4 ms·

Google seems to have bailed on Google Cloud. You should try and find something in the docs these days. When I first started using GAE 10 years ago it really fe

Google seems to have bailed on Google Cloud. You should try and find something in the docs these days. When I first started using GAE 10 years ago it really felt like somebody lovingly crafted a nice solution to a complex problem. It's not that anymore.

cardy31 3y ago
The company I work for is on GCP and I live in fear of seeing the “Google to shut down GCP by $now + ~2 years” headline.
- jay_kyburz 3y ago
  I'm living that now. I will no longer be able to push changes to my Python 2.7 apps as of January. Instead of porting to Python 3, I'm porting away from Google.
  - afavour 3y ago
    I’ll blame Google for a lot but in this instance I think they’re right. Python 2.7 is EOL, they’d be foolish to keep running it indefinitely on the servers they’re responsible for.
  - delecti 3y ago
    Python 2.7 released 14 years ago. About 8.5 years ago (5+ years later), it was announced that Python 2.7 would be supported until 2020. You had over 5 years to prepare for it, and then Google supported it for another 3 years beyond even that generous warning.
    - katbyte 3y ago
      So? Let’s say you had an old large code base in 100,000s of lines of code that just works and has been mostly untouched for years in eol/maintenance. you expect there to be budget or time to rewrite it into python 3 for literally no reason other then “2.7 is deprecated”? It’s far cheaper, potentially millions cheaper, to just change clouds/providers and find a way to continue on 2.7.
      - aniforprez 3y ago
        > Let’s say you had an old large code base in 100,000s of lines of code that just works I've migrated 200k LoC python 2.7 codebases to python 3. It certainly wasn't painless but tools like black, flake8, 2to3 and other stuff helped. It's not impossible and can be executed in 2-4 weeks > you expect there to be budget or time to rewrite it into python 3 for literally no reason other then “2.7 is deprecated” 2.7 is not just deprecated. It's dead. There's no more updates. It's not "millions cheaper" to not migrate. I posit you'd save a LOT of money from the sheer performance improvements and bug fixes from migrating than anything else. In my own case we saved a few hundred dollars a month from not having to spawn new containers and EC2 instances
        jay_kyburz 3y ago
        To be clear, I am upgrading from Python 2.7, but while I do it I'm not building in a way that requires any code from Google and will make sure the app is platform agnostic. It doesn't really matter how many years of notice they gave me, I just haven't had time to do it.
        b112 3y ago
        Having any sort of code on python 2.7, means you don't give a rat's ass about security. It also immediately means your code should be assumed to have back doors, vulnerabilities, because python 2.7 almost certainly does! This is what happens, when no one is maintaining software. Security is more important that anything, certainly than having time or not to update your code. You're 100% in the wrong here, and Google is 100% in the right, and I hate Google more than spammers, more than pretty much any other company there is. They're not wrong here, and it hurts me to support their stance. Fix your stuff. Stop blaming others. I doesn't matter why you're in the situation you're in, you're wrong to be there. No matter what.
        solardev 3y ago
        Companies suffer security breaches all the time and nothing really seems to happen. Who is it important to?
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    You seem to be confusing AppEngine with Google Cloud. Former is a tiny part of the latter.
steve_adams_86 3y ago
Interesting, I first used GCP maybe 7 years ago and really liked it. Two years ago I came back to it for a year and couldn’t put my finger on it, but it seemed quite a bit worse. I wasn’t sure if it was a case of rose tinted glasses. Like you mentioned, the docs were really shoddy when I needed them. Certain conventions felt half baked compared to AWS, and I don’t even like AWS to begin with. Overall it seemed like the integration of services was much worse than AWS, though. Administration of different services is like visiting separate worlds at times, like the teams might not be on the same page regarding design and technical language. The other possibility is I’m just a little dumb and don’t pick up on the patterns — I’m pretty open to that. It’s a shame, I wish there was a cloud provider that I actually liked and at one point, that was GCP.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  > It’s a shame, I wish there was a cloud provider that I actually liked I'm curious what it is about Azure that puts you off.
  - jaxn 3y ago
    I’m on Azure, it’s still Microsoft. I like a lot of Microsoft stuff these days that plays nice with open source dev tools. Azure doesn’t get in the way of that, but my defaults are not their defaults. I’m perfectly happy with AKS. Their Postgres product is great (formerly citus). But at the the end of the day, they still want to sell Windows, Exchange, SQL Server, Active Directory, etc. That’s a choice I will probably never make, so it just feels like a mismatch.
    - popinman322 3y ago
      Active Directory is actually pretty good I think. Having worked with both Azure and AWS, AzureAD makes AWS IAM permissions feel half baked. Granted my experience was inside Azure so we had the benefit of vertical integration.
      - steve_adams_86 3y ago
monero-xmr 3y ago
They still offer startups money to switch. Last year they offered my company 8 figures to go from AWS to GCP. Of course I said no because… that’s insane and useless. You have to wonder how many companies they are paying to use their subpar tech.
- Masema 3y ago
  8 figures of what, doll hairs? Seriously, 10s of millions wasn't worth switching?
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    It would have taken a solid year of work and all of my DevOps resources, for what? The customers won’t know or care. If I wanted to burn $5 million in salary and a year of feature development I’d rather figure out an on-prem solution, because at least someone might want that. The “pay to switch cloud” model doesn’t make sense.
    - b112 3y ago
      If you have time, please hit me up on my email via my profile. I'd just like to ask a couple of questions. Thanks
- thebytefairy 3y ago
  Hackernews loves to hate google, but I find gcp way more user friendly and simpler to understand and just get things running than on aws.
scrollaway 3y ago
Given how much effort they’re putting into vertexai I doubt they’re bailing on cloud. I wager it’s just expensive to run a registry. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what they’re really selling (the TLDs), rather than the registrar.
- petercooper 3y ago
  It appears to be the opposite to me. They appear to be selling the public facing registrar. Their wholesale registry, which appears to hold the TLDs, is Google Registry: https://www.registry.google/ https://www.registry.google/ I suspect Google finds it a lot easier to run a registry with a few enterprise clients than to deal with flesh and blood customers owning domains.

