Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Code Deprecates Download Service For Project Hosting

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the look-but-don't-slurp dept.

Cloud 185

New submitter c0d3g33k writes "Google Project Hosting announced changes to the Download service on Wednesday, offering only 'increasing misuse of the service and a desire to keep our community safe and secure' by way of explanation. Effective immediately, existing projects that offer no downloads and all new projects will no longer be able to create downloads. Existing projects which currently have downloads will lose the ability to create new downloads by January 2014, though existing downloads will remain available 'for the foreseeable future.' Google Drive is recommended as an alternative, but this will likely have to be done manually by project maintainers since the ability to create and manage downloads won't be part of the Project Hosting tools. This is a rather baffling move, since distributing project files via download is integral to FOSS culture."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So, "Don't Be Evil..." (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806299)

Becomes, "Don't Be Open."

This is a rather baffling move, since distributing project files via download is integral to FOSS culture."

Considering the recent spate of incidents involving Google taking a shit on the FOSS community that helped to create it, I don't find it baffling at all.

Google is finally turning into the dickhead actor who got rich and forgot who his real friends are.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (5, Informative)

Luthair (847766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806415)

Github also had to discontinue file downloads for the simple fact that people abused it and used the service as a way to distribute content unrelated to the open source material.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (3, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806567)

Any public file sharing system is liable to be abused period. This includes version control systems. It is no excuse for yanking the service. FWIW I have never seen people abuse either of those services for file serving.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (1)

jandrese (485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806657)

I've never seen it either, but I know that it must happen because it's so obvious.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806869)

Github also had to discontinue file downloads for the simple fact that people abused it and used the service as a way to distribute content unrelated to the open source material.

Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of github?

(Not a coder, wouldn't know)

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (2)

EvilIdler (21087) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807081)

No. GitHub uses, as the name implies, Git. You git clone the source code :) People will just have to get used to hosting binaries on some other site, though. Just look at how quickly Flickr got a workaround to allow any file (you can find it on GitHub, incidentally).

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807169)

On github at least I have noticed people just check the binaries into the source tree these days.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807219)

How were people abusing Github downloads? How are people abusing Google Code? What makes Google think people won't similarly abuse Google Drive?

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806569)

They're pushing google drive for downloads. That makes sense on a couple levels -- forced encouragement of google drive and removing redundant functionality -- but this is google so you have to wonder what's next. So... what is next? Will you need to login with google+ to download? Maybe click a few adds before your download begins? Auto download Chrome for you, just in case?

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (5, Interesting)

chris_mahan (256577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807217)

Can't use google drive from work.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806573)

Whoever modded this down is a blind Google fanboy. You'd have to be if you don't see the shitty road Google's been going down for at least the past year across all of their services.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..." (-1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806703)

yeah, because it has to be google, and can't be that github or anyone else has done this as well, right?

zzzzz

cmon anti-google trolls, you can do better than this.

Repeated repeated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806305)

Maybe we should try to post every comment twice?

Maybe we should try to post every comment twice?

(mod this down if you haven't read the comments comments in the article).

Yet Again :( (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806357)

I understand Google's need to "cut the fat" and focus on core services. Yes, I realize Google offers a lot if not most of their services for free. And, yes, I now realize I have a choice to leave Google all together because I'm tired of them getting me used to something then "yanking" it away from me and saying sorry. At this point I'd rather pay for a service that is more stable and long lasting.

Re:Yet Again :( (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806387)

Microsoft welcomes everyone to their paid solutions.

Re:Yet Again :( (0)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806503)

CodePlex is free. Run along.

Re:Yet Again :( (3, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806719)

Didn't we all see this coming though? Google used to make it more obvious by slapping "Beta" on everything, but while we aren't paying for it we all know it's the same thing. You get what you pay for.

They try out products that they hope will eventually make them money. You adopt those products because "free" and "kind of cool". Then Google realizes that lots of things are cool, but only some things make money. Product is over, adopter cries.

