5 ms·

Where is that open-source MapReduce stack? Facebook even gives their HPHP, Hadoop, and other code back to the community for free. The fact is, Facebook cares

Where is that open-source MapReduce stack? Facebook even gives their HPHP, Hadoop, and other code back to the community for free. The fact is, Facebook cares about Data & Google cares about technology. Google has just perfected making other companies look bad, while Facebook has the attitude of "let's keep working on our features".

tobtoh 16y ago
You've missed what this issue is about and in fact you have the situation back to front. HPHP, Hadoop and other code is technology which is what Facebook is 'caring' about. Google is concerned about data - making sure that our personal data is ours to move around as we want, not when/how Facebook, Google or any other company wants. In Google's eyes, our personal data should be portable (but under our control) and hence why they advocate openness. Google already does by allowing sites like Facebook to connect via APIs to access your contacts list and find other friends to invite to Facebook. Facebook however doesn't allow any other company to do a similar arrangement. Google open, Facebook not. Google should be absolutely supported in their position - it will lead to be a better Net for all of us.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  Except that this story is about Google becoming less open in an attempt to coerce a competitor into changing their behavior. Google has taken away freedom from it's users to do as they want with their data (i.e. transfer it unidirectionally to Facebook). This is a fact. So we have a clear example of Google choosing to control users data when it suits them. They claim they are doing this to try to force Facebook to become more open and that they are doing it on behalf of the users, but does anyone seriously think that's the only reason behind this decision? Google has stated that they want access to Facebook's social graph and that they'll find a way to get it even if it's not through being granted access by Facebook. They obviously want this for competitive reasons, and to pretend that this isn't part of their motivation seems disingenuous to me. And that's why this isn't as clear-cut as it seems. I personally think it would be good for users if Facebook's API did expose the social graph, but isn't it hypocrisy of Google to claim they are different while at the very same time holding user-data hostage? The ends do not justify the means, particularly if the means are compromising the very principles you claim to uphold. If open truly always wins, they wouldn't need to try to force Facebook to open up under terms dictated by Google. Google opens up data at their own pace - why shouldn't Facebook do the same?
  - tobtoh 16y ago
    I think it's exactly clear cut - if Google accessed some other sites data but didn't provide a reciprocal arrangement, then I would be equally harsh on Google. 'Open' doesn't win if others don't come to the party - Google is playing hardball to force Facebook to gives users control of their data. Yes they have ulterior motives but in this situation I believe the end does justify the means. If Facebook wants to open their data at their own pace, then don't reap the benefits of 'openness', if you aren't prepared to contribute. Facebook is effectively the big selfish kid at school who only takes, but doesn't give anything back (in terms of openness).
    - kmavm 16y ago
      'if Google accessed some other sites data but didn't provide a reciprocal arrangement, then I would be equally harsh on Google.' This is exactly what Google does: read the open data that all other sites provide, over http, add a lot of value by processing that data, and carefully control any 'reciprocal' access to the results of this process: namely, their search index and ad targeting systems. To be clear, I am fine with that, and you should be too. Google has added a ton of value to a lot of lives, and I am perfectly happy with them making a buck or two in exchange. That would simply not be possible if they were perfectly "open" in the way they're insisting Facebook should be. Lots of R&D effort, some of it mine, has gone into constructing a machine-readable version of the real-world social graph. Google insisting it should have full, unencumbered, automated access to this data, because users of its GMail service have provided some inputs into it, is every bit as insane as Facebook insisting it should have full access to Google's web index, because Googlebot crawls Facebook. Perhaps Facebook should start serving empty pages to GoogleBot until Google "opens up." Let's perform a thought experiment, stripping out the branding and associated emotional baggage. Company A and Company B both provide large scale consumer-facing services over the web, and both have large, valuable datasets that they mutually covet. There is a lot of overlap in the userbase between the two groups; users sometimes take data from Company A's service to improve their experience of Company B, and vice versa. Company A decides to shut down this access, though no users have asked them to, and though they've voted with their feet by the millions to be able to move their data from Company A's service to Company B. Is Company A striking a blow for openness against the evil, proprietary Company B? Or, is Company A just trying to negotiate a favorable market position, while manipulating your emotions the best they can? Disclaimer: Facebook pays me to write code, not HN posts.
modeless 16y ago
Sorry, but if you're comparing open source contributions, Google wins by any metric. Consider Chromium, V8, Android, WebM, GWT, Protocol buffers, the Closure Javascript library+compiler+linter, and jillions of other projects (http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google), not to mention the tremendous support they've given Mozilla over the years, their work in defining and promoting open standards like HTML5, plus indirect contributions via the Google Summer of Code program.
- kingkilr 16y ago
  > indirect contributions via the Google Summer of Code program. That's indirect?!? It's basically a strait up $5 million a year investment in open source.
- kmavm 16y ago
  By "any metric"? How about, "lines of open source contributed per engineer-year"? Google is 10 times larger than Facebook, and has been around for twice as long. You would expect it to have a longer list of open source contributions no matter what.
  - axod 16y ago
    The original article isn't about open source. It's about data portability and openness vs walled gardens. Producing open source stuff is cool 'n all, but it doesn't really matter as much as being open vs closed in terms of what you can do with your own data. Personally, I don't particularly care if a company decides to be totally closed source and not participate in open source contributions, as long as they don't start putting up walled gardens and trying to lock in user data.
  - moultano 16y ago
    Android is the largest open source release by any company ever.
- mfukar 16y ago
  There's also a huge area which everyone's discounting: research. In it, Google is a beast with some major contributions and hundreds of publications, while Facebook doesn't even exist.

