4 ms·

I dont remember a single time when people supposedly said that EEE wasn't still being done. There are just countless examples of people misattributing everythi

I dont remember a single time when people supposedly said that EEE wasn't still being done. There are just countless examples of people misattributing everything to be EEE. Vscode is another recent example of Microsoft still doing EEE by first creating the editor, destroying a lot of the IDE/editor ecosystem, just to eventually remove the important bits into non-free plugins, making the free version of codium basically pointless. But that doesn't make M$ buying GitHub into EEE for example.

whoisthemachine 4y ago
It actually kind of directly links to Microsoft's strategy, because Atom was the original Electron editor, and Atom was created by GitHub, who was purchased by Microsoft, after which Atom was ~extinguised~ deprecated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(text_editor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(text_editor)
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  > "after which Atom was ~extinguised~ deprecated." That isn't what 'extinguished' meant! It was supposed to be that you and Oracle exchanged email by open SMTP, Microsoft wedged some new features into Exchange SMTP which then enough Microsoft customers relied on that Oracle rolled over to MS-SMTP, and then you practically couldn't use plain standard SMTP because everyone you wanted to email was using proprietary Microsoft SMTP. To trivialise that by turning it into "Microsoft stopped developing a thing and I can't be bothered to fork it and develop it myself" is, well, to turn a potentially real issue (from twenty five years ago, which never happened) into empty whining.
  - whoisthemachine 4y ago
    I guess as an end-user, I fail to see the difference. And it wasn't like Microsoft started developing Atom and then stopped it, they bought the company that started developing it, and shut it down in favor of their own product. And blaming it on the end-user because they fail to pick up a massive product like Atom and develop it themselves seems disingenuous at best.
    - jodrellblank 4y ago
      One difference is that you can continue using your old Atom install, and if it had been "extinguished", you couldn't[1]. The other difference is that EEE was largely about interoperable protocols, not what one person could do with one program - it was about TCP/IP and SMTP and HTML and trying to take those over to Microsoft's benefit[2]. > "And blaming it on the end-user because they fail to pick up a massive product like Atom and develop it themselves seems disingenuous at best. Yes, welcome to the elephant in the room of Open Source, 'many eyes makes bugs shallow', and the other pretenses we don't question. But at least the principle stands - you can still get the Atom source code[3] and pay someone as a contractor to change it for you, employ some people to work on it, start up a foundation, beg someone. Compared to a closed source program built on patented algorithms when the company shuts down and nobody can practically or legally improve it, or compared to a multiplayer game with online servers which the company shuts down and you can't use the game ever again, it is different. [1] If you think it's impossible for Microsoft to reach into your Linux machine and take your Atom editor away, you'll see why EEE is a moral-panic rather than a real thing which could ever happen. [2] you know, like Google actually does with HTML/Chrome strong-arming through Google-custom extensions, AMP pages, and the like. You'll see that this still hasn't resulted in other people being unable to make browsers or webservers or web-like protocols (Gemini). [3] https://github.com/atom/atom https://github.com/atom/atom
      - whoisthemachine 4y ago
