I wasn't aware that VS Code was "proprietary malware"? All the code for that is right on GitHub.[0] If you don't trust the prebuilt ones, you're free to build it from the source yourself.

Want something else? Their GitHub repo list has almost 4000 repositories totaling 130 pages![1]

Just because the OS itself isn't open source[a] doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't open source a whole crap ton of stuff. And sure, Window's telemetry can easily be construed as "malware", but Windows is not the entirety of Microsoft.

[a]: And that's a lie too (sortove). It is open source.[2] (ahem source available (sorry, FSF)) You just need a valid reason to look at it besides "I want to". Sidenote: I personally would hope that Windows gets open sourced, but I'm not holding my breath.

[0]: https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode

[1]: https://github.com/microsoft

[2]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/

P.S. Can we not use the "M$" moniker? It's almost childish. Just like "Crapple", "Microshit", etc, It serves no purpose.

Of course VSCode is proprietary malware - unless, as you suggest, you build it yourself and get rid of that proprietary telemetry malware (https://github.com/VSCodium/vscodium)

But please don't suggest that we should praise Microsoft because they're decent enough to almost give us a somewhat convenient-if-you're-a-dev way to avoid being tracked?

Calling things “proprietary telemetry malware” is why nobody takes this seriously.

One clarification, VS Code does have closed-source components, like the python extension and remoting.

Source available means available to all. It's just proprietary if they can decide you can't see it.

> I wasn't aware that VS Code was "proprietary malware"?

I'm sorry to see you are discovering this. VS Code is under this proprietary license [1]. As for the malware part:

> Data Collection. The software may collect information about you and your use of the software, and send that to Microsoft. Microsoft may use this information to provide services and improve our products and services. You may opt-out of many of these scenarios, but not all, as described in the product documentation located at https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/supporting/faq#_how-to-di.... There may also be some features in the software that may enable you and Microsoft to collect data from users of your applications.

(emphasis mine).

Indeed you can rebuild your copy or get Codium without the telemetry under the MIT license, and the software is really good, but it is a crippled version and does not make VS Code free software.

(edit: it's not pure / pointless theory! I'm sure there is an agenda behind VS Code not being really free. I would not be surprised if more and more "convenient" or important features were released as proprietary, and they also control the extension center (the market place), which is one of the main reasons Theia [5] exists. Beware not to lock yourself down in this ecosystem too much.)

> Just because the OS itself isn't open source[a] doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't open source a whole crap ton of stuff

Microsoft is huge. The ratio between their proprietary code and the code that they open source is probably tiny. More importantly, they only release developer-related things, never things that target end users, except their telemetry-riddled Calculator [3].

> It is open source.[2] (ahem source available (sorry, FSF))

Hum. The reference for Open Source is the Open Source Initiative, not the FSF [2]. The FSF defines Free Software. These are almost equivalent things but still have two separate definitions.

Microsoft is not an open source software company. They just happen to be a huge software company and every huge software company open source a lot of code when it is strategic. I'm not judging, it's a fact. I'm happy to use some of their quality open source software targeted to the developer community like TypeScript, but an Open Source company would release their important code and be based on a business model around this.

And, no, we can't even really call Windows a source-available software. They share its source code to big entities so they can audit it, probably under NDA, and not everybody can access it. Actually you can find leaked code, but it is just this: leaked code. Mapbox-gl-js is a source-available software which is not open source (anymore) [4].

[1] https://code.visualstudio.com/License/ [2] https://opensource.org/osd [3] https://github.com/microsoft/calculator/ [4] https://github.com/mapbox/mapbox-gl-js [5] https://theia-ide.org/

> Indeed you can rebuild your copy or get Codium without the telemetry under the MIT license, and the software is really good, but it is a crippled version and does not make VS Code free software.

What can't it do that regular VSCode can?

talk to many language server plugins released by MS and containing checks to make sure they only talk to regular VSCode

As ianlevesque said [1], the python extension and remoting. Probably other things too.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25772409

I'm not in the business of commending or admonishing. The question was whether Apple could/should be used in government classified/sensitive business environments.

