5 ms·

There is a section in the docs regarding switching back to the official extension marketplace: https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium/blob/master/DOCS.md#how-to-u

by Liquix 3y ago

There is a section in the docs regarding switching back to the official extension marketplace: https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium/blob/master/DOCS.md#how-to-use-a-different-extension-gallery https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium/blob/master/DOCS.md#how... So if there is a "killer extension" not available on codium's marketplace, you can still use it through microsoft's marketplace.

circuit10 3y ago
You can also download the vsix file from the website and load it in
foob 3y ago
You can switch the extension marketplace, but Microsoft uses DRM in their extensions to prevent them from running with non-proprietary builds [1]. Pylance, their Python LSP, is one notable example [2]. Their earlier Python LSP was open source, but the community forks have lost a lot of the wind in their sails because such a large portion of developers use VC Code without realizing or caring that the LSP is DRM-laden and closed source. I believe the traditional term for this is embrace, extend, extinguish. [1] - https://parsiya.net/blog/2021-12-20-rce-in-visual-studio-codes-remote-wsl-for-fun-and-negative-profit/#your-editor-has-drm https://parsiya.net/blog/2021-12-20-rce-in-visual-studio-cod... [2] - https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/746 https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/746
- cypress66 3y ago
  Wow, vscode extensions having drm is insane
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    This alone, to me, means that MS is up to something shady. Maybe not right now, maybe not tomorrow, but it's surely on their roadmap. I don't see why they'd put out an open-source app, whose most useful extensions only work if you accept a closed binary known to phone home. I can see them trying to win goodwill from devs and steer them to their Azure/Windows offerings by releasing such an editor. But why insist on this telemetry-laden distribution, which is still free-as-in-beer?
    - foob 3y ago
      This is separate from the telemetry, but I suspect that part of the roadmap is for LSP extensions to become monthly subscription services eventually. We currently see hints of that from two directions: 1) the introduction of GitHub Copilot as a paid service, and 2) the aforementioned move towards proprietary and DRM protected LSPs. It's not hard to imagine how these two might converge in the future. I'm sure that the performance of these LSPs will be extremely impressive and that it will be rational for many individual developers to pay for them. This will in turn pull mind share and community involvement away from FOSS solutions, and the gap between the two will widen over time as a result.
      - vladvasiliu 3y ago
        Oh, I'm not at all against companies making a buck selling software. I'm a happy JetBrains customer for my IDE needs, and I'm not even a "professional" developer. But why would they force the use of their "official" VS Code build for this? Couldn't they just charge for their "impressive" plugins, regardless of the edition of VS Code used? The JetBrains "community" IDEs (open source and gratis) can use paid plugins from their marketplace.
        foob 3y ago
        I'm not against selling developer tools either, but I do have a problem with EEE as a strategy. As far as I know, JetBrains has never engaged with this behavior and they have coexisted in a healthy way with fully open source alternatives. The point of Microsoft's strategy isn't to only produce a better product, but to actively hurt open alternatives by driving down their adoption through insidious and disingenuous means. They're not just trying to compete in the market, they're trying to monopolize it. The idea behind LSP and Microsoft's initial open source work on LSP were both excellent. That launched seven years ago, and I don't think that we would have seen the near universal adoption of LSP among open source editors nor the dominance of VS Code among developers if they had been paid products from the start. Now that they have a large enough market share, they can make the LSP engines proprietary without most developers even noticing. The gap between the proprietary and open source solutions can now be widened both by the open source community shrinking and by Microsoft pumping money into improving their LSP engines. The more that gap widens, the more people migrate to VS Code from open alternatives. That becomes a self-reinforcing loop. Once VS Code is significantly better than open source alternatives and they have a huge market share, Microsoft is in a very strong position to start collecting rent. Switching costs on an editor are nontrivial to begin with, and are enhanced by the induced atrophy of open source alternatives. Despite the fact that this strategy takes more than a decade to execute, I would guess that it ends better for Microsoft overall than if they were to start charging for VS Code back in 2016.
  - croes 3y ago
    It's just MS as we know it. They didn't really change, they got just better in PR.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Seems like every generation has to learn the hard way.
    - NewJazz 3y ago
      Developers! Developers!! DEVELOPERS!!! DEVELOPERS!!!!
      - juniperplant 3y ago
        https://youtu.be/XxbJw8PrIkc?si=1FUhvPxAu4kKdwvX https://youtu.be/XxbJw8PrIkc?si=1FUhvPxAu4kKdwvX
        NewJazz 3y ago
        I didn't link to it because you can't unsee Ballmer and unhear his voice cracks.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      I know that unfree software is bad, but really a lot of good is being done in the process here. VS Code is making programming significantly better and more accessible to a large audience, including relatively advanced features like remote and containerized development. It also gave us the Language Server Protocol, which would be nowhere near as successful as it is today without Microsoft building it into VS Code and open sourcing the language servers.
- toastercat 3y ago
  > Microsoft uses DRM in their extensions to prevent them from running with non-proprietary builds I did not know this and this is enough for me to steer clear of extensions by Microsoft (and potentially VSCode).

