Talk:Visual Studio Code

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Has anyone gotten debugging working with code (open-source release)?

The official (AFAIK) debugger vsdbg is not included in the open-source release:

Is it not possible to download vsdbg manually? Eg.

Aude (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I managed to do it using netcoredbgAUR, though it's not very well documented.
The way I did was by adding this to the default launch configuration for .NET Core:
"pipeTransport": {
    "pipeCwd": "${workspaceFolder}",
    "pipeProgram": "/usr/bin/bash",
    "pipeArgs": ["-c"],
    "debuggerPath": "/usr/bin/netcoredbg"
This will trick Code into running netcoredbg instead of vsdbg. From what I understand pipeTransport is used for SSH configurations, but you can use a shell just the same to take advantage of debuggerPath.
Luluco250 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

snap or flatpak installation for Visual Studio Code

snap or flatpak are becoming the preferred method (by Microsoft) for the installation of Visual Studio Code.

There are two versions of Visual Studio Code: open-source OSS has a flatpak, and Microsoft vscode has a snap package.

For VSCode see see below on how to install snap.

For OSS see

Installation of Flatpak: Make sure to follow the setup guide before installing

$ sudo pacman --noconfirm --needed -S flatpak
$ flatpak install flathub com.visualstudio.code.oss


$ flatpak run com.visualstudio.code.oss

snap is currently only in AUR, to install from AUR you need a utility like yay, to install it:

$ sudo pacman --noconfirm --needed -S yay

snap has a stable release

$ yay --noconfirm --needed -S snapd

or the git release that may be newer

$ yay --noconfirm --needed -S snapd-git

To get it to run using AppArmor

$ sudo systemctl enable --now apparmor.service

To get it to automatically update snap packages

$ sudo systemctl enable --now snapd.apparmor.service
$ sudo snap find vscode
Name               Version   Publisher   Notes    Summary
code               8795a988  vscode✓     classic  Code editing. Redefined.
code-insiders      a747d264  vscode✓     classic  Code editing. Redefined.

To install Visual Studio Code

$ sudo snap install code --classic

or to install Visual Studio Code Insiders

$ sudo snap install code-insiders --classic

Flesh (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: AUR flag for Visual Studio Code Insiders is wrong because the package is self updating.
Dcelasun (talk)

No need for manual installation of MSBuild, and adding a troubleshooting entry on ignoring Mono

.NET Core should ship with its own version of MSBuild. Right now, the AUR msbuild-stable package is quite out-of-date and on version 16.0, while the one that comes with .NET Core is version 16.4. I never had to install another version of MSBuild, and when I did it didn't use it. I think there's some way of manually specifying the MSBuild verison, but I couldn't find a good resource detailing how to do that.

For this reason I think it's reasonable to remove the section talking about a missing MSBuild, titled "Error from OmniSharp that MSBuild cannot be located"?

Also, (possibly when Mono is installed as well as .NET Core SDK,) everything in VSCode is unrecognised when debugging C# (and possibly the other .NET languages, Visual Basic and F#) , things like 'System' not found. The solution to this is to tell Omnisharp to ignore Mono, as detailed in this GitHub issue. This would be useful to add on to the troubleshooting section. TheSheepGuy (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The relationship between Code-OSS, VSCodium and VSCode

There are a lot of discussions about the relationship between these three, and the information I got is as follows:

The Code - OSS Repository

The Code - OSS repository is where we (Microsoft) develop the open source editor upon which we build the Visual Studio Code product. We contribute source code and manage issues in this repository. We also maintain the wiki, publish the Visual Studio Code roadmap, monthly iteration plans, and endgame plans for the product. The source code in this repository is available to everyone under a standard MIT license.

Visual Studio Code

Visual Studio Code is a distribution of the Code - OSS repository with Microsoft specific customizations, including additional source code and extensions, released under a traditional Microsoft product license.


