Why choose Atom? (ATOM vs VISUAL STUDIO CODE)

#17

Apologies for jumping in on an idle thread, but on turning Atom into an IDE, these might be relevant:

  • Nuclide - Facebook-led IDE on top of Atom
  • Atom IDE - stripped-down Nuclide offering the common functionalities
#18

Thank you for your interest and contribution.

Not much was said about Nuclide before you have… :thinking:
As for the Atom-IDE - we will have to see what develops there.

I am hoping for a terminal with debugging tools framework that is part of the Atom core.

#19

I have tried VSC for a merit badge to learn C#. When I took a break I have found out that it took most of my HDD space. I deleted VSC so I can look for another text editor. A few months later I got a GitHub account to make some things and look at the youtube videos. When I installed GitHub desktop I saw that is said: “external editor” at the bottom it said Atom.io text editor. So I tried Atom and I really liked it, it didn’t take all of my HDD space, I had to learn what packages were and I installed the Teletype package. Right now I think everyone should use Atom.io.

#20

That is very strange. Do you have more detail?

I rather like the “simplicity” which Atom offers for customizing functionalities via “init.coffee”.

#21

Thanks for everyone involved in improving Atom, big thanks. I found Atom to be the best text editor for me. I’m currently learning C++ and it’s very fun to be doing it inside Atom! I hope I can give back to this community once I’m better at programming!

#22

Atom is 80.9gb while VSC is 120.8gb

#23

Neither of them should be taking up that much space.

#24

My preference is for Atom as it is really open source and is really flexible.

Beeing not the greatest fan of Microsoft (I use Windows / Office for work) I still noticed that vscode was gaining a lot of traction recently and it was supposed to be an open source product, so I gave it a try.

It was ok until I noticed the copyright. Copyright by Microsoft. That supprised me as I thought I am using an open source product.

After a bit of googling and reading it turns out that the version microsoft buplishes is MS copyright. They argue that is because they have a company set up there and this would be similar to Chrome and Chromium. Google apps in Chrome, and here it comes vscode package manager for vscode.

So three things to that.

  • Google has initiated two products chrome (branded) for their add ons and chromium (oos) with different names, easy to distinguish
  • The function Microsoft has chosen to claim as their own is the package manager (next to other small things). This is a vital function of a modern editor and not an add on in my opinion. Means the oos vscode comes without package manager set up.
  • Microsoft is not communicating this clearly, at least I got cought by surprise. When I discovered the MS copyright info I downloaded the vscode oss version and could not believe that the package management was missing.

Now there is another twist to this. It turns out that the package management can be turned on in the oss version quite easily once you find the right hint somewhere in a forum.

It turns out that Microsoft does not claim the access to the package management is their Interlectual property but the specific configuration files that come with their version. As far as I know they do not claim that you cannot add the necessary configuration in the oss version. So that seems to be ok.

What it boils down to for me it the apprach and way of communication that Microsoft has chosen.

Tell everyone your product is oss and then give them a branded one instead with the only difference a bit if configuration but make it hard to find this out.

This kimd of behaviour is what I am used to from Microsoft and is what I do not want to have to do with if I have an alternative.

This is not to bash Microsoft, they have a lot of products that are used day in day out productively by many professionals, just my explanation why I was looking for an alternative.

The best alternative for me is Atom.

(Yes I noticed Atom starts a bit slower but I just start it once and leave it open. Once started speed in a virtual box is absolutely fine for me)

#25

So? Atom is copyright of GitHub Inc.. I think the MIT license is simply one of those licenses that emphasizes the copyright holders, whereas other licenses don’t mention them at all.

Copyright and licensing terms are two pairs of shoes. If you submit a PR to a project, it’s my understanding hold the copyright for that piece of code, while at the same time you submit it under the terms of the project’s license. That explains why moving to a different license only happens in consent with all copyright holders (or code contributors).