I like Google products for many things, but I've never felt that I could adopt them for more than personal use because I tend to view products I buy as a long term decision based as much on their long term support prospects as their costs and functionality. That doesn't mean I'm just going to buy Microsoft, but Google has never even pretended that they are in any of this for the long haul, they just put it there and you use it until it isn't there. And when it isn't, they don't apologize because you should have known better.

I think they have a model of throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks. Perhaps it would be better if they had a mass of product people who were as smart as their developers are and could figure out how to make these things profitable, but I don't think they do. Indeed, I think a good product person is just as rare a quantity as a good developer is, if not more so.

And no one was surprised (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806363)

Google seems to be in a "Fuck everything I've ever done!" phase.

Addendum (-1)

Taantric (2587965) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806371)

Don't Be Evil

*Except when you really want to, then go for your life

Re:Addendum (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806407)

If this is "evil" what word do you use to describe "genocide?"

in future news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806377)

spring cleaning at google next year deprecates google code itself... if it doesn't happen sooner.

a project hosting service that doesn't allow downloads.. WHAT THE FLYING FUCK?

get lost, google. we do NOT need you anymore.

Re:in future news (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806421)

Github did the same thing last year.

Re:in future news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806467)

Google seems to be replacing everything with inferior versions now. (Or at least any of the things I have used).

Re:in future news (0)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806479)

get lost, google. we do NOT need you anymore

Actually, that is what Google is saying to us, its customer^H^H^H^H^H^H product.

Re:in future news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806909)

get lost, google. we do NOT need you anymore

Actually, that is what Google is saying to us, its customer^H^H^H^H^H^H product.

You keep saying that as if anyone cares.

And you just keep saying it over and over and over and over and over and over again, and the situation hasn't changed.

Then more businesses do the same thing and still, nobody cares.

So you try being louder and find that nobody cares.

So you try being more snide and find that nobody cares.

So you try being more smug and find that nobody cares.

And in all of this, you still can't seem to understand that nobody cares.

Because NOBODY CARES.

You can quote theory and abstractions and utopian ideals and dreamworlds where everything is free and everybody loves hosting your email for you and everybody takes part in building a search index and nobody ever abuses it and all sorts of other things that simply don't and can't exist.

You can cry about that all day long if you feel like it.

And you do.

And still, nobody cares.

Because nobody cares.

And nobody cares.

You may think I'm being repetitive here. You may point out that no matter how many times I try to drill this concrete, provable fact into your brain, you still won't change your ways or understand that some people really seriously don't care about this, so long as they're getting a decent service out of it.

You may therefore snap at me and say "A HA! Nobody cares about NOBODY CARING what I have to say! Yet YOU'RE still repeating yourself over and over again! I don't care! Ha! HA HA! I'M VINDICATED!!1!!".

And then I'd ask you how you expect anyone to care about you.

Because nobody cares.

So? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806389)

Github did exactly the same thing quite some time ago, and people didn't complain too much. Why is this a big deal?

Re:So? (3, Interesting)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806449)

Thousands of people go to my Google Code download page to get the latest versions of my software without having to worry about compiling it. This is shitty.

Re:So? (2)

pmontra (738736) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806535)

Sourceforge has software downloads. You might consider moving your project there.

Re:So? (3)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806559)

I actually moved all my projects from Sourceforge to Google Code a while ago. SF felt antiquated, sluggish, and unstable; features as simple as the download counter broke all the time. If this is really what's to become of GC, I'll probably head to CodePlex since it feels cleaner than SF and has TFS support.

Re:So? (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806875)

I believe SourceForge is working on updating their site. I seem to also remember them looking for volunteers.

Re:So? (1)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806995)

Maybe I'll give it another try, but I used it for years and had constant problems. Unfortunately I don't have the time to volunteer.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806787)

Sourceforge appears to have all the tools required for a small open source project svn, bug tracking, forum, wiki, downloads, a cover page... just being on sorceforge generates advertising for your project when other sites review new releases for just about every project there.

Re:So? (2)

Orphis (1356561) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806673)

Nothing prevents you to put a link to the binaries on your website. And if you can't afford a to host a website, there are still file hosting service happy to finally get some legal files.