VSCodium is a community-driven, freely-licensed binary distribution of Microsoft’s editor VSCode. Microsoft’s vscode source code is open source (MIT-licensed), but the product available for download (Visual Studio Code) is licensed under the not-FLOSS license and contains telemetry/tracking. The VSCodium project exists so that you don’t have to download+build from source. This project includes special build scripts that clone Microsoft’s vscode repo, run the build commands, and upload the resulting binaries for you to GitHub releases. These binaries are licensed under the MIT license. Telemetry is disabled. --Lonble (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There would not be two packages (Codium and MSCode) if it was not only and exclusively because of the different licenses. MSCode does not have a free software license, so we cannot say that MSCode is "free and open source (licensed under the MIT License)" – because it's not. The license of MSCode is this one: It even says things like "You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources". Definitely no. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 14:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
EXcuse me, Mr or Miss Grufo, your understanding of vscode and codium is completely wrong. It is recognized that vscode is open source. Only the binary version released by Microsoft is not open source. The original author of this page and I agree with this, even codium project recognizes this and it is written on the project homepage.
And the relationship between codium and vscode is not like chromium and chrome. Codium is a third-party community-maintained version, not an open source version released by Microsoft. Their relationship is more like RHEL and the original CentOS. What really looks like chromium is the vscode repository on github created by Microsoft.
When we talk about vscode, we refer to this project more than the binary version released by Microsoft, so it is open source without any problems.
Finally, Mr. or Ms. Grufo, please respect the efforts of other contributor. The original author of this page and I have given a lot of information to support our views. You cannot modify this page arbitrarily based on your own subjective opinions. I will restore this page to its original state. If you have any other comments, please provide supporting materials and seek other people’s comments in the discussion. If most of the comments are the same as you, we will modify the wiki page.
--Lonble (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I posted Microsoft Visual Studio Code's license in support. The free version is not called "Microsoft Visual Studio Code" but "Code - OSS". And you cannot call anything else other than Microsoft's binary "Microsoft Visual Studio Code", which is a proprietary registered trademark. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please read every sentence I have said in this section carefully, and make sure you have read and understood it before replying. These information comes from authentic sources (vscode's github issue or codium's project homepage). Codium only repackages the github repository of vscode and releases a third-party binary version, and does not participate in the development of vscode, so "built on top of a free and open-source project named Codium" is unfounded. "the relationship between Codium and Visual Studio Code is more or less the same as the one between Chromium and Google Chrome" is also wrong, I have explained it in the previous reply. Even if you still have a dispute over the license issue of vscode, the misleading description of Codium should be deleted completely. In addition, the trademark has nothing to do with whether it is open source. The Linux trademark belongs to Linus, but it is an undisputed fact that Linux is open source. Finally, we should all speak according to facts, not our own subjective speculations. --Lonble (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Free and open source
As Scimmia has correctly pointed out, all FOSS is OSS but not all OSS is FOSS. Microsoft Visual Studio Code is definitely not FOSS, and I don't even see how software that is released only in binary form could ever qualify as OSS.
Code OSS / Codium
There are two free software packages: Code OSS and Codium. As far as I understand the only difference is the telemetry stripped off in Codium. We still don't know the difference between Code OSS and the non-free Visual Studio Code, because the latter is distributed only in binary form. Here for example they complain that the free software version (Code - OSS) is not as polished as the proprietary one.
It is not just the trademark that is non-free (and also non-open-source), but the entire binary that you download when you download Microsoft Visual Studio Code.
"Based on Codium"
I don't know exactly how often contributions to Codium are integrated into Code OSS, but I imagine a strong osmosis between the two projects. If not, we can change "built on top of a free and open-source project named Codium" into "built on top of a free and open-source project named Code - OSS".
"we should all speak according to facts"
I would say that this counts as a very strong fact.
--Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 05:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that there is a osmosis between the two projects (code-oss and codium), I will be grateful if you make the change "built on top of a free and open-source project named Code - OSS". If you only see the proprietary license, and repeatedly use it as the only basis. I would say that this is also a fact. Remember, vscode is not only a binary program, there is also a github repository, and the owner of the repository is Microsoft. The two originally had the same name. In order to distinguish between open source and non-open source versions, Microsoft then called the github project of vscode code-oss. --Lonble (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Changed "Codium" into "Code - OSS". As for the second question: Non-free because Microsoft says so, and non-open-source because Microsoft says so ("Built on open source" but not "Open source"). --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 06:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Grufo. I am satisfied with your changes. There are some wording and detail improvements. I will paste the modified preview below. If you agree to this change, I hope I can submit it myself.
