
Cloud Code – A new set of plug-ins for IntelliJ and VS Code - sandGorgon
https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/devops-sre/announcing-cloud-code-accelerating-cloud-native-application-development
======
xd1936
I believe this was said when the Github repository[1] was posted yesterday,
but... It's pretty wild that Google's releasing a closed-source plugin for
Microsoft's open-source code editor in 2019.

1\. [https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-code-
vscode](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-code-vscode)

~~~
paxys
Pretty weird decision overall, considering you can always download the
extension package and look at the code in there.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Being able to see the source is not the same as open source. Being able to see
the source doesn't mean you can fork it, resell it, or even use it without
permission.

Plenty of proprietary products are made in languages where the code is not
compiled, such as proprietary PHP platforms.

Presumably, since the plugins are free here, if Google isn't open sourcing it,
they don't want other companies to lift their work and use them in competing
projects. Or, just as likely, the Googler that wrote it has some bureaucratic
process they didn't go through yet to open source it, and they intend to
change the license later.

~~~
aquova
I'm not too familiar with open source licenses, but does a license exist that
allows someone to (enforceably) open source their code with the stipulation
that it is for academic/security purposes, but forbids forking/reselling/other
usage?

~~~
billyjobob
Sure there are such licenses, but they aren’t Open Source. By definition they
are proprietary.

~~~
da_chicken
That depends on what you mean.

Sometimes "open source" means "you can see the source code".

Sometimes "open source" means "meets the requirements for software licenses
under the Open Software Initiative's definitions."

Similarly, sometimes "free software" means "provided at no monetary expense"
and sometimes it means "meets the requirements for software licenses under the
Free Software Foundation's definitions."

People really, really like to pretend that "free software" and "open source"
are extremely simple concepts and synonymous terms. They're not. People like
to pretend they're controlled terms and that the plain English meaning isn't
valid. That's absurd. Neither one is particularly easy to understand because
both are much more deeply nuanced than you see at first glance, and one look
at free and open software licensing comparisons [1] will tell you that there
is obviously significant complexity going on.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-
so...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-
source_software_licenses)

~~~
skybrian
This was settled many years ago by coming up with an official definition of
"open source" [1] that was then popularized. It's a well-known industry
standard. While nobody can prevent you from using the term incorrectly, you're
going to get a lot of pushback if you do due to the confusion it causes.

There are a lot of other possible licenses and just because they don't meet
the open source definition doesn't mean they are bad. I disagree with the
people who say the opposite of "open source" is proprietary.

[1] [https://opensource.org/osd-annotated](https://opensource.org/osd-
annotated)

~~~
da_chicken
That's not really what I'm trying to argue. What I'm trying to argue that you
can have OSI open software that is not FSF free software and you can have FSF
free software that is not OSI open software, and _either of those types of
software are labelled as proprietary by the parties that exclude them_. My
point is that just because something doesn't meet the OSI open source
defintion doesn't mean it's proprietary.

However, if I do consider your argument, it's not very good. The argument
would be that the Open Source Initiative is not the authority for the plain
English meaning of terms. If the argument I'm making is that OSI's definition
is not authoritative, you can't cite the OSI's definition as an authoritative
counter argument. You're begging the question. Yes, people are going to assume
"open source" means "OSI open software," but that doesn't meant that everybody
is always using it to mean that.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Both FSF and OSI fundamentally recognize each other as "not proprietary", even
if they have different goals and different preferences on how FOSS ("free/open
source software") is licensed.

And the OSI is not the authority for the meaning of English terms, correct.
But the developers who use those terms are (much as language is determined by
how people use it), and by and large, most everyone understands and agrees
that open source software is software that meets the qualifications set by the
OSI.

------
amq
I wish they would at least open-soure the linter. I just quickly compared it
to [https://github.com/garethr/kubeval](https://github.com/garethr/kubeval),
and it did uncover some valid additional mistakes.

Upd: looks like the plugin is using [https://github.com/mulesoft-labs/yaml-
ast-parser](https://github.com/mulesoft-labs/yaml-ast-parser) combined with
[https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-json-
languageservice](https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-json-languageservice)

~~~
Improvotter
It'd be indeed nice if this was open source. Having a server yourself
somewhere using a VPN that you could run some stuff on while working on a slow
laptop would be nice.

------
cthalupa
*Google Cloud Code

The Kubernetes bit seems (somewhat) agnostic but it looks like a big part of
this is adding integration for GCP APIs.

Which is all fine. Just wish it was branded a bit more specifically.

~~~
innerspirit
It's annoying that pretty much every single Google project comes with an
underlying attempt at vendor lock-in.

~~~
gundmc
GCP is arguably doing the most among major cloud providers to prevent vendor
lock-in and support multicloud implementations.

It's really their best play to try to get some business when they're so far
behind AWS and Azure in market share.

~~~
DelightOne
Hope they'll allow the same for this tool since it sounds pretty useful.

------
pbreit
Are people still moving to Docker or is Kubernetes where things are going?

~~~
mrweasel
Personally I don't really differentiate to much between the two. Customers
often don't know the difference, and assume that Docker will magically scale
when needed. And if you have a Kubernetes installation available, why not just
run all your Docker images there.

Unless you're just using Docker for the encapsulation you'll need something
like Kubernetes pretty quickly.

~~~
jbigelow76
_Personally I don 't really differentiate to much between the two._

I differentiate between is so much that as the app developer, Docker is my
concern, Kubernetes is the concern of Infra/DevOps.

~~~
mrweasel
That's actually a pretty good way of looking at it. As an ops guy I don't
really care that much about what the developers put into their containers, or
at least I can shift a large part of my work with maintenance and patch
management to the developers.

------
shruubi
As someone who uses App Engine, it'd be nice if Google would stop treating
their non-java languages as second class citizens. It seems, as per usual,
there is only App Engine Java support...

~~~
tomComb
I think their new 'cloud run' product is supposed to be a step towards
addressing that (and vendor lock-in).

------
ilovecaching
Where's the Vim support? According to the most recent SO survey Vim is being
used by 43% of the DevOps/SRE market, which corroborates with my experience in
DevOps. DevOps is a CLI heavy job, and having an editor that can run in a
terminal emulator and has maximum integration is a must.

------
z3t4
My which-list for G cloud: 1) Enable Websockets for the G cloud shell proxy 2)
Break up and untangle the JavaScript client monolith library into small
modules that can be self hosted. One module for each G cloud service. Try to
limit the complexity while you're at it. 3) Make an API to make it possible to
automatically manage G cloud services. For example execute commands on the G
cloud shell on behalf of the user. 4) Expand the free tier so people that want
to learn can try out _all_ services without a credit card. 5) (bonus) Add a
partner program so that channels can get a kickback for each user they bring
to the G cloud services.