cardy31 3y ago

The company I work for is on GCP and I live in fear of seeing the “Google to shut down GCP by $now + ~2 years” headline.

jay_kyburz 3y ago
I'm living that now. I will no longer be able to push changes to my Python 2.7 apps as of January. Instead of porting to Python 3, I'm porting away from Google.
- afavour 3y ago
  I’ll blame Google for a lot but in this instance I think they’re right. Python 2.7 is EOL, they’d be foolish to keep running it indefinitely on the servers they’re responsible for.
- delecti 3y ago
  Python 2.7 released 14 years ago. About 8.5 years ago (5+ years later), it was announced that Python 2.7 would be supported until 2020. You had over 5 years to prepare for it, and then Google supported it for another 3 years beyond even that generous warning.
  - katbyte 3y ago
    So? Let’s say you had an old large code base in 100,000s of lines of code that just works and has been mostly untouched for years in eol/maintenance. you expect there to be budget or time to rewrite it into python 3 for literally no reason other then “2.7 is deprecated”? It’s far cheaper, potentially millions cheaper, to just change clouds/providers and find a way to continue on 2.7.
    - aniforprez 3y ago
      > Let’s say you had an old large code base in 100,000s of lines of code that just works I've migrated 200k LoC python 2.7 codebases to python 3. It certainly wasn't painless but tools like black, flake8, 2to3 and other stuff helped. It's not impossible and can be executed in 2-4 weeks > you expect there to be budget or time to rewrite it into python 3 for literally no reason other then “2.7 is deprecated” 2.7 is not just deprecated. It's dead. There's no more updates. It's not "millions cheaper" to not migrate. I posit you'd save a LOT of money from the sheer performance improvements and bug fixes from migrating than anything else. In my own case we saved a few hundred dollars a month from not having to spawn new containers and EC2 instances
      - jay_kyburz 3y ago
        To be clear, I am upgrading from Python 2.7, but while I do it I'm not building in a way that requires any code from Google and will make sure the app is platform agnostic. It doesn't really matter how many years of notice they gave me, I just haven't had time to do it.
        b112 3y ago
        Having any sort of code on python 2.7, means you don't give a rat's ass about security. It also immediately means your code should be assumed to have back doors, vulnerabilities, because python 2.7 almost certainly does! This is what happens, when no one is maintaining software. Security is more important that anything, certainly than having time or not to update your code. You're 100% in the wrong here, and Google is 100% in the right, and I hate Google more than spammers, more than pretty much any other company there is. They're not wrong here, and it hurts me to support their stance. Fix your stuff. Stop blaming others. I doesn't matter why you're in the situation you're in, you're wrong to be there. No matter what.
        solardev 3y ago
        Companies suffer security breaches all the time and nothing really seems to happen. Who is it important to?
- yencabulator 3y ago
  You seem to be confusing AppEngine with Google Cloud. Former is a tiny part of the latter.