Visual Studio Code is a cross-platform text editor developed by Microsoft, built on top of a free and open-source project named "Code - OSS", written in JavaScript and TypeScript. (PS.(deleted while publish) Information from Wikipedia.)Microsoft has released most of Visual Studio Code's source code on GitHub (licensed under the MIT License), while the binary releases by Microsoft are proprietary freeware (licensed under an End-User License Agreement). The relationship between "Code - OSS" and Visual Studio Code is more or less the same as the one between Chromium and Google Chrome; for an explanation of the mixed licensing, see this GitHub comment. There is also a community-driven freely-licensed binary release called VSCodium, with telemetry disabled(PS.(deleted while publish) Telemetry just be disabled by default not be removed. VSCodim just mentioned that telemetry is disabled, we have no idea about other Microsoft's tracking.). Visual Studio Code is built on the Electron framework and is extensible using extensions, which can be browsed on the web or from within the text editor itself.
--Lonble (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
So you propose to remove two informations ("proprietary" and the link to MSVSC's license) from the first sentence. May I ask you why? --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 15:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I adjusted the order of the sentences. Whether it is open source or non-open source, it is described in the second sentence. Your information is retained, including the link to the proprietary license. Please read my preview carefully and don't miss any information. --Lonble (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC
Your version does not change only the order. For example, you removed "proprietary" from MSVSC but you left "free and open source" close to Code - OSS. So your version opens the article saying that MSVSC is any text editor based on an open source text editor. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 15:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
"while the binary releases by Microsoft are proprietary freeware (licensed under an End-User License Agreement)." So "proprietary" is not be removed. Although MSVSC indeed based on an open source text editor, if you don't like that, I will remove "free and open-source" near "Code - OSS".
Removing also "free and open-source" near "Code - OSS" would make it even weirder, as it would become "any text editor based on any text editor". The reason for the different packages is the proprietary vs OSS hiatus. But what I insist on asking you is: Why do you want to do that? How will your proposal improve the page? --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
My intention to adjust the order is that since there are disputes about whether vscode is open source, then we simply don't make a conclusion, put the respective facts in the second sentence, and let the readers make their own judgments. --Lonble (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
There might be disputes about Visual Studio Code being open source, but there are no disputes about it being proprietary (non-free – the license is enough for that). A correct wording would be "proprietary text editor built on top of a free and open-source project", which is exactly how the page presents it. So you are proposing that the ArchWiki abandons a very accurate description, but you don't explain why it should do so. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Only you think that your description is "a very accurate description", and the original author and I don't think so. I think this is just a subjective judgment. This is the controversy. This wiki introduces Visual Studio Code, not just Microsoft's binary release. Although a bit confusing, when people talk about Visual Studio Code, they often refer to this project, including open source and non-open source versions. For example, in StackOverflow's annual report, how many developers use Visual Studio Code, the Visual Studio Code here obviously does not specifically refer to the binary version of Microsoft. Therefore, it is most reasonable to describe the relationship between the two versions in the second sentence, instead of adding a controversial judgment in the first sentence. In addition, I have made considerable concessions and all your information has been retained. I have realized that claiming that vscode is open source may be inaccurate. Why do you still have no doubts about your claims. --Lonble (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I have submitted the undisputed version, and all your and my information is retained. "built on top of a free and open-source project named'Code-OSS'" and "released most of Visual Studio Code's source code on GitHub called "Code-OSS"" have the same meaning, I think the latter description is more accurate, as Wikipedia says. They are placed in second sentence as duplicate elements. --Lonble (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
This cannot be a dispute between me and you, and we don't have to concede things, we must simply express our sincere opinion of what we thing is right. I asked you why you find it opportune to remove two informations from the first sentence, and you either did not answer or the only answer I can read between the lines is that because according to you when people say Visual Studio Code they don't really mean it. Please revert your edits and wait for other editors' opinions. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I guess this is all about a negative connotation of the word "proprietary". In Arch, there's no such thing. Either way, Visual Studio Code is a proprietary editor and a published trademark. Some extensions (such as the Microsoft C++ debugger) exclusively work on Visual Studio Code, and not on code (Code OSS). In short, they're two different products, and this is IMO more accurately described by the original wording. I do however prefer "telemetry" over the loaded "Microsoft's tracking" phrasing. -- Alad (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