Also, you know, there were some malware abusing the system and downloading some files on some popular legitimate projects ( http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-TDL-Malware-Variant-Uses-Chromium-Embedded-Framework-339791.shtml [softpedia.com] ). I don't know many projects affected beside this one and I'm sure Google knows better and this move wasn't just to mess around with legitimate users and reduce the costs.

Re:So? (0)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806837)

That's a lackluster workaround and I'm undoubtedly going to lose users because a lot of people link directly to my GC download page. Further, I want the convenience of a single unified system. As I said in other comments, GC previously satisfied my requirements, but with the loss of this feature it no longer does. The malware excuse is utter bullshit and said malware could easily be updated to utilize Google Drive. Also, Softpedia is a terrible source.

Re:So? (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806675)

It's like Barack Obama says - "you didn't build that". Providing pre-compiled software is dangerous since it teaches people that FREE Software and Open Source are about price. I don't provide pre-compiled binaries or documentation for my code. I also intentionally leave in some easy to fix bugs. My users need to edit and compile the source code to run it. My users need to read the source code to understand the cryptic error messages. That's the only way they'll truly appreciate Open Source software.

Re:So? (2)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806881)

Maybe I'll take this approach and shout down anyone that has issues. Finally, the chance to become a true OSS vanguard.

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

Aaden42 (198257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806979)

RMS, is that you?

Not sure what domain your project is in, but unless your target market is "Linux, Emacs users who know C" odds are you're cutting a goodly number of potential users out with that attitude. Certainly there are tools that is appropriate for, but the VAST majority of users don't have a compiler on their systems, much less know how to use one.

Is that a tragedy of the Microsoft-ocracy keeping the world closed for users? I don't think so. [Car analogy coming up] Just because I could technically acquire all of the tools and knowhow to replace any particular part on my car, doesn't mean it's the best use of my money and time to do so. Even if the tools were all free (as in the case of GCC et al.), it's unlikely that it would be in the best interests of a non-techy to take the time to learn to use them, much less learn to troubleshoot them when `./configure && make && make install` doesn't go according to plan. To many people, computers are just tools to get other non-computer related work done, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people like to tinker with their cars, others just want to drive to work and park them.

Even a user who doesn't know how to fix bugs & recompile can be a useful asset to an Open Source project. I've found that some of my non-technical users are the most details oriented when it comes to finding edge case bugs and documenting what it takes to reproduce them. Often enough those are the kinds of bugs that take me two minutes to fix but would have taken hours to track down if not for a complete reproducer reported by a user.

As far as giving people the wrong idea about Free Software, which is worse: Users thinking Free Software is about the price or that it's unusable junk that only nerd/hacker/terr'ists actually use? I've already read articles where less-than-savy authority/law enforcement types have considered simply having Linux installed on a system as evidence of criminal activity. Making Free Software cryptic and difficult to use (neigh unto impossible for certain groups of users) certainly doesn't advance the cause any.

Re:So? (2)

matrim99 (123693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807119)

A true vanguard. You rock!

In order to help your users even further, you may want to think about devolving your app to just pseudo-code. I'm sure that your choice of programming language has given pause to many upcoming Logo programmers out there.

Re:So? (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806505)

Because it is a crap policy. A lot of people will want binaries or packages rather than download source code. Many people do not even have a versioning system installed or will want to download the latest stable source code rather than muck around with an unstable internal development milestone.

Re:So? (4, Informative)

Rakishi (759894) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806543)

People did complain. Amusingly, the biggest counterpoint was that if you want to offer downloads you should probably use google code which is much more user (rather than programmer) friendly.

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806631)

Amusingly, the biggest counterpoint was that if you want to offer downloads you should probably use google code which is much more user (rather than programmer) friendly.

That's pretty much my view too.

The way I looked at things was that Google Code and SourceForge are a lot more centered around what an end user would want to see (either someone who has no idea about version control and coding, or for a library or something like that even a programmer but who just wants to grab a library to use) while GitHub is a lot more centered around what developers who are actually working on a project want to see.

I mean, just think about what the landing page is: on Google Code you get a page with a description of the project and clear, standardized links to the downloads and documentation, and you have to follow a couple (still standardized) links before you're at the code. On GitHub, pretty much the most prominent thing you see when you go to a project page is the directory listing; it even appears above whatever README is present (if any).

