15 ms·

> Microsoft has a long history of dishonest behavior Can you point out such recent behavior that isn't just echoing other peoples opinions from the anti-trust

> Microsoft has a long history of dishonest behavior Can you point out such recent behavior that isn't just echoing other peoples opinions from the anti-trust case from over two decades ago? It's been my experience that many people seem to "borrow" their opinion about Microsoft from things they've read rather than personal experience so we keep getting the same low-effort criticism ad nauseam.

infamia 1y ago
VSCode's marketing was that it is an open source editor you could rely upon, complete with open source extensions for popular languages like Python. Then when once it became popular and vscodium was growing in popularity (a vscode fork), MS locked things down. Now the Python extensions are closed source, and MS has artificially prevented vscode forks from using those extensions. A bait and switch if I've ever seen one.
- tomnipotent 1y ago
  > VSCode's marketing Point to this marketing. Here's the blog announcement on the 1.0 releases - what I can't find are any examples of Microsoft over-promising. https://web.archive.org/web/20160422123116/https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2016/04/14/vscode-1.0 https://web.archive.org/web/20160422123116/https://code.visu... > MS locked things down... and MS has artificially prevented vscode forks from using those extensions Or like any growing and maturing project they established boundaries - one of which was that the plugin marketplace was proprietary, which is a perfectly reasonable position. Their existing and continued contributions to vscode are significant, so I think they can be allowed to keep some cards up their sleeves like the plugin marketplace or their Python extension. I'm just flabbergasted at this idea that somehow we're entitled to everything vscode-adjacent "just because", or that Microsoft is obligated to subsidize other billion-dollar business by giving them free features for their vscode forks. > A bait and switch if I've ever seen one. Where's the bait? Where's the switch? If the best you have is that they released a closed source plugin I'm going to bucket this as another borrowed opinion.
  - infamia 1y ago
    > Their existing and continued contributions to vscode are significant, so I think they can be allowed to keep some cards up their sleeves like the plugin marketplace or their Python extension. It would have been fine if MS had started with their Python extension being proprietary, that would have been up front and transparent. Instead, they lured folks in (no small part due to open source), and once it became popular, they started turning the screws and making things proprietary and locking it down. > I'm just flabbergasted at this idea that somehow we're entitled to everything vscode-adjacent "just because" You're not arguing in good faith at this point. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to make their intentions known up front do you? Instead MS waited until vscode became popular (partly because everything was open source) and then altering the deal Vader style closing off parts of vscode and extensions that were open. That doesn't feel particularly transparent. > or that Microsoft is obligated to subsidize other billion-dollar business by giving them free features for their vscode forks. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Vscodium is an entirely free and open source fork, no one makes any money from it afaik. > Where's the bait? Where's the switch? If the best you have is that they released a closed source plugin I'm going to bucket this as another borrowed opinion. They released the Python stack as fully open source. Then released the proprietary one, deprecating the open source one. Then made double certain that vscodium or any of the other forks could not use it at all, even if the use manually downloaded the extension. How is that not a bait and switch?
    - tomnipotent 1y ago