If you all think that it is more appropriate to add "proprietary" after Visual Studio Code, I will not object. However, I think the current version has clearer (language organization and order) explanations and richer details than Grufo's version. If you think it’s no longer controversial, you can delete the Accuracy template. --Lonble (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course, why not leave your version and just delete the accuracy template. No one will object. Your version contains unverifiable facts. For example that "most of Visual Studio Code's source code is on GitHub", although I personally find it probable, is unverifiable, because we don't really know what is inside the binary called Visual Studio Code. Moreover, you continuously fail to explain what the point of your arguing is, or what is that you want to add to the page that is not already there. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to continue arguing about these details in wording. To me, the main point is that both the links [1] and [2] are included. And that could be done in fewer lines than either revision. -- Alad (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's what I propose, a reduced-size version based on the contents of the github comment.
Code is a cross-platform text editor developed by Microsoft, built on the Electron framework. Visual Studio Code is a binary distribution of the MIT-licensed Code - OSS repository, with Microsoft specific customizations and released under a proprietary license. For details on the mixed licensing, see this GitHub comment. There is also a community-driven, MIT-licensed binary release called VSCodium with telemetry disabled by default.
Visual Studio Code is extensible using extensions, which can be browsed on the web or from within the text editor itself.
-- Alad (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the last sentence, because the marketplace only works correctly with the Microsoft build. A better alternative might be to leave out the sentence, and move the section Visual_Studio_Code#No_extensions_found higher in the article. -- Alad (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Alad. I find it good. I would only change "is a distribution of" into "exists only as a binary distribution of". (I hadn't seen that you changed the subject of the sentence from MSVSC to Code). I would only change "is a distribution of" into "is a binary distribution of". --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 15:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. I've also moved up the extension section as proposed. I'll wait a bit to see if there's more comments, and then merge the proposal to the article. -- Alad (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Merged via Special:Diff/701460, closing -- Alad (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
VSCodium does mention tracking ("contains telemetry/tracking") --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 15:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
If you find a link to the relevant description, please add it to the appropriate place on the wiki page. --Lonble (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Lonble, free and open source are not the same thing. You claim that "It is recognized that vscode is open source", which is questionable to start with, but even if we accept that, it doesn't make the original wording correct, as it most certainly is *not* free software as defined by the open source community. As for respecting the efforts of other contributors, I would say the same thing to you.
Scimmia (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please read the content under the heading "VSCodium" in detail, which comes from the homepage of the Codium project. “Microsoft’s vscode source code is open source (MIT-licensed)”, this is not what I claim, but both Codium and MS think so. Although it has nothing to do with the subject, I clearly understand the difference between free software and open source software. However, the MIT license is recognized by both FSF and OSI, so there is no divergence between the two. --Lonble (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
You're conflating VSCodium with VSCode. This page, and the summary that's in question here, refer to Visual Studio Code (VSCode), which you yourself acknowledge in the first post here to be under a propriatary Microsoft license.
Scimmia (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the man who seems to confuse the relationship between the VSCodium and VSCode is you. Coidum is a community-driven third-party release. When we discussed the license issue of vscode, we shouldn't have talked about it. --Lonble (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
And yet you're the one that has repeatedly reverted edits to make the page say "Visual Studio Code is a cross-platform, free and open source (licensed under the MIT License) text editor developed by Microsoft" Scimmia (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that this reply has any relation to the context. Anyway, instead of repeatedly reverting the page to impose my opinion, I restored the page to its original appearance. Before Grofu changed it without discussion, for a long time the page was "Visual Studio Code is a cross-platform, free and open-source (licensed under the MIT License) text editor developed by Microsoft and written in JavaScript and TypeScript. ", and no one opposes this. --Lonble (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
"and no one opposes this"… until someone does. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 05:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Lonble, at VSCodium they say exactly what I said: "Microsoft’s vscode source code is open source (MIT-licensed), but the product available for download (Visual Studio Code) is licensed under this not-FLOSS license and contains telemetry/tracking" (what they call "vscode" is actually called "Code - OSS"). So, basically, they say that the non-free version (Visual Studio Code) is not open source (only a binary is available) and contains spyware. As far as I know – as I cannot look at its code – it might even make my computer explode as soon as I try to speak French. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 02:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Grufo. I hate Microsoft as much as you do. I can express my dissatisfaction with it in the discussion, but I will not write this subjective feeling in the wiki. I think the wiki should only contain objective and generally accepted conclusions. Have a good day. --Lonble (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Your continuously dismissive tone is not acceptable. Please refrain from any non-technical comments from now on. -- Alad (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't hate Microsoft. --Grufo [ contribs | talk ] 15:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Enabling wayland through electron-flags.conf

This doesn't appear to be possible. The only way I've found to get Wayland working on vscode is to use the command code --enable-features=UseOzonePlatform --ozone-platform=wayland

CRISPYricePC (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)