Kate has native LSP support, which by default uses "typescript-language-server" for JavaScript. As I don't really do much JavaScript stuff I can't say how well it works, or if it works with those particular frameworks.
https://docs.kde.org/stable5/en/kate/kate/kate-application-plugin-lspclient.html
I wouldn't say I "hate" Microsoft (or Apple, or Google), but I recognize the harm they do to the free software movement and to the technology world in general. I wouldn't avoid a good quality free software just because it's made by a GAFAM company (as long as I stick with the free parts and avoid proprietary extensions), just like I wouldn't use proprietary software just because it's not made by GAFAM.
The point isn't to hate GAFAM but to seek freedom and control over your computing.
Sublime Text is proprietary, which makes it a non-starter for many including myself. VS Code, on the other hand, might be developed by Microsoft but there is a liberated version called VSCodium that has none of the telemetry and such.
That being said, on GNU/Linux I prefer Kate.
GitHub has been recognized as harmful to the free software community at least as early as 2015, years before the Microsoft acquisition. See RMS email on GitHub.
This is not free software. See license.
Subject to the terms of this license, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution.
I certainly hope no one is actually wishing for Stallman's death, but I feel at least a few people will be "glad he's gone" as Stallman said of Steve Jobs.
ChromeOS is Linux with Google’s desktop environment
Always has been. One does not "use Linux" they use an operating system built on top of Linux.
Chrome is not Linux, but Xfce also is not Linux. Gnome is not Linux. KDE is not Linux. Linux is Linux.
When will we learn? (Drew DeVault, May 2022)
This isn't even the first such incident with snap. https://github.com/canonical/snapcraft.io/issues/651
The code merely being "available" isn't the same thing as the user having the legal freedom to modify and share it. Besides, that's not always the case; sometimes JavaScript is minified, obfuscated, and packed in ways that make it effectively no different than any other compiled program.
Note that source code is "the preferred form for making modifications" so obfuscated code is by definition not "source."
Yes, if the JavaScript is running on a computer he owns. JavaScript programs running in a browser are just as much software as any other type of program.
Software freedom applies only to hardware you personally own. It wouldn't even apply to machines you interact with but do not own (such as ATMs or kiosks) since you aren't the one who agrees to the proprietary software license.
Stallman himself explains it in his computing FAQ.
GitHub allows you to select any license (including a proprietary license) or no license at all. This does not mean that GitHub encourages one to select a free software license or any license at all.
In 2014, John Sullivan, then Executive Director of FSF, also asserted that GitHub's choosealicense.com was anti-copyleft.
Anti-copyleft bias noted by Stallman and Sullivan is evident from the very beginning, from the founder Tom Preston-Werner himself. In 2011, Preston-Werner wrote that one should "open source (almost) everything" under a permissive license, because the GPL is "too dogmatic," but keep "anything that represents business value" proprietary.