I don’t care that I can remove the repo, I’d still have to block MS to prevent an RPi update from re-adding a repo that can replace core files.
What kind of BS is that author peddling? The bottom line is “if it can be done, it’s a bad thing”, that goodwill argument is a bunch of whitewashing.
Plus, I don’t WANT VS on my Pi. The “help learning students” argument is also BS. VS is difficult to install because it’s not native, and this is a reality for tech users. Better approach would be clear documentation on how to install VS, explaining the how’s and why’s along the way. If it’s “too hard” to write such documentation or for students to follow it, then that person is clearly not qualified to write it.
I’ve written TONS of docs just like this for enterprise app deployment. It’s SOP there. If a test unit fails to successfully rebuild a system using my docs, it’s not the tester’s fault, it’s a fault of my docs not being complete or clear enough.
Every enterprise has teams that document everying to the extreme for disaster recovery - the idea being that anyone technical can walk in and rebuild an entire system from your docs.
I don’t get it. From what I can tell, they added /etc/apt/sources.list.d/vscode.list with a third-party MS repository . . . and that’s it. You can now do sudo apt install code and get VS Code installed. If you don’t want VS Code, then don’t install it. At worst, Microsoft gets a log entry of you downloading the package list every time you do sudo apt update.
I don’t really like VS Code, myself, but it’s becoming something of an industry standard. Even in environments that are otherwise Linux-based. Lots of my coworkers use it even though we deploy on Linux. Making it easier for students to install is understandable.
Just read the article. That’s bad.
I don’t care that I can remove the repo, I’d still have to block MS to prevent an RPi update from re-adding a repo that can replace core files.
What kind of BS is that author peddling? The bottom line is “if it can be done, it’s a bad thing”, that goodwill argument is a bunch of whitewashing.
Plus, I don’t WANT VS on my Pi. The “help learning students” argument is also BS. VS is difficult to install because it’s not native, and this is a reality for tech users. Better approach would be clear documentation on how to install VS, explaining the how’s and why’s along the way. If it’s “too hard” to write such documentation or for students to follow it, then that person is clearly not qualified to write it.
I’ve written TONS of docs just like this for enterprise app deployment. It’s SOP there. If a test unit fails to successfully rebuild a system using my docs, it’s not the tester’s fault, it’s a fault of my docs not being complete or clear enough.
Every enterprise has teams that document everying to the extreme for disaster recovery - the idea being that anyone technical can walk in and rebuild an entire system from your docs.
Thanks for the link.
I don’t get it. From what I can tell, they added
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/vscode.listwith a third-party MS repository . . . and that’s it. You can now dosudo apt install codeand get VS Code installed. If you don’t want VS Code, then don’t install it. At worst, Microsoft gets a log entry of you downloading the package list every time you dosudo apt update.I don’t really like VS Code, myself, but it’s becoming something of an industry standard. Even in environments that are otherwise Linux-based. Lots of my coworkers use it even though we deploy on Linux. Making it easier for students to install is understandable.
I’m also confused, and I say this as someone who uses Debian as their main driver.