5 ms·

You sound like you're proud of this work and this plan and this sequence of events. code.google going away, without the excuse that google itself was going awa

You sound like you're proud of this work and this plan and this sequence of events. code.google going away, without the excuse that google itself was going away, after I had started to rely on it and link to it in docs and scripts all over the place, is what taught me to never depend on google for anything. If google had said "The purpose of this service is an academic goal of Googles, not to serve users needs. This service will be shut off as soon as Googles academic purpose is met." I would not have used it. But Google did not say that. Google presented the service as a service whos purpose was to be useful to users. And only because of that, we used it. Do you see the essential problem here? Effectively, Google harnessed users for it's own purposes without their consent by means of deception. The free-ness of the service that the users received doesn't even count as a fair trade in a transaction because the transaction was based on one party misinforming the other. So thanks for all your work making the world a better place.

procrastitron 2y ago
> code.google going away, without the excuse that google itself was going away, after I had started to rely on it and link to it in docs and scripts all over the place It didn't go away, though. It got archived and that archive is still up and running today. Those links you put all over the place should still be working. > If google had said "The purpose of this service is an academic goal of Googles, not to serve users needs. This service will be shut off as soon as Googles academic purpose is met." I would not have used it. That's not an accurate representation of what DannyBee said. Moreover, what DannyBee did say is in line with what Google itself said was its goal when the service launched: https://support.google.com/code/answer/56511 https://support.google.com/code/answer/56511 "One of our goals is to encourage healthy, productive open source communities. Developers can always benefit from more choices in project hosting." > Effectively, Google harnessed users for it's own purposes without their consent by means of deception. This does not appear to be a good faith argument. None of what DannyBee said in their comment aligns with that interpretation. Neither does that interpretation line up with Google's publicly stated goals when they launched Google Code.
- justinclift 2y ago
  > It didn't go away, though. It got archived ... "It got archived" means it went away for actual use. i.e. in not-just-read-only fashion
  - nl 2y ago
    But that's ok! It's easy to switch to a new code host. It's hard to change all the links on the internet if your link rots. Putting a service like code.google into read-only mode is pretty much the ideal outcome for a discontinued service. Google should be praised for how they behaved here.
    - bronson 2y ago
      Coding is a solitary activity? Switching everyone to a new environment is hard. Also, "Google sunset their project really well" is damning with faint praise.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        >Switching everyone to a new environment is hard. Sure, but this is the danger you get when you rely on an outside vendor's service for anything. If you don't want to deal with this danger, then you should never, ever use an external vendor's service for anything; you should only use your own self-hosted solutions. Of course, Google does have a worse track record than some when it comes to their services being EOLed if they aren't search, Maps, etc., but still, this can happen with anything: it can be shut down, or bought out by a competitor, etc. >Also, "Google sunset their project really well" is damning with faint praise. I don't think so in this case. I'd say Google has done a poor job of sunsetting other projects of theirs, but if this one actually keeps all the links alive albeit in read-only mode, that's really a lot better than most other EOLed or shut-down (like due to bankruptcy) services (from Google or anyone else), where it just disappears one day.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
