Developer Requests Google Remove Their Logo From Re-Designed Golang Page (github.com) 113
Slashdot reader DevNull127 writes: Another very minor kerfuffle has broken out in the community for the Go programming language. When its official Twitter account asked for feedback on the new look of its web site, one developer suggested that it had been a mistake to add the Google logo to the lower-right of the home page. "A lot of people associate it with a commercial Google product."
Following the suggested procedure, he then created an issue on GitHub. ("Go is perceived by some as a pure Google project without community involvement. Adding a Google logo does not help in this discussion.") The issue received 61 upvotes (and 30 downvotes), eventually receiving a response from Google software engineer Andrew Bonventre, the engineering lead on the Go Team.
"Thanks for the issue. We spent a long time talking about it and are sensitive to this concern. It's equally important to make it clear that Google supports Go, which was missing before (Much like typescriptlang.org). Google pays for and hosts the infrastructure that golang.org runs on and we hope the current very small logo is a decent compromise." He then closed the issue.
The developer who created the issue then responded, "I get that you've discussed this internally. This is a great opportunity to discuss it with the community. I'm thankful to Google for financing the initial and ongoing development of Go but Google is not the only company investing [in] Go. I would like to move the Google logo into an separate section, together will the major stakeholders of the project."
In a later comment he added "I value Google's participation in Go and I'm not arguing to change that. Having the Google logo in the corner of each golang.org page suggests that this is a pure Google project when it is not..."
For some perspective, another Go developer had also suggested "animate the gopher's eyes on the website."
"Thanks, but we're not going to do this," responded the engineering lead on the Go Team. "We've discussed it before and it would be way too distracting."
Following the suggested procedure, he then created an issue on GitHub. ("Go is perceived by some as a pure Google project without community involvement. Adding a Google logo does not help in this discussion.") The issue received 61 upvotes (and 30 downvotes), eventually receiving a response from Google software engineer Andrew Bonventre, the engineering lead on the Go Team.
"Thanks for the issue. We spent a long time talking about it and are sensitive to this concern. It's equally important to make it clear that Google supports Go, which was missing before (Much like typescriptlang.org). Google pays for and hosts the infrastructure that golang.org runs on and we hope the current very small logo is a decent compromise." He then closed the issue.
The developer who created the issue then responded, "I get that you've discussed this internally. This is a great opportunity to discuss it with the community. I'm thankful to Google for financing the initial and ongoing development of Go but Google is not the only company investing [in] Go. I would like to move the Google logo into an separate section, together will the major stakeholders of the project."
In a later comment he added "I value Google's participation in Go and I'm not arguing to change that. Having the Google logo in the corner of each golang.org page suggests that this is a pure Google project when it is not..."
For some perspective, another Go developer had also suggested "animate the gopher's eyes on the website."
"Thanks, but we're not going to do this," responded the engineering lead on the Go Team. "We've discussed it before and it would be way too distracting."
Suck it up (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Go is a language, so is Java. The discussion was about forking Go, the OpenJDK is the reference implementation of Java , ostensibly open sources, yet Java is owned and controlled by a single company. The question was considering out supposedly totally open sourcing Java and the JDK, Oracle still controls it, how would forking Go work out any better? Oracle sued Google for using Java the language for Android (it doesn't use the JVM), so perhaps Google might not sue anyone using Go the language.
Re: (Score:1)
No, the actual point being made here is there are many other contributors to this project, NOT just Google. [...] But they do need to understand they are a contributor, not THE contributor, no matter how they feel about it.
No, they are not "a" contributor, they are the ones who started it all. Without Google, no Go language. But they decided to open-source it and let others contribute.
Then, just because you feel you want to contribute doesn't mean that Google should be forced to disassociate their name with it. If they feel like it, they can relinquish control one day. But until then, it is their project, open-source or not.