Dropping support for a quick and easy download from the former is a lot more baffling of a move than dropping it from the latter.

Re:So? (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806641)

Because this is slashdot, and it has become hip to point at any curating or reducing of their free services as violating "dont be evil".

Re:So? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806867)

GitHub doesn't have competitors that pay people to spread FUD.

Doesn't Github already do this? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806401)

Code repositories are code repositories, file hosting is file hosting. Having to connect using version control is no real impediment to 'openness'

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (1)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806463)

It is to users who don't have the tools or skills necessary to grab source and compile it.

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (1)

IshmaelDS (981095) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806537)

So do it for them. As has been stated GitHub did this already, didn't see a crap ton of whining then.

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (1)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806589)

I do, then I throw the binaries up on Google Code. Except now that feature is gone, which is what this article is about. So what exactly are you suggesting?

Re: Doesn't Github already do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806707)

I pay $10/yr.
I have a domain name.
I have file hosting services, and bitbucket.
Link from homepageof code repo to binaries page on file service

Re: Doesn't Github already do this? (1)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806777)

I have domain names and web servers that I can and have used in the past, but I don't want to fuck around with that. There's a lot of value in having a single, unified system for bug tracking, source control, file hosting, etc. Google Code scratched that itch, but with the departure of this feature it no longer does.

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807005)

Because bithub had about 5% of the user base Google Code does. Now can you stop cawwing on the same crap over and over again?

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (-1, Flamebait)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806799)

That's because most users are unfamiliar with how the replacement technology works. Something like there's some short string of text, and it links to some other thing, like a page, connected together in a . . . in a . . . kind of web thing. And this other page belongs to this place, like a location or site, that can host the binary files for the original source code. I'm sure our best scientists will figure out a way for this system to be implemented on github.

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (1)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806971)

I'm going to guess you don't maintain software with a sizeable userbase, or you don't care about user experience. A lot of people link directly to my GC download page, and my users expect to find the latest version there. Even if I can shoehorn a link into that page, it's probably not going to be obvious. What I'm trying to say is fuck off loser.

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807063)

Loser? I'm not the one dumb enough to to figure out how to post basic instructions through the *various* ways on the internet telling folks to download from a link.

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (1)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807117)

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned that a lot (as in far too many to contact individually) of people link directly to my GC download pages, pages that I do not control the markup for. Will this change kill my projects? No. Does it suck? Yes. Do you have anything to contribute to this conversation? No. Should you sit down and shut the fuck up? Yes.

Re:Doesn't Github already do this? (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807201)

My apologies, I was talking in general; not about your specific project or your ego tied to it. Most projects I have seen have presented no significant barrier if the repository doesn't host the final download directly. Worst comes to worst, most folk just google the project they want to see if they are looking for it. Not a big deal.

Back to (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806409)

Back to sourceforge

Another one bite's the dust! (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806417)

And another one gone and another one gone...
Another one bites the dust!
Hey! I'm gonna get you too!
Another one bites the dust!

What the fuck Google? (1)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806429)

What the fuck Google? I have some rather successful projects, and my Google Code page is where users go to find the latest version. Fuck.

chrUbuntu (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806435)

This effectively shuts down that project right? I can understand why Google would want to eliminate the ability of people to easily put an alternative OS on their Chromebook.

Github did this recently (5, Informative)

oGMo (379) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806439)

Github did this recently [github.com] too which was annoying, because it was useful. They're not entirely clear why ... "confusing" doesn't seem nearly as likely as "abuse", though I am not aware of any abuse in particular. Since Google is providing Drive as an alternative, and not even immediately removing the service for those using it, it's not even as bad as Github's move, which removed it for everyone. I suppose it's an opportunity to cut another Google dependency though if you really want.

Re:Github did this recently (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806475)

You can host any file on the gh-branch which is for websites. And before somebody comes and screams bloody murder over binary files in the repo, growing it in size, just force rebase that branch with each upload, nobody tracks that anyway.

