Google Code Deprecates Download Service For Project Hosting

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."

Comments

So, "Don't Be Evil..."

[CanHasDIY]

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..."

[Luthair]

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..."

[cheesybagel]

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..."

[larry bagina]

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..."

[chris_mahan]

Can't use google drive from work.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..."

[DragonWriter]

Any public file sharing system is liable to be abused period. This includes version control systems.

(1) Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are central to the purpose for which Google provides Google Code, to wit, facilitate developer-to-developer collaboration on open-source projects.
(2) Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are not particularly widely abused for hosting malware to be distributed through emailing deceptive links to unsophisticated users.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be quite popular, I imagine. All that forking, pushing and pulling!

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..."

[DragonWriter]

How are people abusing Google Code?

Using the file download hosting feature to host malware and sending emails with deceptive links to that malware to distribute it to unsuspecting users seems to be one of the main abuses.

Re:So, "Don't Be Evil..."

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect you may have misunderstood how one would actually abuse this.

I email you (or, say, your mom) a link saying Malwarebytes v.10 is now available for download, and it fixes a critical vulnerability and needs to be updated soon or you're at risk. Go to code.google.com/malwarebytes , a project that I've created. I might even populate it with something looking like code that would match, to trick people who are more technical than they really are.

A non-technical user may see that it's it's hosted at Google, and, having some trust for them, they choose to download. Your prompt shows up (what that accomplishes I don't know, so I assume the user, already intent on downloading it, answers it.)

So, by your second rule, they download MalwareBytes.zip, which contains MalwareBytes.exe (actually malware), and voila. 0wned.

And no one was surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

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

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Rakishi]

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?

[EvanED]

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?

[larry bagina]

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?

[Aaden42]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer avoiding pseudocode altogether, wouldn't want users to get too comfortable. i prefer this approach - a single source file with these contents:

File name: AwesomeSoftware.cpp
/*

        don't forget #include the stuff your software will need to compile and run!

        enter your code below in proper C++ syntax. It should do what you need.

        If you don't know what to write, you should probably go read lots of books
        and take a 4 year undergraduate program in Computer Science. Then
        maybe you won't be such a fucking retard, luser. I don't work for you, and
        I sure as shit am not getting paid by you.

        This file is licensed using GPLv3.

*/

I like to then provide a makefile with these contents:

# Make sure you have no errors in your file before you attempt to build!
all :
          @ echo "Compiling your shit."
          g++ AwesomeSoftware.cpp -o AwesomeSoftware
          @ echo "Cleaning up!"
          rm -f AwesomeSoftware.cpp

I find this to be the best way to spread the good word of open source and teach people good development practices.

God Bless Richard Stallman. God Bless Linus Torvalds.

Re:in future news

[Desler]

Github did the same thing last year.

Github did this recently

[oGMo]

Github did this recently 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

[cheesybagel]

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

Re:Github did this recently

[Anonymous Coward]

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]

Only affects Google hosting?

[icebike]

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?

We've heard of BitTorrent, haven't we?

[SuperBanana]

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?

[iggymanz]

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?

[godrik]

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:what's wrong with the command line

[Todd Knarr]

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

Re:Yet Again :(

[tnk1]

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.

Way to go, Dropbox users

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Meanwhile, SourceForge reaches out to developers

[MAXOMENOS]

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

[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?

The also changed the Lic Terms to D&R

[goombah99]

here's there new Lic terms for all google code:

D&R (Death and Repudiation) License
========

This software may not be used directly by any living being. ANY use of this
software (even perfectly legitimate and non-commercial uses) until after death
is explicitly restricted. Any living being using (or attempting to use) this software
will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

For your protection, corpses will not be punished. We respectfully request
that you submit your uses (revisions, uses, distributions, uses, etc.) to
your children, who may vicariously perform these uses on your behalf. If
you use this software and you are found to be not dead, you will be punished
to the fullest extent of the law.

If you are found to be a ghost or angel, you will be punished to the fullest
extent of the law.

After your following the terms of this license, the author has vowed to repudiate
your claim, meaning that the validity of this contract will no longer be recognized.
This license will be unexpectedly revoked (at a time which is designated to be
most inconvenient) and involved heirs will be punished to the fullest extent
of the law.

Furthermore, if any parties (related or non-related) escape the punishments
outlined herein, they will be severely punished to the fullest extent of a new
revised law that (1) expands the statement "fullest extent of the law" to encompass
an infinite duration of infinite punishments and (2) exacts said punishments
upon all parties (related or non-related).