I have seen open-source projects being hi-jacked by assholes pretending to contribute, wanting to take
Re: (Score:2)
The key is that if this is a deal breaker for contributors, the contributors are free to fork the project and carry on with another name but starting with identical implementation, if they decide the branding is not right and the originating company is taking too much credit.
There is plenty of precedence for these being attempted with mixed results.
Libav forked ffmpeg, and largely their fork failed.
Xorg forked Xfree86 over licensing, and the fork suceeded.
Wireshark 'forked' Ethereal (really the project had
Re:Suck it up (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Suck it up! As long as Sco and Bell Labs now AT&T want c/c++, it is a Sco and AT&T product, pure and simple. ...find another language to support as clang,gcc are not licensed.
Re: (Score:2)
Do SCO and Bell Labs control the c/c++ compiler code repositories? No?
Google controls the golang repository and every little detail of the platform development, completely and utterly. And I must say, the result of that is more than a little underwhelming compared to a genuinely innovative project like Rust, entirely owned by its contributors.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's no way a big corporation would create something, open source it, then NOT try to brand it.
https://swift.org/ [swift.org]
Re: (Score:1)
So would you also support Microsoft placing a prominent Microsoft logo on every GitHub page (including GoLang's)? After all, Microsoft own GitHub and therefore pay for/own everything on GitHub and if you don't like that you can suck it up, buttercup.
Google Logo now icky?!? (Score:1)
I would think it is becoming pretty apparent, people of better spirit do not want to be tainted by the well, icky, Google logo, you know, lay down with dogs, expect to get fleas. Nasty little critters that invade your privates, bite into in and try to suck the life out of it.
Having the google logo there is not seen as a measure of HUMAN digital rights, of respect of privacy, a respect for freedom of speech, any 'OPINION' allowed (no freedom when it comes to the false expression of facts, you are free to ex
Re: (Score:1)
Well (Score:2)
When Sun and subsequently Oracle do it they they are evil, but when Google, or whatever their name for tax purposes is, does it then it's OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny they don't mind Google now setting web standards but I can only imagine the reaction here if Microsoft did it :-)
Re: Well (Score:2)
No need to imagine, just dig back to 97-98 when ie came out and see all the fuss that's been kicked up around bgsound and marquee and whatnot...valign I think too..
The fact that google discussed this "internally" a (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that google discussed this "internally" and then "closed" the ticket without further discussion makes the point pretty clear that GO does belong to Google, and nobody else matters.
Re: The fact that google discussed this "internall (Score:5, Insightful)
Go is to Google as Swift is to Apple, as C# is to Microsoft. Company sponsored programming languages, one per company. Each is designed to not work well on anything else. Tried Swift on Windows? Tried C# on a Mac?
These modern languages are corporate tools to fragment development and protect mindshare. They have very little to do with code. The fact that some company feels their language needs to carry their brand is just an amplification of that.
That said I'm a big fan of C# but I just can't buy into it that hard knowing we're not a Microsoft-exclusive world anymore.
As an aside there was a piece of OSS code Apple was looking at using but they had to overlook it...because it was written in Go. Think about this for a second: By being written in Go it is perceived as "less open" than open source. This is how corporations co-opt and steal open source as an idea. Maybe it's a bit overprotective but I wouldn't want to give Google any help in sabotaging my projects by arbitrarily shifting the language sideways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This comment basically sums it up completely. You can call it a "community driven" or whatever BS term you want but at the end of the day it's not an impartial committee or an unaffiliated individual controlling things - it's Google. Go, Swift, and to a slightly lesser degree Java are languages that are in all practicality the product of a specific corporation, and if you think otherwise you're a fool.
But isn't (Score:2)
that what go stands for? Google Only?
Rename the language! (Score:5, Funny)
Another very minor kerfuffle has broken out in the community for the Go programming language.
From old post [slashdot.org]:
'Kerfuffle' Erupts Around Newly-Proposed try() Feature For Go Language
Just rename Go to Kerfuffle, and stop whining.