hathawsh 2y ago
This is a repeatable pattern: 1. A well-known major company sees that people are relying on something broken and it's hindering progress. 2. The company decides to compete with that thing, but it's not part of their mission, so they make it free. 3. Because the new thing is free, and run by a major company, lots of people come to depend on it, even though it's intentionally not the best. 4. Another company builds more competition and works to actually be the best. 5. The major company sees that their original objective of replacing the bad version is fulfilled, so they sunset the thing. 6. People who came to depend on the thing feel betrayed. This is why we should all be cautious about any non-core free service from major companies.
- gary_0 2y ago
  Is GitHub a core service of Microsoft?
  - kagevf 2y ago
    And, how will the existence of source control management in both GitHub and Azure DevOps be reconciled?
    - tracker1 2y ago
      They're sharing a lot of the resources as pragmatically as possible it seems. GH Actions and DevOps workflows are really similar, and afaik run on the same clusters of hardware. There's also some pretty decent integration features for DevOps projects with source control in GitHub for that matter iirc. Not to mention the potential upsell to/from GH Enterprise and/or Azure DevOps. I can imagine at some point, GH Enterprise and Azure DevOps may become more similar and share more infrastructure over time.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Microsoft has over six thousand repos on Github including flagships like Typescript and VSCode. For all intents and purposes, it is a core service. Microsoft is a different beast because so much of their revenue is B2B. Continuity of operations is kind of their whole deal. Google Workspace is the equivalent Google product and they're much less likely to dump a service, unlike the rest of Google.
akoboldfrying 2y ago
[flagged]
- unbecoming 2y ago
  You imply their time has no value, and will not be factored in future decisions in what concerns "Google" and "code hosting".
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    I mean to imply that expecting a for-profit company to continue giving you something free forever is foolish, and that thinking they ought to continue giving it to you is morally unsound at best. >You imply their time has no value They have chosen to risk wasting their own time. Absent longevity guarantees from Google, the responsibility for GP's choice to use Google Code lies with GP, not with Google. (I'm not saying it was a bad decision at all -- for, say, personal hobby projects, I actually think it would have been a very sensible choice to take the value on offer -- and accept the risk that it could all just go away at a moment's notice.) >and will not be factored in future decisions in what concerns "Google" and "code hosting". I don't understand this part, sorry.
- account42 2y ago
  That says more than your lack of empathy than anything else.
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    If I give you something for free, does that oblige me to continue giving it to you for free, forever? If so: Watch how much I give.
- forgotpwd16 2y ago
  Have read comments, on launch of new products, founders stating that free-tiers when applicable are skipped because free users tend to be the most entitled. (That said Google isn't a stranger to shutting down paid services as well.)
thunky 2y ago
I hate to break it to you be GitHub is going to shut down too. Everything does.
- BigParm 2y ago
  People are just now catching on that Google services always fold and leave you hanging. Your comment is insightful. You're ahead of the curve predicting that eventually non-Google services will screw you too. Whats the solution? Is the future self hosted? Making it accessible for non-technical people?
the_gipsy 2y ago
> Google harnessed users for it's own purposes without their consent by means of deception Every profitable company on earth, ever.