Re:Github did this recently (3, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806523)

True. But Google Drive is not exactly known for easy to read URLs.

Re:Github did this recently (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806809)

URLs are for clicking, not reading.

Re:Github did this recently (1)

devent (1627873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806961)

Not really. I want to know first where a URL is pointing to before clicking.
And there is no reason to make a URL not readable to both by the server and by a human.

Re:Github did this recently (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806983)

Looks like Google [google.com] agrees with you.

Re:Github did this recently (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807023)

True. But Google Drive is not exactly known for easy to read URLs.

What are you talking about, [USER_TYPE:HUMAN UNIT:670288]? [LINE FEED] Values derived from hash functions of sufficient length are superior sorting and indexing mechanisms for long-term persistence of non-volatile data structures. The use of values that map directly to integers provide search efficiency of big-O-one as opposed to [STRING] searching, which is typically big-O-log-n or worse. You, [USER_TYPE:HUMAN UNIT:670288], must have a malfunction in your [LOGIC-PROCESSING DESIGN] and must obtain maintenance before further conversation can be attempted reliably. [END COMMUNICATION]

Re:Github did this recently (2)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807175)

You sir/madam/machine/thing have won several internets.

If you would like, I have a recently widowed Nigerian prince who will send them to you.

Only affects Google hosting? (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806477)

I know more than a few projects using code.google.com that have downloads from a separate server, perhaps to get around some inconvienences already built into the system.

Maybe the cost of bandwidth is getting to be significant, or maybe it is due to abuse. The announcement seems to suggest people were creating projects just to distribute large files, probably copyrighted material, (and possibly malware), and getting Google to host it for free.

Still, if you have to set up two or more different services to host your project, why would you bother with the one that didn't allow project downloads? What would be the point of using that on a community project? It would seem this would drive the community away. Perhaps this telegraphs the death knell for yet another Google service?

Re:Only affects Google hosting? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806669)

Maybe the cost of bandwidth is getting to be significant, or maybe it is due to abuse.

I can't imagine it's bandwidth, because no matter how many projects are there the bandwidth needs are going to be miniscule compared to another of their free services - YouTube.

Re:Only affects Google hosting? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806771)

Well, most projects don't carry advertising. YouTube does, and it also has other revenue generation programs.

Projects tend to be very small, and the whole thing could be probably better handled by imposing a limit on the size.
But i've seen a couple projects purporting to relate to video processing packages that had entire movies as test data.
These disappeared pretty quickly, suggesting the "test data" (porn) was the purpose all along.

what's wrong with the command line (2, Interesting)

pouar (2629833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806507)

just use
svn checkout enter-url-here
It's how I download everything from google code, and for github I use git. or is the command line "too ancient" to use anymore?

Re:what's wrong with the command line (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806595)

Because end users don't have SVN?

Re:what's wrong with the command line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806633)

There are graphical clients too.

Re:what's wrong with the command line (5, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806685)

Because the average user doesn't want the source code, they want to download a prepared binary in an installer or zipfile?

Just for comparison's sake (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806515)

what does this service cost compared to the alternatives?

What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806519)

I wonder when they will yank Android. Did cost them to the tune of approximately 13-15 billions (buying the Android company + Motorola + dev costs + law suits + marketing +...+...) and earned them about 500 millions through ads. Even Samsung makes more money through Android then Google themselves. Hell, even MS makes more than double of that of Android through licence agreements with Android OEMs.

Financially, Android doesn't make sense for Google. Not at all. They would be better off without Android and subsequently without Motorola.

(down mod as much as you like, but these numbers are, to my best knowledge, just facts)

Re:What's next? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806557)

Were it not for Android Google would risk losing market share in their existing search engine and ads markets as Apple and other companies served as a gatekeeper to the Internet. So yeah the investment makes sense. They did pay an outrageous amount of cash to buy Motorola but then again other companies have spent more cash on software acquisitions of even more dubious value.

Re: What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806895)

That would be a valid point if Google wouldn't make more money with iOS (admob ads) than with Android. iOS :80%, Android :20%.
So it really doesn't make much sense.