Re: (Score:1)
Google should rename it 'Go Fuck Yourself'
Re: (Score:1)
Nah I'd rather rename it to covfefe.
Re: (Score:2)
'Whiners whine as Kerfuffle errupts from Go fork!'
Issue of trust (Score:2)
It seems Google owns the project (Score:2)
Read the top section of this file. It details WHO has earned the right to contribute, spells out how Google employees are handled, and...Google owns the Copyright.
So, yeah, itâ(TM)s a Google project. Or, itâ(TM)s being supported, predominantly, by Google.
https://golang.org/CONTRIBUTOR... [golang.org]
Compromise (Score:2)
I'm not seeing how this is such a bad compromise on Google's part. If you don't like Google that you're prerogative but your personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant.
If you don't like Google putting a small logo because it might mischaracterize their relationship, I'm sure they'll be happy to put "Sponsored by Google" or some such with a large logo.
I think the logo should stay (Score:2)
Go is not really a general-purpose language. It is aimed at a very specific development and deployment model that is apparently pretty much what Google uses these days. It is rather limited when you want to do something else. Hence I would leave that logo in as a warning.
Bottom line (Score:2)
If you take the King's coin, you are the King's man.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Ah yes, github contribution maps. The best and most valid way to judge the validity of someone's point.
Re: (Score:2)
Go to github and see his contribution heatmap. Then have a good laugh and repeat after me: GTFO.
Huh? What does posting on Github have to do with providing feedback? Are you trying to say because he's on Github he's a Microsoft shill? Are you saying that anyone who makes recommendations on the look of something needs to be a big open source contributor? That would upset the interior decorator industry no end. Are you saying there's a minimum post count before people should take you seriously on unrelated issues? Or maybe you're just so obsessed with ad hominem fallacies that you try to shoehorn them in
No, I'm saying that before he can make demands (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I'm saying that before he can make demands he should become a prominent contributor to the project. All sorts of cooks come out of the woodwork and make demands. Not all of them are worth listening to. Ones that are useful in a productive capacity tend to get more attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering various contributor projects have set the already low bar of making people who clean documentation important. Then the bar has already been set. The people complaining about master and slave, along GIMP(again) aren't core contributors either. But the media gets their flaccid dicks waving in the air in pushing them as ultra important people.
Re:No, I'm saying that before he can make demands (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'm saying that before he can make demands he should become a prominent contributor to the project
Except he's not making demands, the developers specifically asked the *community* for feedback. They already followed through the developer feedback process. Now here we have someone who is interested enough in a programming language to actively follow their Github project and provide feedback when asked.
I'm sorry that you feel the need to think that there is a community, and a "community". What next, pull requests can only be made as part of the *community* which also gets you into the weekly blackjack tournament? Or maybe if you submit code you become part of the COMMUNITY, which also has hookers.
How so incredibly inclusive and open of you. To see your comment modded up on Slashdot is an indication of how far it has fallen, or maybe the Open Source communities are as toxic as some people actually say. You certainly allude to that.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Be that as it may, you can't listen to everyone. If it was someone who actually contributes to go heavly, I'm pretty sure changes would be made. But it's just some random idiot who's just trying to stir shit. Yielding to such people only brings out more useless crazies (as Google knows abundantly well from activist minority within its own workforce). Submit a few hundred non-trivial PRs and then come back and file an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Be that as it may, you can't listen to everyone.
You don't need to listen to anyone. I'm not saying that the response to him was wrong or that it should be followed. What I'm saying is *your* specific attitude to community feedback is wrong at best, and creates a toxic anti-user environment at worst. Calling someone who made a legitimate suggestion a random idiot continues down your line of stupidity. If you don't want random responses don't solicit suggestion from randoms and keep it within your developer circle.
They approached it correctly, you on the o
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you written a single line of Linux kernel code? Then you shouldn't run it or complain.