by Liquix 3y ago

circuit10 3y ago

You can also download the vsix file from the website and load it in

foob 3y ago

You can switch the extension marketplace, but Microsoft uses DRM in their extensions to prevent them from running with non-proprietary builds [1]. Pylance, their Python LSP, is one notable example [2]. Their earlier Python LSP was open source, but the community forks have lost a lot of the wind in their sails because such a large portion of developers use VC Code without realizing or caring that the LSP is DRM-laden and closed source. I believe the traditional term for this is embrace, extend, extinguish. [1] - https://parsiya.net/blog/2021-12-20-rce-in-visual-studio-codes-remote-wsl-for-fun-and-negative-profit/#your-editor-has-drm https://parsiya.net/blog/2021-12-20-rce-in-visual-studio-cod... [2] - https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/746 https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release/issues/746

cypress66 3y ago
Wow, vscode extensions having drm is insane
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  This alone, to me, means that MS is up to something shady. Maybe not right now, maybe not tomorrow, but it's surely on their roadmap. I don't see why they'd put out an open-source app, whose most useful extensions only work if you accept a closed binary known to phone home. I can see them trying to win goodwill from devs and steer them to their Azure/Windows offerings by releasing such an editor. But why insist on this telemetry-laden distribution, which is still free-as-in-beer?
  - foob 3y ago
    This is separate from the telemetry, but I suspect that part of the roadmap is for LSP extensions to become monthly subscription services eventually. We currently see hints of that from two directions: 1) the introduction of GitHub Copilot as a paid service, and 2) the aforementioned move towards proprietary and DRM protected LSPs. It's not hard to imagine how these two might converge in the future. I'm sure that the performance of these LSPs will be extremely impressive and that it will be rational for many individual developers to pay for them. This will in turn pull mind share and community involvement away from FOSS solutions, and the gap between the two will widen over time as a result.
    - vladvasiliu 3y ago
      Oh, I'm not at all against companies making a buck selling software. I'm a happy JetBrains customer for my IDE needs, and I'm not even a "professional" developer. But why would they force the use of their "official" VS Code build for this? Couldn't they just charge for their "impressive" plugins, regardless of the edition of VS Code used? The JetBrains "community" IDEs (open source and gratis) can use paid plugins from their marketplace.
      - foob 3y ago
        I'm not against selling developer tools either, but I do have a problem with EEE as a strategy. As far as I know, JetBrains has never engaged with this behavior and they have coexisted in a healthy way with fully open source alternatives. The point of Microsoft's strategy isn't to only produce a better product, but to actively hurt open alternatives by driving down their adoption through insidious and disingenuous means. They're not just trying to compete in the market, they're trying to monopolize it. The idea behind LSP and Microsoft's initial open source work on LSP were both excellent. That launched seven years ago, and I don't think that we would have seen the near universal adoption of LSP among open source editors nor the dominance of VS Code among developers if they had been paid products from the start. Now that they have a large enough market share, they can make the LSP engines proprietary without most developers even noticing. The gap between the proprietary and open source solutions can now be widened both by the open source community shrinking and by Microsoft pumping money into improving their LSP engines. The more that gap widens, the more people migrate to VS Code from open alternatives. That becomes a self-reinforcing loop. Once VS Code is significantly better than open source alternatives and they have a huge market share, Microsoft is in a very strong position to start collecting rent. Switching costs on an editor are nontrivial to begin with, and are enhanced by the induced atrophy of open source alternatives. Despite the fact that this strategy takes more than a decade to execute, I would guess that it ends better for Microsoft overall than if they were to start charging for VS Code back in 2016.
- croes 3y ago
  It's just MS as we know it. They didn't really change, they got just better in PR.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Seems like every generation has to learn the hard way.
  - NewJazz 3y ago
    Developers! Developers!! DEVELOPERS!!! DEVELOPERS!!!!
    - juniperplant 3y ago
      https://youtu.be/XxbJw8PrIkc?si=1FUhvPxAu4kKdwvX https://youtu.be/XxbJw8PrIkc?si=1FUhvPxAu4kKdwvX
      - NewJazz 3y ago
        I didn't link to it because you can't unsee Ballmer and unhear his voice cracks.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    I know that unfree software is bad, but really a lot of good is being done in the process here. VS Code is making programming significantly better and more accessible to a large audience, including relatively advanced features like remote and containerized development. It also gave us the Language Server Protocol, which would be nowhere near as successful as it is today without Microsoft building it into VS Code and open sourcing the language servers.
toastercat 3y ago
> Microsoft uses DRM in their extensions to prevent them from running with non-proprietary builds I did not know this and this is enough for me to steer clear of extensions by Microsoft (and potentially VSCode).