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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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/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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

No.

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

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.

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.

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.

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