tobtoh 16y ago

You've missed what this issue is about and in fact you have the situation back to front. HPHP, Hadoop and other code is technology which is what Facebook is 'caring' about. Google is concerned about data - making sure that our personal data is ours to move around as we want, not when/how Facebook, Google or any other company wants. In Google's eyes, our personal data should be portable (but under our control) and hence why they advocate openness. Google already does by allowing sites like Facebook to connect via APIs to access your contacts list and find other friends to invite to Facebook. Facebook however doesn't allow any other company to do a similar arrangement. Google open, Facebook not. Google should be absolutely supported in their position - it will lead to be a better Net for all of us.

rbarooah 16y ago
Except that this story is about Google becoming less open in an attempt to coerce a competitor into changing their behavior. Google has taken away freedom from it's users to do as they want with their data (i.e. transfer it unidirectionally to Facebook). This is a fact. So we have a clear example of Google choosing to control users data when it suits them. They claim they are doing this to try to force Facebook to become more open and that they are doing it on behalf of the users, but does anyone seriously think that's the only reason behind this decision? Google has stated that they want access to Facebook's social graph and that they'll find a way to get it even if it's not through being granted access by Facebook. They obviously want this for competitive reasons, and to pretend that this isn't part of their motivation seems disingenuous to me. And that's why this isn't as clear-cut as it seems. I personally think it would be good for users if Facebook's API did expose the social graph, but isn't it hypocrisy of Google to claim they are different while at the very same time holding user-data hostage? The ends do not justify the means, particularly if the means are compromising the very principles you claim to uphold. If open truly always wins, they wouldn't need to try to force Facebook to open up under terms dictated by Google. Google opens up data at their own pace - why shouldn't Facebook do the same?
- tobtoh 16y ago
  I think it's exactly clear cut - if Google accessed some other sites data but didn't provide a reciprocal arrangement, then I would be equally harsh on Google. 'Open' doesn't win if others don't come to the party - Google is playing hardball to force Facebook to gives users control of their data. Yes they have ulterior motives but in this situation I believe the end does justify the means. If Facebook wants to open their data at their own pace, then don't reap the benefits of 'openness', if you aren't prepared to contribute. Facebook is effectively the big selfish kid at school who only takes, but doesn't give anything back (in terms of openness).
  - kmavm 16y ago
    'if Google accessed some other sites data but didn't provide a reciprocal arrangement, then I would be equally harsh on Google.' This is exactly what Google does: read the open data that all other sites provide, over http, add a lot of value by processing that data, and carefully control any 'reciprocal' access to the results of this process: namely, their search index and ad targeting systems. To be clear, I am fine with that, and you should be too. Google has added a ton of value to a lot of lives, and I am perfectly happy with them making a buck or two in exchange. That would simply not be possible if they were perfectly "open" in the way they're insisting Facebook should be. Lots of R&D effort, some of it mine, has gone into constructing a machine-readable version of the real-world social graph. Google insisting it should have full, unencumbered, automated access to this data, because users of its GMail service have provided some inputs into it, is every bit as insane as Facebook insisting it should have full access to Google's web index, because Googlebot crawls Facebook. Perhaps Facebook should start serving empty pages to GoogleBot until Google "opens up." Let's perform a thought experiment, stripping out the branding and associated emotional baggage. Company A and Company B both provide large scale consumer-facing services over the web, and both have large, valuable datasets that they mutually covet. There is a lot of overlap in the userbase between the two groups; users sometimes take data from Company A's service to improve their experience of Company B, and vice versa. Company A decides to shut down this access, though no users have asked them to, and though they've voted with their feet by the millions to be able to move their data from Company A's service to Company B. Is Company A striking a blow for openness against the evil, proprietary Company B? Or, is Company A just trying to negotiate a favorable market position, while manipulating your emotions the best they can? Disclaimer: Facebook pays me to write code, not HN posts.

modeless 16y ago

Sorry, but if you're comparing open source contributions, Google wins by any metric. Consider Chromium, V8, Android, WebM, GWT, Protocol buffers, the Closure Javascript library+compiler+linter, and jillions of other projects (http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google), not to mention the tremendous support they've given Mozilla over the years, their work in defining and promoting open standards like HTML5, plus indirect contributions via the Google Summer of Code program.

kingkilr 16y ago
> indirect contributions via the Google Summer of Code program. That's indirect?!? It's basically a strait up $5 million a year investment in open source.
kmavm 16y ago
By "any metric"? How about, "lines of open source contributed per engineer-year"? Google is 10 times larger than Facebook, and has been around for twice as long. You would expect it to have a longer list of open source contributions no matter what.
- axod 16y ago
  The original article isn't about open source. It's about data portability and openness vs walled gardens. Producing open source stuff is cool 'n all, but it doesn't really matter as much as being open vs closed in terms of what you can do with your own data. Personally, I don't particularly care if a company decides to be totally closed source and not participate in open source contributions, as long as they don't start putting up walled gardens and trying to lock in user data.
- moultano 16y ago
  Android is the largest open source release by any company ever.
mfukar 16y ago
There's also a huge area which everyone's discounting: research. In it, Google is a beast with some major contributions and hundreds of publications, while Facebook doesn't even exist.