      > It would have been fine if MS had started with their Python extension being proprietary Except that never happened. Pyright was released first and was and continues to be open source. Pylance was built on Pyright but has never been open source. No promises or commitments were made otherwise. Deprecating the open source Python Language Server in favor of Pylance is also a perfectly reasonable and valid decision - the community was more than welcome to continue maintaining it, but most people I know continue to rely on Pylance. > Instead, they lured folks in Saying this doesn't make it true. > Instead, they lured folks in (no small part due to open source), and once it became popular, they started turning the screws and making things proprietary and locking it down. Microsoft has not once backtracked on anything vscode-related that's been open sourced. Trying to villianize them for not making everything open source is an argument with no legs. > I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to make their intentions known up front do you? They have. Point me to a single actual example of Microsoft operating in bad faith, that isn't them deciding to keep some parts of the ecosystem proprietary while 99% remains FOSS. > Vscodium is an entirely free and open source fork Microsoft and the vscode team is not making long-term decisions with vscodium in mind. But they are probably worried about Windsurf and Cursor, the latter of which (a billion-dollar company) was caught violating MS's TOS around the plugin ecosystem. Microsoft has spent over a decade investing in, curating, and improving the vscode first-party plugin ecosystem and being a rather good steward. I think they're perfectly reasonable in keeping it to themselves. Creators are free to upload their plugins to any alternative marketplace. I don't see any arguments being made that can diminish the open source contribution they've made with code - oss just because parts of the branded vscode are proprietary. > They released the Python stack as fully open source. Again, no they didn't. Pyright open source. Pylance always closed source. PLS deprecated. But you're entitled to what you borrowed.
ahartmetz 1y ago
If eight years is recent enough, Microsoft moved its German office to Munich and got the city of Munich to shut down its Linux migration in return. Not exactly dishonest, but a power move to destroy the competition that I happen to be rooting for. Personal experience is irrelevant if the facts are not in doubt. One of these is that Microsoft was a pretty bad actor when nobody reigned them in, and I was around at the time.
- tomnipotent 1y ago
  How can this be described as anything other than business? Local governments making concessions to businesses generating jobs and SALT is par for the course and Microsoft isn't special here. > One of these is that Microsoft was a pretty bad actor when nobody reigned them in, and I was around at the time. So was I (was working in Redmond at the time), and their behavior was no worse than what Apple or Google are up to today. The anti-trust case itself was 90% theater, Microsoft was let off with a slap on the wrist but somehow popular culture has decided it was much more devastating than it really was because it reinforces their "M$ bad" bias. It's hard for me not to chalk comments like this to the "borrowed" bucket rather than researched and well-informed opinion, and it just convinces me further than when it comes to Microsoft people are borrowing their opinions rather than earning them. Yes, Microsoft made some dick moves over 25 years ago and paid for it. They continue to operate like every other business in 2025 despite being the largest company in the world by market cap. At some point folks can't keep pulling up this card like it's a wildcard-win-all.
  - ahartmetz 1y ago
    It's a huge public company, it doesn't deserve sympathy. I don't trust them, for which I have reasons past and current, and I don't need to, there is no moral obligation. Won't anybody think of the poor highest valued company in the world?
    - tomnipotent 1y ago
      It's not about "thinking of the poor company". It's about lazy low-effort, low-quality comments from people that are sharing their "opinions" that are really just regurgitated interpretations from other low-quality comments. Turtles all the way down.

