« Too much spam | Main | Digital Signing and Encryption of email on Linux and Mac OS X »
June 30, 2005
Google is hostile to open source, open standards and no longer cool
Update:On 7 July Google announced the Google Toolbar for the Firefox browser on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. This move should be applauded. Now for Google video. For some time I have been watching Google with growing concern. When they came on the scene, I was a very early user. I thought it was cool that they used Linux and thought that perhaps they would be an open source supporter. With the release of Google Video I think there is now enough evidence to conclude they are hostile to open source.Google's (lack) of Open Source contributions
http://code.google.com/projects.html is a list of open source projects done by Google. 9 projects, none of which are well known to me. I personally maintain three projects and contribute to several others. My employer contributes to 150. I think Google's project contributions are nothing more than a mild bit of PR designed to attract open source developers. But their efforts fall flat.Google's Use of Open Source
Google is perhaps the world's largest user of Linux. They probably get more benefit out of open source than most companies. They use Python. They use Java. Java is not open source, but you do not need to pay for it.Windows only here
I had a colleague who used IE when the rest of used Firefox. We asked why and he pointed out that one of his tools of trade was the Google toolbar. http://toolbar.google.com/googlebar.html. We tried an open source plugin which worked fine for me. That particular version was a frustrating install so he canned Firefox. He is still on IE. Next we have Desktop Search. Windows only. Then, we have hello, also Windows only. Next, Google Earth, Windows only Picasa, Windows only And of course, finally Video, Windows only. What really hurts about this last one is that Google are using the open source VideoLan player. (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/) I have used this player for years on my Linux and Mac machines. VLC has binaries for every operating system out there. Google is Windows only.The death of open standards
When Netscape came out I was a Windows only user. What struck me at the time was the support they offered for other OSes. In my case this made me think that perhaps the Internet era would be one of open standards. It largely has been. I have personally embraced open standards computing. For me Netscape was the example. Google had, and maybe still as the opportunity, to continue that fine tradition. Many of the people that work at Google have personally made serious contributions to open source and open standards. However, by making a growing number of tools Windows only, Google is perpetuating proprietary standards and locking out alternative operating systems such as Linux and Mac OS X. If this continues it will become unviable to use these alternatives. Google, the world's largest open source user, will become the largest open source killer. They will have succeeded where Microsoft failed.Google is no longer cool, they are evil
Google has up to now been considered cool. Not anymore by me. And not anymore I suspect by a growing number of open source developers, Linux and Mac users. The founders love to go on about their ethics and their 'Do not evil' mantra. A bit like the Hippocratic oath of doctors: 'Do no harm'. Well, unless they start supporting open standards they are doing evil.What Google needs to do
Either:- Release clients for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X for each product, or
- Work with the open source community to enable interested developers to do same
What you can do
There is a web site called Linux Appeal, where you can petition Google to support Linux for Google Video. See http://www.linuxappeal.net/petition.php?function=petition_read&petition=35Posted by gluck at June 30, 2005 01:05 PM
Comments
So they're evil because they don't write versions their apps for your prefered OS?
Posted by: Glen Stampoultzis at June 30, 2005 05:51 PM
Although it is sad that Google has windows centric desktop products, it is fairly understandable in business point of view. They are figtihng against Microsoft, it makes sense to focus on Windows when %95 of the desktops are Windows.
In technologic point of view, it is always difficult to maintain desktop applications in multiple platforms in low level languages (C, C++ especially with GUI). Linux has too mus diversity, i would expect Google to provide software for Mac, not linux in the short term.
Another issue is, those products you count (Picasa, Keyhole, Hello..) are not developed by Google, they were bought. So, it is natural not to provide other versions. And since it will not brin any revenue to them, i guess they do not care.
One good choice would be Java for development, which makes multi-platform software maintentenance very easy but i find Google cool (hostile maybe?) to Java, with the same concern in the first paragraph. it is not embedded in windows machines.
Google is a business company, not a charity organisation. They play where the money is.
