4 ms·

> 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 th

> 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
        > Of course, Google does have a worse track record Yes, that's the point of the above comments. The repeated lesson is that there's always a risk of shutdown, but don't trust google in particular to keep services running.
dminik 2y ago
There is a difference between > Actually, Google Code was never trying to win. > It was simply trying to prevent SF from becoming a shitty monoculture ... . Google was 100% consistent on this ... And > One of our goals is to encourage healthy, productive open source communities. Developers can always benefit from more choices in project hosting. These are not the same. One of these makes it out to be the singular goal. The other does not.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  Yes, there is a difference, but one thing you should do when you see this difference and think it is critical consider whether you are parsing words way too strongly in a colloquial discussion on hacker news. I'm trying to participate in a discussion. Not write comms that go to hundreds of millions of people. That is why the rules of hn are very clear on assuming the best, not the worst.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"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." I think this is misrepresenting what the commenter stated. He appears to have stated the project hosting service "went away". This fits with the context of the OP which is comparing project hosting services, e.g., Google Code, Sourceforge, Github. If the context was software archives, e.g., software mirrors, instead of project hosting, then we could indeed claim "Google Code" still exists. However, the context is project hosting. And no one can upload new projects or revisions to Google Code anymore. Google Code project hosting did in fact "go away": https://codesite-archive.appspot.com/archive/about https://codesite-archive.appspot.com/archive/about The old https://code.google.com/p/projectname https://code.google.com/p/projectname URLs need to be redirected to https://code.google.com/p/archive/projectname https://code.google.com/p/archive/projectname Google then redirects these /archive URLs to storage.googleapis.com Too much indirection https://code.google.com/p/projectname https://code.google.com/p/projectname becomes https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-code-archive/o/v2%2Fcode.google.com%2Fprojectname%2Fproject.json?alt=media https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-... Downloads https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-code-archive/o/v2%2Fcode.google.com%2Fprojectname%2Fdownloads-page-1.json?alt=media https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-...
- scott_w 2y ago
  He made that claim but then conflated it by talking about "those links being gone" which isn't true. I'm going to defend Google on this. They don't need to maintain products forever but this case is a good way to shut down a service. Allow access to existing projects but make clear that active projects need to go somewhere else. The commenter can be upset that they can't use Google Code as a product but they shouldn't misrepresent the situation by saying the code is inaccessible. I checked a university project I created 15 years ago and it's still there. The commenter is objectively incorrect. > Too much indirection I don't think this is a valid criticism. The web is designed explicitly to do this. You can still access the code, that's good enough.
  - rerdavies 2y ago

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
      > Of course, Google does have a worse track record Yes, that's the point of the above comments. The repeated lesson is that there's always a risk of shutdown, but don't trust google in particular to keep services running.

dminik 2y ago

There is a difference between > Actually, Google Code was never trying to win. > It was simply trying to prevent SF from becoming a shitty monoculture ... . Google was 100% consistent on this ... And > One of our goals is to encourage healthy, productive open source communities. Developers can always benefit from more choices in project hosting. These are not the same. One of these makes it out to be the singular goal. The other does not.

DannyBee 2y ago
Yes, there is a difference, but one thing you should do when you see this difference and think it is critical consider whether you are parsing words way too strongly in a colloquial discussion on hacker news. I'm trying to participate in a discussion. Not write comms that go to hundreds of millions of people. That is why the rules of hn are very clear on assuming the best, not the worst.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"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." I think this is misrepresenting what the commenter stated. He appears to have stated the project hosting service "went away". This fits with the context of the OP which is comparing project hosting services, e.g., Google Code, Sourceforge, Github. If the context was software archives, e.g., software mirrors, instead of project hosting, then we could indeed claim "Google Code" still exists. However, the context is project hosting. And no one can upload new projects or revisions to Google Code anymore. Google Code project hosting did in fact "go away": https://codesite-archive.appspot.com/archive/about https://codesite-archive.appspot.com/archive/about The old https://code.google.com/p/projectname https://code.google.com/p/projectname URLs need to be redirected to https://code.google.com/p/archive/projectname https://code.google.com/p/archive/projectname Google then redirects these /archive URLs to storage.googleapis.com Too much indirection https://code.google.com/p/projectname https://code.google.com/p/projectname becomes https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-code-archive/o/v2%2Fcode.google.com%2Fprojectname%2Fproject.json?alt=media https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-... Downloads https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-code-archive/o/v2%2Fcode.google.com%2Fprojectname%2Fdownloads-page-1.json?alt=media https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-...

scott_w 2y ago
He made that claim but then conflated it by talking about "those links being gone" which isn't true. I'm going to defend Google on this. They don't need to maintain products forever but this case is a good way to shut down a service. Allow access to existing projects but make clear that active projects need to go somewhere else. The commenter can be upset that they can't use Google Code as a product but they shouldn't misrepresent the situation by saying the code is inaccessible. I checked a university project I created 15 years ago and it's still there. The commenter is objectively incorrect. > Too much indirection I don't think this is a valid criticism. The web is designed explicitly to do this. You can still access the code, that's good enough.
- rerdavies 2y ago