On top of that are trademarks. Companies protect the name of their product, so e.g. your fork of Firefox cannot be called that (this explains products like IceWeasel et al. or LibreOffice.) If I remember correctly, a company is even obligated to defend its trademark(s), otherwise it can be challenged. In any case it would be confusing for a user if it was otherwise.

#26

Microsoft produces a lot of open-source code these days. They’ve figured out that the OSS community is massively powerful and they’re putting up instead of shutting up. Regardless of whether you like the company, they’re making positive steps.

#27

The comparison to the GitHub copyright is in my view not the best. I notice I have not been very clear.

This is the vscode license of the usually distributed package (with package manager):

http://code.visualstudio.com/license

Notice item 5 Scope of license

This license suprised me and it was not what I was expecting from an open source product.

As mentioned above a separate oos product exists, but that does not come with packet manager access.

l appreciate if folks say thats fine for them, but for me it triggered to look closer at Atom again.

#28

@DamnedScholar:

I cannot help but wonder if it is not about getting cheap labour.
Polishing some egos sounds like a good price for some quality work.

Does the Atom team request someone to sign a waver (contract) before they use your contribution, as the case with Microsoft’s vsCode project?



@MarcusE1W: Hello. Welcome to the conversation.

Any community driven project has the risk for exploitation. I would be very careful for saying one party is more likely to cheat than another. Your argument does not convince me, I am holding out on painting Microsoft black. However I welcome your opinion as a sign of caution. Perhaps your keen eye should look into how Github licenses Atom.

Let us agree on the fact that if a collective is focussed on a task, much can be achieved. The efforts of Atom and vsCode is remarkable.

But there is much to say about having backing (man-power, money and organisational resources) from companies such as Github and Microsoft. I wish projects such as Gimp had such.

- Dan

#29

No.

// extra characters to let me post

#30

Maybe, but that labor doesn’t come for free even if you’re not paying them. As a general rule, people only work on open-source projects that they feel are useful, and most people are mostly motivated by what’s useful to themselves. For projects that big companies want to have developed by the community, they have to give the community tools that aren’t already out there.

#31

Hello Dan.

The intention of my posts was to explain why I use Atom and make the reasons for that a bit clear. I don’t think that it was said that one or another party is more likely to cheat though or that Microsoft was painted black. I feel a bit unhappy that my words seem to have left room for this interpretation.

I am glad we agree that the progress of both editors is remarkable. It is a fine situation to be in to have the choice between these editors.

#32

As mentioned on that page, that license applies to the (compiled) product. The source is licensed under the (OSI-approved) MIT License, so it’s open under its terms.

#33

Quite right. As mentioned. The only caveat is that if you compile the source code as it is availabe on GitHub you do not have initial access to the packet manager. You can change the oss configuration to the one Microsoft uses in their branded / compiled version by copying it (see below)

The whole subject is probably more about communication and clarity than anything else
Here is a slightly similar discussion in the vscode Issues
#17996
#60
#31168

My original point was that I was a bit surprised about all this.
I also found that to make exactly the marketplace a differentiator feels a bit unfair as I would assume a large number of packages published there are contributed to the marketplace by the community under oss licenses.

I have great respect for the achievments of the dev communities of both editors and am glad we have both to choose from or use in parallel.

#34

Why an I going to feel like that atom will announce this forum discussion as the most talked forum post

#35
  1. while installing atom there should be option for user where to install atom
  2. the packages dev by atom should not be come with pre install (I disabled the packages which increased the perfomance and loading time)
  3. Beta version should not override the stable version it should be installed as separate
#36

Not sure what this has to do with VS Code, but

  1. https://flight-manual.atom.io/getting-started/sections/installing-atom/#portable-mode

  2. I disagree. It’s shocking enough to many users that “basic” functionality is missing (for their specific programming needs), and it’s a pain for people to search for it themselves. Eg., imagine not having a find-and-replace tool come with Atom.

  3. Beta version is separate. Both can be installed together. The .atom folder seems to be the same though, which is a nuisance when the beta and stable versions use different electron releases.