5 ms·

No it's perfectly reasonable. That open source software forms some part of a commons is not really a thing in practice. Open source software is ran by maintaine

by tinco 4y ago

No it's perfectly reasonable. That open source software forms some part of a commons is not really a thing in practice. Open source software is ran by maintainers, those maintainers own the projects, and they do with the software what they deem fit. And even if it were, VSCode is basically a rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase, they're the same sort of project serving the same sort of market, and the community is much better off with only one of them. Instead of letting it slowly bleed out and randomly catching stragglers with outdated marketing materials lingering on the web, they give it a swift death. Atom can go into the history books as an open source project that defined the industry for a decade.

blackoil 4y ago
> VSCode is basically a rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase It isn't true anymore then saying Slack is rewrite of Atom. While it is using electron, editor and IDE aren't from Atom.
- tinco 4y ago
  Slack does not aim to build a superset of features of Atom.
  - sk0g 4y ago
    IntelliJ idea also includes most or all features Atom does, but that does not validate this statement: > VSCode is basically a rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase They both use Electron as their framework, but that's about where the code similarities end.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Also, the core editor experience of VS Code, the Monaco editor, predated Atom by several years. It was used from the very early days of the Azure Portal and also in IE's Developer Tools. It didn't become "VS Code" until sometime after Electron stabilized out from under Atom, but parts of it have existed for longer than Atom.
- rattray 4y ago
  Electron could probably be described as "a big chunk" of Atom's codebase. The rest of VS Code has a lot of similar functionality to Atom, so calling it "a rewrite" doesn't feel that far off (except insofar as it was redesigned as well, but that's sort of semantics)
IncRnd 4y ago
> And even if it were, VSCode is basically a rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase Atom and VSCode projects have always been separate projects. Both using Electron does not mean they share a codebase, not in the normal sense of the phrase.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  from the article "This is a tough goodbye. It’s worth reflecting that Atom has served as the foundation for the Electron framework, which paved the way for the creation of thousands of apps, including Microsoft Visual Studio Code, Slack, and our very own GitHub Desktop."
  - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
    Yes. As the comment you’re replying to said, “Both using Electron does not mean they share a codebase, not in the normal sense of the phrase.” Code is no more a “rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase” than Slack is.
    - fsckboy 4y ago
      “both using Electron" refers to a period of time that occurs after "Atom has served as the foundation for the Electron" and my quote states that Atom -> Electron -> Spark I'm not an expert on this at all, I'm just quoting, but Spark is being used rhetorically as if it's an outlandish to consider it to be a descendent
- tentacleuno 4y ago
  If I remember correctly, Electron was made for Atom (by GitHub).
  - thrdbndndn 4y ago
    Yep https://www.electronjs.org/blog/electron https://www.electronjs.org/blog/electron
mixmastamyk 4y ago
I’ve never seen anyone actually using atom, so would hardly say it defined anything much less than the whole industry.
wildmanx 4y ago
> That open source software forms some part of a commons is not really a thing in practice. Open source software is ran by maintainers, those maintainers own the projects, and they do with the software what they deem fit. One should make a difference between (1) access to the source code to look, find bugs, make minor adjustments and (2) everybody with that access to be able to actively participate in the development. In the sense of (1), open source is "some part of a commons". That's what the license gives you. In the sense of (2), open source may or not be open to a community approach. It's fully legitimate for some company or other group of maintainers to provide (1) but deny anything related to (2). You are free to fork and make your own community, but there is nothing that guarantees you that your pull requests are accepted or even looked at, bug reports reacted to or anybody listening to wishes, concerns or other opinions about the project. It's nice if that's provided, and one could argue that some part of the spirit of open source is to enable a community, which in turn helps the original creators (and could be a major motivation to open source something), but nobody should be upset if maintainers choose otherwise. It's nice if it's clearly communicated how maintainers see this though.

by tinco 4y ago

blackoil 4y ago

> VSCode is basically a rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase It isn't true anymore then saying Slack is rewrite of Atom. While it is using electron, editor and IDE aren't from Atom.

tinco 4y ago
Slack does not aim to build a superset of features of Atom.
- sk0g 4y ago
  IntelliJ idea also includes most or all features Atom does, but that does not validate this statement: > VSCode is basically a rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase They both use Electron as their framework, but that's about where the code similarities end.
WorldMaker 4y ago
Also, the core editor experience of VS Code, the Monaco editor, predated Atom by several years. It was used from the very early days of the Azure Portal and also in IE's Developer Tools. It didn't become "VS Code" until sometime after Electron stabilized out from under Atom, but parts of it have existed for longer than Atom.
rattray 4y ago
Electron could probably be described as "a big chunk" of Atom's codebase. The rest of VS Code has a lot of similar functionality to Atom, so calling it "a rewrite" doesn't feel that far off (except insofar as it was redesigned as well, but that's sort of semantics)

IncRnd 4y ago

> And even if it were, VSCode is basically a rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase Atom and VSCode projects have always been separate projects. Both using Electron does not mean they share a codebase, not in the normal sense of the phrase.

fsckboy 4y ago
from the article "This is a tough goodbye. It’s worth reflecting that Atom has served as the foundation for the Electron framework, which paved the way for the creation of thousands of apps, including Microsoft Visual Studio Code, Slack, and our very own GitHub Desktop."
- chipotle_coyote 4y ago
  Yes. As the comment you’re replying to said, “Both using Electron does not mean they share a codebase, not in the normal sense of the phrase.” Code is no more a “rewrite of Atom that reuses a big chunk of the original codebase” than Slack is.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    “both using Electron" refers to a period of time that occurs after "Atom has served as the foundation for the Electron" and my quote states that Atom -> Electron -> Spark I'm not an expert on this at all, I'm just quoting, but Spark is being used rhetorically as if it's an outlandish to consider it to be a descendent
tentacleuno 4y ago
If I remember correctly, Electron was made for Atom (by GitHub).
- thrdbndndn 4y ago
  Yep https://www.electronjs.org/blog/electron https://www.electronjs.org/blog/electron

mixmastamyk 4y ago

I’ve never seen anyone actually using atom, so would hardly say it defined anything much less than the whole industry.

wildmanx 4y ago

> That open source software forms some part of a commons is not really a thing in practice. Open source software is ran by maintainers, those maintainers own the projects, and they do with the software what they deem fit. One should make a difference between (1) access to the source code to look, find bugs, make minor adjustments and (2) everybody with that access to be able to actively participate in the development. In the sense of (1), open source is "some part of a commons". That's what the license gives you. In the sense of (2), open source may or not be open to a community approach. It's fully legitimate for some company or other group of maintainers to provide (1) but deny anything related to (2). You are free to fork and make your own community, but there is nothing that guarantees you that your pull requests are accepted or even looked at, bug reports reacted to or anybody listening to wishes, concerns or other opinions about the project. It's nice if that's provided, and one could argue that some part of the spirit of open source is to enable a community, which in turn helps the original creators (and could be a major motivation to open source something), but nobody should be upset if maintainers choose otherwise. It's nice if it's clearly communicated how maintainers see this though.