There is a difference between open source and open governance. Go is open source but the governance is controlled by Google. For example, the committee that accepts proposals is all Google employees and a subset of the core team, if I read it right. From what I can tell, they definition of consensus is that of this group rather than the community at large.
This has business decision implications. Those who have had issues with Oracle and Java may want to take note because this is a similar setup. To use Go means you need to trust Google.
I'm not disagreeing with Ian and I'm happy he posted that. There is just more to this than technical considerations.
I for one will be curious to see if the breaking changes currently sitting on master (there are issues for them) end up in a release. The governance can play into the stability of the language which is a pretty hard dependency.
This reads like FUD. Go isn't to Google what Java is to Oracle.
Also, by that logic we shouldn't use Linux since a single man gets to pick what goes into the kernel. Same for most relevant tools which are mantained by a few individuals.
This has business decision implications. Those who have had issues with Oracle and Java may want to take note because this is a similar setup. To use Go means you need to trust Google.
I'm not disagreeing with Ian and I'm happy he posted that. There is just more to this than technical considerations.
I for one will be curious to see if the breaking changes currently sitting on master (there are issues for them) end up in a release. The governance can play into the stability of the language which is a pretty hard dependency.