infamia 1y ago

VSCode's marketing was that it is an open source editor you could rely upon, complete with open source extensions for popular languages like Python. Then when once it became popular and vscodium was growing in popularity (a vscode fork), MS locked things down. Now the Python extensions are closed source, and MS has artificially prevented vscode forks from using those extensions. A bait and switch if I've ever seen one.

tomnipotent 1y ago
> VSCode's marketing Point to this marketing. Here's the blog announcement on the 1.0 releases - what I can't find are any examples of Microsoft over-promising. https://web.archive.org/web/20160422123116/https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2016/04/14/vscode-1.0 https://web.archive.org/web/20160422123116/https://code.visu... > MS locked things down... and MS has artificially prevented vscode forks from using those extensions Or like any growing and maturing project they established boundaries - one of which was that the plugin marketplace was proprietary, which is a perfectly reasonable position. Their existing and continued contributions to vscode are significant, so I think they can be allowed to keep some cards up their sleeves like the plugin marketplace or their Python extension. I'm just flabbergasted at this idea that somehow we're entitled to everything vscode-adjacent "just because", or that Microsoft is obligated to subsidize other billion-dollar business by giving them free features for their vscode forks. > A bait and switch if I've ever seen one. Where's the bait? Where's the switch? If the best you have is that they released a closed source plugin I'm going to bucket this as another borrowed opinion.
- infamia 1y ago
  > Their existing and continued contributions to vscode are significant, so I think they can be allowed to keep some cards up their sleeves like the plugin marketplace or their Python extension. It would have been fine if MS had started with their Python extension being proprietary, that would have been up front and transparent. Instead, they lured folks in (no small part due to open source), and once it became popular, they started turning the screws and making things proprietary and locking it down. > I'm just flabbergasted at this idea that somehow we're entitled to everything vscode-adjacent "just because" You're not arguing in good faith at this point. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to make their intentions known up front do you? Instead MS waited until vscode became popular (partly because everything was open source) and then altering the deal Vader style closing off parts of vscode and extensions that were open. That doesn't feel particularly transparent. > or that Microsoft is obligated to subsidize other billion-dollar business by giving them free features for their vscode forks. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Vscodium is an entirely free and open source fork, no one makes any money from it afaik. > Where's the bait? Where's the switch? If the best you have is that they released a closed source plugin I'm going to bucket this as another borrowed opinion. They released the Python stack as fully open source. Then released the proprietary one, deprecating the open source one. Then made double certain that vscodium or any of the other forks could not use it at all, even if the use manually downloaded the extension. How is that not a bait and switch?
  - tomnipotent 1y ago
    > It would have been fine if MS had started with their Python extension being proprietary Except that never happened. Pyright was released first and was and continues to be open source. Pylance was built on Pyright but has never been open source. No promises or commitments were made otherwise. Deprecating the open source Python Language Server in favor of Pylance is also a perfectly reasonable and valid decision - the community was more than welcome to continue maintaining it, but most people I know continue to rely on Pylance. > Instead, they lured folks in Saying this doesn't make it true. > Instead, they lured folks in (no small part due to open source), and once it became popular, they started turning the screws and making things proprietary and locking it down. Microsoft has not once backtracked on anything vscode-related that's been open sourced. Trying to villianize them for not making everything open source is an argument with no legs. > I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to make their intentions known up front do you? They have. Point me to a single actual example of Microsoft operating in bad faith, that isn't them deciding to keep some parts of the ecosystem proprietary while 99% remains FOSS. > Vscodium is an entirely free and open source fork Microsoft and the vscode team is not making long-term decisions with vscodium in mind. But they are probably worried about Windsurf and Cursor, the latter of which (a billion-dollar company) was caught violating MS's TOS around the plugin ecosystem. Microsoft has spent over a decade investing in, curating, and improving the vscode first-party plugin ecosystem and being a rather good steward. I think they're perfectly reasonable in keeping it to themselves. Creators are free to upload their plugins to any alternative marketplace. I don't see any arguments being made that can diminish the open source contribution they've made with code - oss just because parts of the branded vscode are proprietary. > They released the Python stack as fully open source. Again, no they didn't. Pyright open source. Pylance always closed source. PLS deprecated. But you're entitled to what you borrowed.

ahartmetz 1y ago

If eight years is recent enough, Microsoft moved its German office to Munich and got the city of Munich to shut down its Linux migration in return. Not exactly dishonest, but a power move to destroy the competition that I happen to be rooting for. Personal experience is irrelevant if the facts are not in doubt. One of these is that Microsoft was a pretty bad actor when nobody reigned them in, and I was around at the time.

tomnipotent 1y ago
How can this be described as anything other than business? Local governments making concessions to businesses generating jobs and SALT is par for the course and Microsoft isn't special here. > One of these is that Microsoft was a pretty bad actor when nobody reigned them in, and I was around at the time. So was I (was working in Redmond at the time), and their behavior was no worse than what Apple or Google are up to today. The anti-trust case itself was 90% theater, Microsoft was let off with a slap on the wrist but somehow popular culture has decided it was much more devastating than it really was because it reinforces their "M$ bad" bias. It's hard for me not to chalk comments like this to the "borrowed" bucket rather than researched and well-informed opinion, and it just convinces me further than when it comes to Microsoft people are borrowing their opinions rather than earning them. Yes, Microsoft made some dick moves over 25 years ago and paid for it. They continue to operate like every other business in 2025 despite being the largest company in the world by market cap. At some point folks can't keep pulling up this card like it's a wildcard-win-all.
- ahartmetz 1y ago
  It's a huge public company, it doesn't deserve sympathy. I don't trust them, for which I have reasons past and current, and I don't need to, there is no moral obligation. Won't anybody think of the poor highest valued company in the world?
  - tomnipotent 1y ago
    It's not about "thinking of the poor company". It's about lazy low-effort, low-quality comments from people that are sharing their "opinions" that are really just regurgitated interpretations from other low-quality comments. Turtles all the way down.