        Netscape Navigator was also open sourced, so I am confused what a project being open source has to do with Microsoft's business strategy. We factually know that Netscape's downfall was a result of the EEE strategy [0]. Just because Netscape rushed to open source Netscape Navigator when they saw their market sharing falling doesn't mean that Microsoft didn't employ EEE. If Microsoft had bought Netscape once Netscape was losing money hand over fist, it still wouldn't mean that Microsoft hadn't used EEE to help bring Netscape to that point. Just because Microsoft no longer has the majority mindshare of the browser market, should we ignore that event, or say it was ineffective, when it was very effective and very profitable for many years? It is just a business strategy, that's all. And it's one that Microsoft employed successfully, and which people who join likely learn of or know of, and some of whom try to emulate to be successful at Microsoft now. And many of us don't like the effect EEE has on our industry, when Microsoft or any other entity does it. And just because Atom may not fit the strategy exactly, doesn't mean the unmistakable parallels which I already mentioned should be ignored. I personally used Atom, but more than that, I liked the world more when there was more than just one Electron based editor competing out there in the world, and we are seeing the fruits of VSCode winning so completely (both good and bad), whether through aggressive corporate strategies or not. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  Sigh. We all know what Atom is. This isn’t the same thing.
  - whoisthemachine 4y ago
    How is it different?
jodrellblank 4y ago
> "destroying a lot of the IDE/editor ecosystem" How is Microsoft releasing VS Code "destroying the editor ecosystem" but releasing Vim for free isn't and JetBrains charging for their IDEs isn't? This isn't "EEE" this is whining that Microsoft is competing by making software people want and that's unfair, apparently. > "just to eventually remove the important bits into non-free plugins, making the free version of codium basically pointless." Look at what isn't open source: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/wiki/Differences-between-the-repository-and-Visual-Studio-Code https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/wiki/Differences-between... Microsoft logos and trademarks, integration with a marketplace which Microsoft run, a list of extensions Microsoft have reviewed and recommend (not the extensions, just the list), just enough of the Remote Development feature to handle connecting to Microsoft's backend for it, Telemetry, and autoupdate from Microsoft servers. Arguing those are "the important bits" is a stretch. The C#/.NET debugger maybe, but you say that was "eventually removed into non-free plugin" - was it ever free? It doesn't sound like it. Also VS Code was popularised by JavaScript and TypeScript not C#, that's always been the province of Visual Studio full edition.
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  I consider the MS Language Servers pretty much the most important bit of vscodes IDE functionality as it provides autocompletion, lookup, refactoring etc, which is the feature i was specifically thinking of here. They were originally all open source, but aren't anymore. they're still free (as in beer), but their licence only allows usage with the official visual studio code distribution
  - delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
    The thing is that those extensions are Microsoft's, and as problematic as some people consider the situation to be, Microsoft has all the right to limit the licence for these extensions. The inconvenient answer: want another C# extension? Tough luck, write it yourself. This is essentially what LLVM did for C/C++ linting, and produced Clangd, and many people now consider it to be superior to the Microsoft C/C++ linter.
xen2xen1 4y ago
EEE means screwing over a competitor's product. This is not that, this is a significant upgrade to their own product. Calling this EEE means you have an M$ sized axe to grind.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... (Don't mind me, just the formerly confused passing through.)
- ugh123 4y ago
  THANK YOU

