[jasode]

>But more something like "It is marketed as open source but it is not". Developers should be aware that VSCode is not as open source as it claims it is.

Honest question...

Is SQLite also deceiving people about its "open source credentials" because the Encryption Extension is proprietary and costs $2000?[1]

... because as far as I can tell, most conversations do refer to SQLite as "open source" without always bringing up the encryption extension as a disclaimer in every online discussion. SQLite's creator, Richard Hipp, has a company selling a commercial license for the encryption add-on but it doesn't seem to tarnish the "open source" perception of SQLite.

[1] https://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/see-step1

[als0]

I think it's often easy to unknowingly use or rely on a proprietary extension, such as in Visual Studio or even a particular browser's features. When an extension requires you to get out your credit card then this isn't possible. If it costs $2000 you can assume it's proprietary.

So I think the issue for VScode is more nuanced: proprietary extensions are not clearly marked or separated from the open source feature set.

Another good example to consider is whether people feel deceived by various Linux distributions who bundle one-click or automated install of proprietary blobs.

[easton]

Someone can correct me, but the last time I installed the remote extension pack I’m almost certain that a notification popped up that said “By using this extension, you agree to the license terms...” which is unique to the Microsoft closed source extensions.

[est31]

The main way SQLite is used around the world is as a library component of a larger application. The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA.

Also, lots of people seem to value the proprietary extensions a lot more than people value the encryption extension of SQLite.

[jasode]

>The main way people use VS code is through the proprietarized official build that uses the official EULA

The blog author complained about "Live Share" as one example. As far as I can tell, "Live Share" is not in the builds one downloads from Microsoft's "Visual Studio Code" website: https://code.visualstudio.com/download

The Live Share feature is downloaded from a separate web page: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=MS-vsliv...

This separation seems similar to SQLite Encryption Extension. Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous?

The github page for "Visual Studio Code" prominently displays "Open Source" in its title: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode

I'm willing to be convinced that it's a marketing deception and "open source" should be removed but so far, I haven't seen any precedent from other hybrid open/closed source projects justifying that.

[winkeltripel]

> Can someone explain how the situations are not analogous?

The difference is that typical usage of SQLite is co-located with an application, such that you don't need encryption, and it doesn't market itself as a great database to stand up on a far-away server.

VSCode is marketing these extensions with the core product, as features thereof. They seem to be much closer to critical, core functionality. I think that they are functionally similar situations, except that nobody uses/cares-about that SQLite extension.

Microsoft is also marketing as if VS Code is open source. One claim or the other is fine, but the combination is deceptive. There are many closed-source components which are part of VS Code, if indirectly.

[edoceo]

Hmm. Nobody I know that uses VSCode uses either Remote or LiveShare. They don't seem critical or core to me.

[jaywalk]

I've been using VS Code since day one, and I have zero interest in Remote or LiveShare. I can definitely see how they'd be useful in certain environments, but they just have no use to me.

[codemonkey-zeta]

Not that they are critical or core, but that they are, in the words of the original author, "the best parts of VScode." All the core and critical features of VScode exist in every other editor. LiveShare and Remote are, as far as I and the author can tell, not replicated by any other editor, and are therefore (subjectively) the "best parts". Whether or not you know anyone who uses the features is irrelevant.

[edoceo]

The person I was replying to used the words "critical" and "core".

As to best (admittedly subjective) if they are so good I'd think that one of the 100s of devs I know depend on them.

The only close one was Remote - which other editors do too - When I showed that remote drops code to the far end machine we determined that to be too risky - and went back to sshfs.

Also, if those extension are so "best" why hasn't a replica been created? Or why didn't any other editor have them? It might be those extension are not so compelling.

Also, my previous favorite editor (jEdit) had remote features back in like 2003 - maybe earlier.

[pythonaut_16]

I doubt the author would make the same complaint if Microsoft wrote similar proprietary extensions for Emacs or Vim or Atom.

I also doubt they would make the same complaint if JetBrains or someone else wrote the same proprietary extension for VS Code.

Neither the first case nor the second would make any of those editors any less open source.

[hoistbypetard]

Just going by "feel" without rigorously analyzing why it feels this way, my personal answer to your question is that the sqlite encryption extensions feel very much like LiveShare and not so much like Remote. Remote feels to me like a major part of the product that MS advocates without differentiation. LiveShare feels like a neat add-on that's a nifty alternative to several other similar things.

Similarly, the encryption extension has many alternatives and I've never heard Dr. Hipp advocate using it. This thread is the first I've heard of it, and I've heard of alternatives before. Where I knew coming in about Remote and LiveShare based on promotions from Microsoft.

That's just an explanation of how it "feels" to one reader, not any kind of careful analysis or sweeping statement.