steve_adams_86 3y ago

Interesting, I first used GCP maybe 7 years ago and really liked it. Two years ago I came back to it for a year and couldn’t put my finger on it, but it seemed quite a bit worse. I wasn’t sure if it was a case of rose tinted glasses. Like you mentioned, the docs were really shoddy when I needed them. Certain conventions felt half baked compared to AWS, and I don’t even like AWS to begin with. Overall it seemed like the integration of services was much worse than AWS, though. Administration of different services is like visiting separate worlds at times, like the teams might not be on the same page regarding design and technical language. The other possibility is I’m just a little dumb and don’t pick up on the patterns — I’m pretty open to that. It’s a shame, I wish there was a cloud provider that I actually liked and at one point, that was GCP.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
> It’s a shame, I wish there was a cloud provider that I actually liked I'm curious what it is about Azure that puts you off.
- jaxn 3y ago
  I’m on Azure, it’s still Microsoft. I like a lot of Microsoft stuff these days that plays nice with open source dev tools. Azure doesn’t get in the way of that, but my defaults are not their defaults. I’m perfectly happy with AKS. Their Postgres product is great (formerly citus). But at the the end of the day, they still want to sell Windows, Exchange, SQL Server, Active Directory, etc. That’s a choice I will probably never make, so it just feels like a mismatch.
  - popinman322 3y ago
    Active Directory is actually pretty good I think. Having worked with both Azure and AWS, AzureAD makes AWS IAM permissions feel half baked. Granted my experience was inside Azure so we had the benefit of vertical integration.
    - steve_adams_86 3y ago

monero-xmr 3y ago

They still offer startups money to switch. Last year they offered my company 8 figures to go from AWS to GCP. Of course I said no because… that’s insane and useless. You have to wonder how many companies they are paying to use their subpar tech.

Masema 3y ago
8 figures of what, doll hairs? Seriously, 10s of millions wasn't worth switching?
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  It would have taken a solid year of work and all of my DevOps resources, for what? The customers won’t know or care. If I wanted to burn $5 million in salary and a year of feature development I’d rather figure out an on-prem solution, because at least someone might want that. The “pay to switch cloud” model doesn’t make sense.
  - b112 3y ago
    If you have time, please hit me up on my email via my profile. I'd just like to ask a couple of questions. Thanks
thebytefairy 3y ago
Hackernews loves to hate google, but I find gcp way more user friendly and simpler to understand and just get things running than on aws.

scrollaway 3y ago

Given how much effort they’re putting into vertexai I doubt they’re bailing on cloud. I wager it’s just expensive to run a registry. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what they’re really selling (the TLDs), rather than the registrar.

petercooper 3y ago
It appears to be the opposite to me. They appear to be selling the public facing registrar. Their wholesale registry, which appears to hold the TLDs, is Google Registry: https://www.registry.google/ https://www.registry.google/ I suspect Google finds it a lot easier to run a registry with a few enterprise clients than to deal with flesh and blood customers owning domains.