Slashdot has become the whinehub (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806635)

It seems that every day you look at slashdot and what looks like news is actually someone whining: Big corporation x, which exists to make money for its shareholders, has decided to stop offering some service which they used to provide for free (as in free beer)

We've heard of BitTorrent, haven't we? (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806647)

My MOM knows what BitTorrent is. It's available on nearly every platform in existence; there's even a javascript client, I think? Some browsers now have clients built-in or available via extensions. With DHT supported by most every client, you don't even need a tracker. Web seeding means you don't have to guarantee seeded peers if you've got some HTTP mirror available somewhere.

So, can FOSS projects please grow up and start using bittorrent more? Can we make torrents a little more transparent to users, as well? As in, you click a link and you don't need to do anything else, no external programs, etc? Some big projects like Libreoffice have been using BitTorrent for a while; distributions have been as well even longer.

PS:For the love of god, please pick a sensible chunk size *glares at people who create 300MB torrents with 4MB chunk sizes*

Re:We've heard of BitTorrent, haven't we? (3, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806663)

yes, that's the thing that AT&T and comcast will threaten then cut your access if you use. good thinking

Re:We've heard of BitTorrent, haven't we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806885)

ISPs can tell when you're after an obvious piece on a public tracker without any sort of masking at all. But they don't particularly care.

MPAA or Hollywood or whoever hires people who do care, but they only know incomplete stuff like your IP/ISP, so they pressure your ISP to do the threatening, because line#1 and they know your name/address.

So AT&T and comcast comply, send you a letter, but don't really give a fuck since they collect your bill regardless of what you access. They only cut you, a cash source, if you're gonna be a liability. Or eat 9000TB/mo.

And of course, all of the above only applies to your none-too-subtle [2004].Twilight.DVDrip.aXXo.mp4, not benign p2p distro.

Re:We've heard of BitTorrent, haven't we? (3, Funny)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806927)

Actually the opposite might work too. If bittorrent becomes a favorite distribution protocol for FOSS, that might push ISPs into being more tolerant toward it.

Re:We've heard of BitTorrent, haven't we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807035)

Blimey which planet are you from?

Re:We've heard of BitTorrent, haven't we? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807071)

my nose hurts from the pop I launched through it laughing.

Re:We've heard of BitTorrent, haven't we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807075)

Actually the opposite might work too. If bittorrent becomes a favorite distribution protocol for FOSS, that might push ISPs into being more tolerant toward it.

At the risk of feeding a troll:

Open source project downloads will never be a significant consumer of bandwidth compared to movie piracy. I guarantee you that the following sentence will never by uttered by anyone at an ISP: "I wish we could block people from pirating content to avoid legal trouble from the MPAA, but I just can't risk upsetting all the users who want to download Free as in Speech software and insist on using torrents to do so."

ha ha ha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806829)

i hope googles shaft feels good up your ass fanbois. oh and when you squirm and resist it just makes them more excited.

Way to go, Dropbox users (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806857)

Remember when it was normal to move files around with standard protocols, which worked reliably and didn't require any bizarre shit? And then remember when someone came up with a great idea of offering file storage service, with the caveat that you would have to use weird special software in order to upload and download your files, so that we could move toward a situation where it's not always necessarily available (e.g., if the weird software hasn't been ported to your box yet) not as easily scriptable, and just didn't work as well?

People, when that happened, you were supposed to laugh in Dropbox's face, slapping your knee while between chuckles you weakly uttered "oh my god, what a stupid idea! And how insulting for you to think we're stupid enough to fall for it!"

That's what you were supposed to say. Instead, it seems that a bunch of people said, "oh, cooool!!!" instead.

So of course Google had to go make Google Drive, to catch up on being as horrible as Dropbox, so that Dropbox wouldn't get the whole market of stupid people. Stupid people are a valuable market.

But once they had to deal with stupid people and not-stupid people, they had a problem: wouldn't it be more profitable, if we could get non-stupid people to do things The Stupid Way? You know, run our "drive" software instead of rsync, sftp, etc?