procrastitron 2y ago

> code.google going away, without the excuse that google itself was going away, after I had started to rely on it and link to it in docs and scripts all over the place It didn't go away, though. It got archived and that archive is still up and running today. Those links you put all over the place should still be working. > If google had said "The purpose of this service is an academic goal of Googles, not to serve users needs. This service will be shut off as soon as Googles academic purpose is met." I would not have used it. That's not an accurate representation of what DannyBee said. Moreover, what DannyBee did say is in line with what Google itself said was its goal when the service launched: https://support.google.com/code/answer/56511 https://support.google.com/code/answer/56511 "One of our goals is to encourage healthy, productive open source communities. Developers can always benefit from more choices in project hosting." > Effectively, Google harnessed users for it's own purposes without their consent by means of deception. This does not appear to be a good faith argument. None of what DannyBee said in their comment aligns with that interpretation. Neither does that interpretation line up with Google's publicly stated goals when they launched Google Code.

justinclift 2y ago
> It didn't go away, though. It got archived ... "It got archived" means it went away for actual use. i.e. in not-just-read-only fashion
- nl 2y ago
  But that's ok! It's easy to switch to a new code host. It's hard to change all the links on the internet if your link rots. Putting a service like code.google into read-only mode is pretty much the ideal outcome for a discontinued service. Google should be praised for how they behaved here.
  - bronson 2y ago
    Coding is a solitary activity? Switching everyone to a new environment is hard. Also, "Google sunset their project really well" is damning with faint praise.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >Switching everyone to a new environment is hard. Sure, but this is the danger you get when you rely on an outside vendor's service for anything. If you don't want to deal with this danger, then you should never, ever use an external vendor's service for anything; you should only use your own self-hosted solutions. Of course, Google does have a worse track record than some when it comes to their services being EOLed if they aren't search, Maps, etc., but still, this can happen with anything: it can be shut down, or bought out by a competitor, etc. >Also, "Google sunset their project really well" is damning with faint praise. I don't think so in this case. I'd say Google has done a poor job of sunsetting other projects of theirs, but if this one actually keeps all the links alive albeit in read-only mode, that's really a lot better than most other EOLed or shut-down (like due to bankruptcy) services (from Google or anyone else), where it just disappears one day.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago

hathawsh 2y ago

This is a repeatable pattern: 1. A well-known major company sees that people are relying on something broken and it's hindering progress. 2. The company decides to compete with that thing, but it's not part of their mission, so they make it free. 3. Because the new thing is free, and run by a major company, lots of people come to depend on it, even though it's intentionally not the best. 4. Another company builds more competition and works to actually be the best. 5. The major company sees that their original objective of replacing the bad version is fulfilled, so they sunset the thing. 6. People who came to depend on the thing feel betrayed. This is why we should all be cautious about any non-core free service from major companies.

gary_0 2y ago
Is GitHub a core service of Microsoft?
- kagevf 2y ago
  And, how will the existence of source control management in both GitHub and Azure DevOps be reconciled?
  - tracker1 2y ago
    They're sharing a lot of the resources as pragmatically as possible it seems. GH Actions and DevOps workflows are really similar, and afaik run on the same clusters of hardware. There's also some pretty decent integration features for DevOps projects with source control in GitHub for that matter iirc. Not to mention the potential upsell to/from GH Enterprise and/or Azure DevOps. I can imagine at some point, GH Enterprise and Azure DevOps may become more similar and share more infrastructure over time.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Microsoft has over six thousand repos on Github including flagships like Typescript and VSCode. For all intents and purposes, it is a core service. Microsoft is a different beast because so much of their revenue is B2B. Continuity of operations is kind of their whole deal. Google Workspace is the equivalent Google product and they're much less likely to dump a service, unlike the rest of Google.

akoboldfrying 2y ago

[flagged]

unbecoming 2y ago
You imply their time has no value, and will not be factored in future decisions in what concerns "Google" and "code hosting".
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  I mean to imply that expecting a for-profit company to continue giving you something free forever is foolish, and that thinking they ought to continue giving it to you is morally unsound at best. >You imply their time has no value They have chosen to risk wasting their own time. Absent longevity guarantees from Google, the responsibility for GP's choice to use Google Code lies with GP, not with Google. (I'm not saying it was a bad decision at all -- for, say, personal hobby projects, I actually think it would have been a very sensible choice to take the value on offer -- and accept the risk that it could all just go away at a moment's notice.) >and will not be factored in future decisions in what concerns "Google" and "code hosting". I don't understand this part, sorry.
account42 2y ago
That says more than your lack of empathy than anything else.
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  If I give you something for free, does that oblige me to continue giving it to you for free, forever? If so: Watch how much I give.
forgotpwd16 2y ago
Have read comments, on launch of new products, founders stating that free-tiers when applicable are skipped because free users tend to be the most entitled. (That said Google isn't a stranger to shutting down paid services as well.)

thunky 2y ago

I hate to break it to you be GitHub is going to shut down too. Everything does.

BigParm 2y ago
People are just now catching on that Google services always fold and leave you hanging. Your comment is insightful. You're ahead of the curve predicting that eventually non-Google services will screw you too. Whats the solution? Is the future self hosted? Making it accessible for non-technical people?

the_gipsy 2y ago

> Google harnessed users for it's own purposes without their consent by means of deception Every profitable company on earth, ever.