Google Blows Trust Again: Kills "Google Code" Service
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001091.html
Google seems to be on a roll lately when it comes to pulling the rug
out from under users. Recently there was their sudden announcement of
banning explicit materials from Blogger (quickly and wisely
reversed -- for which I've thanked them in the name of free speech
and courtesy to users).
Now comes word of another change which -- while on a somewhat longer
fuse -- may ultimately do far more damage.
You may not have heard of Google Code (GC), but over the years it has
become a key repository for important open source and other software
projects, documentation, and other materials.
While Google Code has clearly been eclipsed by sites such as GitHub in
recent years, the fact remains that for a vast number of technical
software searches the only existing references link to materials
stored only on Google Code.
Google announced on their Open Source Blog today that they are not
permitting new projects on GC as of ... today!
The site goes read-only this summer, and early in January goes to
"tarball-only" (bulk download) read-only status until the end of 2016.
Then ... it all vanishes. Poof!
The end of 2016 may seem like some time away, but in terms of the
Internet and software code resources it's just a blink of the eye.
Google complains of high levels of abuse on Google Code. One might
argue that lack of sufficient support resources provided to GC for
years is at the root of that issue, but let that pass for now.
Google also asserts that since they are providing tools and assistance
for moving projects from GC to GitHub, that this all shouldn't be a
big problem at all.
Wrong. It is a big problem, and here's why.
First, much of the code on GC is from older projects -- still critical
for reference purposes -- but there's nobody actively maintaining
their GC project archives. Administrative email addresses have
changed, the archives have long been stable, and so on.
There literally won't be anyone to migrate enormous numbers of those
archives to other sites, or even receive notices regarding their
upcoming demise.
Yet for vast numbers of GC projects there are also enormous numbers of
links that point deeply into those GC repositories. The first clue
users will have when they search for those un-migrated projects a
couple of years from now -- perhaps in a critical situation -- will be
"404 -- That's all we know!" -- thanks a bunch.
Vanishing code. Vanishing documentation. You get the picture. Just
dandy.
Worst of all, there are obvious ways that Google could have avoided
this disappearing act.
The simplest would be to take the site read-only with appropriate
notification banners and explanations, and keep it available
indefinitely as an important archive -- not just for less than two
years. I'm sure Google could spare the disk space.
Or, as the site shutdown date approached, Google could themselves
migrate the currently un-migrated projects to GitHub (would GitHub
object to this if consulted appropriately beforehand? I doubt it.)
And for all migrations, Google could offer link forwarding so that the
GC link references are not lost.
There are also other possible approaches, virtually all of them
superior to the path that Google has chosen in this case.
Yes, there would be ongoing administrative efforts and costs necessary
for all except the "After December 2016 you're just out of luck, kid!"
approach.
But Google isn't some fly-by-night operation. They have the knowledge,
skills, and resources to deal with this situation in a much more
user-friendly, trust-positive manner, helping to maintain Internet
resources, rather then deleting them for convenience's sake.
It's knowing that Google knows how to do these things right, that
makes decisions like this one regarding Google Code so inexplicable
and so very disappointing.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