So here we are. Thanks, everyone. Thanks for making these fucking weird nonstandard clients the new norm that everyone is expected to put up with. I just realized something: you all didn't really hate AOL, did you? It stopped being "cool" (?!) but you never understood why it wasn't cool, huh?

Re:Way to go, Dropbox users (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806969)

Truth, all of that, of course.

My favorite part is where everyone here's modding down the wise posts as Trolls. But 'ey, if y'all prefer Facebook 2: +ElectricBoogaloo over federation and XMPP, and ridiculous "abuse" excuses over sensible free software download systems, then I don't have all the time in the world to try to steer the USS Consensus closer to the HMS Sense.

Did Google ever fix Drive's date problem? (2)

hazem (472289) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806877)

The last times I tried using Google Drive, if you downloaded more than one file, it would make a zip file with the files where the dates were all reset to Jan-1-1980. Does it still do that?

That's a deal-killer to me and makes the service unusable. DropBox doesn't do that - so I know it's not technically impossible to so something so difficult as preserve a file's modify-time.

Re:Did Google ever fix Drive's date problem? (1)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807027)

So, I just downloaded some class notes from Google Drive as MS Word documents, and the dates look correct. I think the answer is yes, they did fix the bug. I did this on Windows 7.

Sourceforge (2)

gerddie (173963) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806935)

well, thank the FSM that I never moved away from sourceforge. I migrated from CVS to SVN, now I moved to GIT, and their new Allura interface is quite nice. The only thing that I'm missing in the bug tracker is a way to properly define dependencies between bugs.

Hey guys, did you hear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43806941)

Github did it first

Meanwhile, SourceForge reaches out to developers (5, Informative)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43806959)

Quoting the comments:

Roberto Galoppini May 23, 2013 at 12:40 PM

SourceForge welcomes Google Code open source developers, to distribute downloads from our open source platform.

We serve over 150 Million+ downloads each month, reaching 42 Million+ unique visitors. We help tiny projects as well as whales like Apache OpenOffice to distribute their downloads via our worldwide mirror network.

By distributing your releases at SourceForge you’ll get a complete download analytics, and the opportunity to tap into a large open source community. We already serve other ecosystems by offering their hosted projects our download facilities, including Githubbers.

As a trusted partner for open source we're glad to help. https://sourceforge.net/publish/?source=googlecode [sourceforge.net]

[Disclosure: I work for SourceForge]

Setup looks pretty simple; but, since I don't have code in Google Code, I can't put it to the test. Can anyone attest to how well this works?

Just write a minimal javascript GIT client. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807011)

Host it wherever, throw in some ads, maybe even allow uploading... Profit?!

captcha: manure

SourceForge (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807019)

I know it fell out of favor for new projects when Google Code / CodePlex / GitHub came on the scene with their Web 2.0 design hotness and minimalistic feature sets, but SourceForge [sf.net] is still around and continues to improve without taking any features away.

Google giveth. (2)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807127)

Google taketh away.

Funny, I was just wondering when this will happen! (2)

NeoHermit (2899437) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807193)

A few hours ago, I was just thinking this might happen someday, and wondering if I should use sourceforge for the downloads of my next software releases in the coming days. Never thought that someday might be today!

Effective Immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807249)

Anyone else hate how Google announces these sorts of things? It's always an "effective immediately" notification of change. They refuse to give anyone the opportunity to prepare for changes in polices. Sure they grandfather existing customers briefly but usually put a time limit on that too. In December they announced the end of free Google Apps Accounts, having disabled the sign up ability a few minutes before the release. This week they also shut down Google Checkout and Google Wallet (for physical goods - it will remain available for now for digital goods) with a similar notice, cutting the ability to sign up along with the notice. Google Reader, Google Health and Google Wave all died the same way - with an unceremonious, unfeeling notification out of the blue to users telling them that they couldn't expand what they were using and that anything they still had access to would be taken away eventually.

Thanks for not caring at all Google.

Re:Effective Immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807273)

Whut.

"We're shutting down, we're also grandfathering existing accounts, and we're giving y'all a grace period (so please go on and start the sign-up frenzy to get a rare grandfathered account you probably won't ever use, but which will waste resources nevertheless)"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?