I find it amazing that recently on a presumably ‘hacker’ forum opinions showing a ‘freedom software’ perspective get a bully response in form of simply downvoting and shutting up the person. I urge the admins to stop this practice. I wish to hear such points of view and consider things from such perspective.

It is very logical to assume that once you have no direct access to the sources of software, that software could do things that malware does. Yet this obviously logical reminder get downvoted like it is irrational or off topic.

It is on topic, it is rational, it is a good reminder and we see Microsoft and Apple consistently disrespect a right of a person to control own _Personal_ computer(PC). On recent M1 you can’t even have own OS without Apple permission, which makes it useless brick for me. Do some people still understand what ‘personal’ means ?

> On recent M1 you can’t even have own OS without Apple permission

That's not true. https://asahilinux.org/about/ , "Does Apple allow this? Don’t you need a jailbreak?"

It would be good news when it’s finished ( If it will be finished at all) but it is not the case so far.

Also, from the same source: “ Will this make Apple Silicon Macs a fully open platform? No, Apple still controls the boot process ...”

Without open firmware and bootloader ... well, is it really Own OS?

There are very few if not zero modern computers with completely open source firmware and boot loader. Including computers with open source as their primary selling point.

Some people find it psychologically easier to sit in the shit when they discover they are not alone. Some even go further and trying to justify the shit when there is a lot of it. I am not one of them, so for me shit is still shit and I prefer to see it for what it is.

Besides, can two wrongs make something right ?

I am not suggesting it is perfect, but that it may be a little hyperbolic to say any os you load on a Mac is not it's 'own OS' because it relies on closed bootloaders/firmware. If that is the case, then what does every other computer run? Is Linus's own operating system not his own because he loads it on an Intel or AMD processor?

We will know the answer to that question once we study thoroughly all versions of microcode those processors have/ had. Alto had how much? 128k ? and some big part of it was for display memory? And it was a full OS. Just imagine what you can have in firmware/bootloader now days. Is it that hard to imagine for everybody?

But, again, as of today the situation on Intel is no different.

That doesn’t mean it’s okay, but, well, I guess I would be interested to know what computer you’re using. :)

And Apple released a build today which provides the kmutil options for it, too :)

You make a boot object and use that to point your Mac at it.

If that is your idea of Own OS I am happy for you.

You're changing the subject. The discussion is about your implication that one "can’t even have own OS without Apple permission", and that is simply not true.

Am I? Then what ‘closing bootloader’ is if not their form of giving permissions? If I understood correctly they would not “help” with specs and we do not know what bootloader capable of. Why? if their goal to keep it open? Let’s see the tendency.

They have put a complete control over IOS devices since the beginning of IOS, including the apps that were not allowed at all. Since then they are trying to bring this into a ‘personal computer’ domain as it seems.

they started slowly but steady to put more and more control over Mac apps,

then they started limiting root access,

Now the bootloader ...

So where they are going ? As I see it the tendency is to close MacOS completely just as IOS unless they face a strong resistance, then they go for ‘as much as they can get’ or ‘as much as they can get away with’ strategy, feeding some ‘calming pills’ on the way that some perhaps are happy to swallow. They have changed things from, “of course it is not our business what you boot” , to “of course, we may allow unsigned kernels .... for now” (if it’s true at all, we still need to see this in reality) Yes it is not as strong as “we will not allow at all”, but for sure it’s their permission now. You may say, oh it’s just as before. No , it’s not, they have taken some of the existing freedom and intend to take more next year possibly. And who knows what their bootloader does? What if it would be controlled remotely ? What if to load some “unsigned kernels” which are called just kernels by the way, they would still require some online check? Who knows? What of the above is not true or incorrect?

Using Micro$oft at any point in your discussion is a great way to get people to not hear what you have to say.