate their rules and enable the microsoft extensions on forks
That’s just it, these extensions themselves refuse to run if the fork doesn’t say it is vs code. You’d have to build it yourself to report compliant information to the extension, or build the extension yourself to not check. Both of which are not trivial.
https://open-vsx.org/extension/llvm-vs-code-extensions/vscode-clangd
Maybe not as feature complete but should be a good alternative
Not sure about the c/c++ support, but zed has greatly improved and it’s looking like a real long term alternative at this point
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.
Does Theia have C/C++ extensions?
They pulled the same thing with their widely used office format: base capabilities are standardised but most useful stuff is proprietary extension.
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?
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.
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.
How dare people choose their own software? Don’t they know theyre supposed to let you choose it for them?
Better tools such as…?
nvim
Neovim plus tmux.
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.
https://ghuntley.com/fracture/ Because pretending your editor is open source while moving all the important functionality to proprietary plugins is a bait and switch.
Embrace.
Extend.
Extinguish. Extract rent now that everyone lives in / depends on your proprietary ecosystem.I’d say they can’t keep getting away with it!, but history shows they clearly can.
Literally monopolist strategy 101.
This was all people were talking about when they bought GitHub. We’ve past the “Extend” stage now.
One that’s worked for Microsoft many times before (docx, for example). Its their favorite loophole.
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.
The problem is that they’re killing competition.
So, they pay to develop a product, for themselves, explicitly says “it’s only for us, shoo shoo”, and when they decide that their product, that they pay for, and provide for free to their user, should not be used by other, it kills the competition that did not do anything except take the product for free despite being told not to?
I’m not on the side of Microsoft for most things. But if doing nothing but taking someone else’s free product qualifies to be competition that should be protected, we’re having problems.
You’re looking at it in isolation, I’m looking at it in terms of this being Microsoft, a company which has held humanity back for most of its existence, now retracting something where they did a decent thing for once.
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 wholeheartedly agree that monopolistic practices should be nuked instantly, but I disagree that this was ever well enforced. Microsoft got away with murder in the 90’s before they went to court and even then, feels like they got a slap on the wrist…
I think that this particular case is very far from that, but it does start to smell the same.
You should study about the trustbusting era of early 1900s. Then in the late 70s a new law reinforced antitrust legislation.
The issue is that the pendulum swings fast away from trustbusting and slowly back to it. Trustbusting creates economic development and prosperity, reducing public outcry for it, and capitalists yank the levers of government again towards monopoly building.
You mention the nineties, by even then Netscape successfully challenged Microsoft. But it was too little too late. The pendulum was already swinging back to monopoly, and it’s reaching it’s maximum in our days.
It’s also blocked in VSCodium whose developers are not making money off it.
So that’s not a nice thing.
At least VSCodium cares about software licenses, (see it works both ways)
That Cursor (an AI focused) fork doesn’t shouldn’t be very shocking.
Plus you can always just use clangd. Its what I’ve always used with every text editor that has LSP support.
Honestly moving to clangd has got to be the single best thing I’ve done in C++, it’s cross platform and I’ve found it to be significantly faster, more reliable, and more featureful than Microsoft’s C++ plugin by a long shot
I havent used vscode in while but I do remember having a lot of issues with the Microsoft C++ plugin, especially in large projects. I switched to clangd very quickly.
Clang is a better C++ compiler than msvc, it generates faster binaries and can compile complex code that msvc errs on at least in my experience YMMV.
I wish there was a GCC equivalent; but even if clang is a corpowhore project it’s atleast OSS
Another reason to hate LLMs on the list.
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.
