|
|
|
|
|
by correct_horse
2275 days ago
|
|
The closed-source nature of VSCode is a little more practically important than you make it out to be. It prevents Linux distros from including VSCode in their package managers (except non-free categories, usually disabled by default). And makes it impossible to patch VSCode, only "Code - OSS". Also, for normal users, the brand/icon is everything. If they go to their computer and "the chrome icon is blue", they will want the old icon back, if only because it's the one they know and trust. You are distorting facts by calling VSCode open source. This [1] is the license for VSCode. It lets you "use any number of copies of the software to develop and test your applications, including deployment within your internal corporate network". The license implicitly (by omission) does not let you distribute binaries to your friends and colleges outside of your "corporate network". This is the defining characteristic of freeware. I am not a lawyer, that was not legal advice. Your argument is akin to calling google chrome open-source. Yes, it is based on the open source chromium, but Chrome is decidedly not open-source. On a more practical note, the fact that Microsoft does not distribute an open source build of VSCode is pretty annoying. [1] - https://code.visualstudio.com/License/ |
|
Disagree with chrome comparison. Chrome adds tons of feature packages which are blobs or heavily proprietary stuff. VS Code does nothing of that. They add config settings and icons.
In regards of the open source built: Microsoft does that with .NET and it seems a pain. I mean, what is an open source build? A package different for 20 distributions with each 5 versions. Or a build script (which I hope they have :))