Posted by: jjjj at July 1, 2005 12:16 AM
It also doesn't help that they disable gmail accounts for users with a Greasemonkey script made just for gmail (they actually can detect when you're running it).
Also, they've shut down most 3rd party uses of Google maps (like the chicago crime website).
Granted they have the *right* to do this. But that doesn't mean they should be doing it . The ability to extend Google Maps as some do is absolutely insane and brilliant. I wish Google sold licenses for it, because we're looking at a big project where it would be absolutely perfect!
Posted by: JohnO at July 1, 2005 12:41 AM
I also found it very disappointing that they seem to be only targetting the big chunk of users who have windows installed and not the linux users/community from whom they have gained so much. Maybe it is just business but 5 tools out of 5!?! That does not speak well for 'contributing back to the community'.
Posted by: Virender Dogra at July 1, 2005 03:07 AM
Man, this is crap.
I use daily google, blogger and gmail. I have linux at home, and this is not a showstopper. I believe google maps to be the same.
What you are complaining here is about the DESKTOP aplications, which I personally do not care. They cover 90% of the desktop market, and you are still whining about linux? You do not have enough with the google search toolbar in Mozilla? You do use Linux and need the Google desktop search? Why?
Do you realize the effort implied in porting those applications to the 2% of the desktop market, that already have OS alternatives, with dozens of distros and window managers? You serious, pretending that Google supports this, instead of developing better web tools?
Your employer supports 150 proyects of the caliber of the AJAX tool contributed by Google? You seem a little biased here.
Posted by: alu1344 at July 1, 2005 05:03 AM
You seem to be making two points here:
1) Google has released very little open source.
2) Google doesn't support "open standards" because their rich clients have been released for Windows.
Point #1 is true: Google has certainly not released very much of the code they've written. The thing is that they're a business... they're not going to give away the stuff that gives them a competitive edge. This doesn't make them evil. This makes them viable. Their home grown tech is what gives them an edge over hungry competitors like MSN and Yahoo.
Point #2 is hogwash. There is no open standard for honest-to-goodness desktop applications. When given a choice between getting something out the door now that can reach 95% of the users, or working several more months to reach 99% of the users, I think Google made the right choice.
Don't get me wrong: I'm a Mac user and I want to see some of these apps come to the Mac. (I've read that both Google Video and Google Earth will be released for the Mac.) But Google is a business targeting the mass market. The Mac and Linux are not the mass market.
If you look at the other players: Yahoo! released its rich apps for Windows first (and some are Windows only), and MSN isn't even worth talking about.
One final bit about open standards: gmail and Google Maps initially only supported IE and Firefox. Both have been extended to support Safari and Opera. Google has worked to follow the standards as much as is possible in the browser.
Now that Google is no longer "the little guy", people want to start pointing to them as being evil. I just don't think they've gone there (yet).
Posted by: Kevin Dangoor at July 1, 2005 07:05 AM
Having had a search around the net since I posted this entry it seems that most people who use alternate OSs have the angry response of WTF.
The responses from people that say Google is a business and can do whatever they like ignore two things:
1) Google enjoyed broad acceptance within the open source community very early. It has been the default search engine on Mozilla and Firefox for years. Our IE brethren were typing in Google or downloading the plugin for the same privilege. To retain the support of open source developers, Google has to abide by some rules, the foremost of which is not to act hostilely toward the open source platform. By making programs, which are likely to become an important part of the Internet Windows only, they create a new barrier to open source OS adoption. That is why I let things like the toolbar and desktop search slide with no comment. Video search is core, and is different.
2) The founders believe in business ethics. This is refreshing. A large amount of trust is involved in using Google, as either a user or advertiser. Searchers trust that advertisers do not get preference, unless clearly shown. Advertisers trust that genuine customers are clicking the adwords. They have damaged by belief in them as an ethical company. They still however retain my trust.
Posted by: Greg Luck at July 5, 2005 11:33 AM