whoisthemachine 4y ago

It actually kind of directly links to Microsoft's strategy, because Atom was the original Electron editor, and Atom was created by GitHub, who was purchased by Microsoft, after which Atom was ~extinguised~ deprecated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(text_editor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(text_editor)

jodrellblank 4y ago
> "after which Atom was ~extinguised~ deprecated." That isn't what 'extinguished' meant! It was supposed to be that you and Oracle exchanged email by open SMTP, Microsoft wedged some new features into Exchange SMTP which then enough Microsoft customers relied on that Oracle rolled over to MS-SMTP, and then you practically couldn't use plain standard SMTP because everyone you wanted to email was using proprietary Microsoft SMTP. To trivialise that by turning it into "Microsoft stopped developing a thing and I can't be bothered to fork it and develop it myself" is, well, to turn a potentially real issue (from twenty five years ago, which never happened) into empty whining.
- whoisthemachine 4y ago
  I guess as an end-user, I fail to see the difference. And it wasn't like Microsoft started developing Atom and then stopped it, they bought the company that started developing it, and shut it down in favor of their own product. And blaming it on the end-user because they fail to pick up a massive product like Atom and develop it themselves seems disingenuous at best.
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    One difference is that you can continue using your old Atom install, and if it had been "extinguished", you couldn't[1]. The other difference is that EEE was largely about interoperable protocols, not what one person could do with one program - it was about TCP/IP and SMTP and HTML and trying to take those over to Microsoft's benefit[2]. > "And blaming it on the end-user because they fail to pick up a massive product like Atom and develop it themselves seems disingenuous at best. Yes, welcome to the elephant in the room of Open Source, 'many eyes makes bugs shallow', and the other pretenses we don't question. But at least the principle stands - you can still get the Atom source code[3] and pay someone as a contractor to change it for you, employ some people to work on it, start up a foundation, beg someone. Compared to a closed source program built on patented algorithms when the company shuts down and nobody can practically or legally improve it, or compared to a multiplayer game with online servers which the company shuts down and you can't use the game ever again, it is different. [1] If you think it's impossible for Microsoft to reach into your Linux machine and take your Atom editor away, you'll see why EEE is a moral-panic rather than a real thing which could ever happen. [2] you know, like Google actually does with HTML/Chrome strong-arming through Google-custom extensions, AMP pages, and the like. You'll see that this still hasn't resulted in other people being unable to make browsers or webservers or web-like protocols (Gemini). [3] https://github.com/atom/atom https://github.com/atom/atom
    - whoisthemachine 4y ago
      Netscape Navigator was also open sourced, so I am confused what a project being open source has to do with Microsoft's business strategy. We factually know that Netscape's downfall was a result of the EEE strategy [0]. Just because Netscape rushed to open source Netscape Navigator when they saw their market sharing falling doesn't mean that Microsoft didn't employ EEE. If Microsoft had bought Netscape once Netscape was losing money hand over fist, it still wouldn't mean that Microsoft hadn't used EEE to help bring Netscape to that point. Just because Microsoft no longer has the majority mindshare of the browser market, should we ignore that event, or say it was ineffective, when it was very effective and very profitable for many years? It is just a business strategy, that's all. And it's one that Microsoft employed successfully, and which people who join likely learn of or know of, and some of whom try to emulate to be successful at Microsoft now. And many of us don't like the effect EEE has on our industry, when Microsoft or any other entity does it. And just because Atom may not fit the strategy exactly, doesn't mean the unmistakable parallels which I already mentioned should be ignored. I personally used Atom, but more than that, I liked the world more when there was more than just one Electron based editor competing out there in the world, and we are seeing the fruits of VSCode winning so completely (both good and bad), whether through aggressive corporate strategies or not. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
KyeRussell 4y ago
Sigh. We all know what Atom is. This isn’t the same thing.
- whoisthemachine 4y ago
  How is it different?

jodrellblank 4y ago

> "destroying a lot of the IDE/editor ecosystem" How is Microsoft releasing VS Code "destroying the editor ecosystem" but releasing Vim for free isn't and JetBrains charging for their IDEs isn't? This isn't "EEE" this is whining that Microsoft is competing by making software people want and that's unfair, apparently. > "just to eventually remove the important bits into non-free plugins, making the free version of codium basically pointless." Look at what isn't open source: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/wiki/Differences-between-the-repository-and-Visual-Studio-Code https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/wiki/Differences-between... Microsoft logos and trademarks, integration with a marketplace which Microsoft run, a list of extensions Microsoft have reviewed and recommend (not the extensions, just the list), just enough of the Remote Development feature to handle connecting to Microsoft's backend for it, Telemetry, and autoupdate from Microsoft servers. Arguing those are "the important bits" is a stretch. The C#/.NET debugger maybe, but you say that was "eventually removed into non-free plugin" - was it ever free? It doesn't sound like it. Also VS Code was popularised by JavaScript and TypeScript not C#, that's always been the province of Visual Studio full edition.

411111111111111 4y ago
I consider the MS Language Servers pretty much the most important bit of vscodes IDE functionality as it provides autocompletion, lookup, refactoring etc, which is the feature i was specifically thinking of here. They were originally all open source, but aren't anymore. they're still free (as in beer), but their licence only allows usage with the official visual studio code distribution
- delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
  The thing is that those extensions are Microsoft's, and as problematic as some people consider the situation to be, Microsoft has all the right to limit the licence for these extensions. The inconvenient answer: want another C# extension? Tough luck, write it yourself. This is essentially what LLVM did for C/C++ linting, and produced Clangd, and many people now consider it to be superior to the Microsoft C/C++ linter.

xen2xen1 4y ago

EEE means screwing over a competitor's product. This is not that, this is a significant upgrade to their own product. Calling this EEE means you have an M$ sized axe to grind.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... (Don't mind me, just the formerly confused passing through.)

ugh123 4y ago
THANK YOU