If it appears that there is a paucity of information being released by Algeria about the hostage situation, it is because the Algerian government itself doesn't have a good handle on what happened. The reports are as varied as they are numerous. Some hostages escaped. Some are still being held. Some were released. There is agreement that in the government raid, hostages were killed and others were wounded, and some information has begun trickling out, but there is no unified account of what's going on.
The site is in the middle of the desert, hundreds of miles from anywhere else, and the event is still unfolding, but among the many shocking things about the whole mess is the ire of the countries whose nationals were working at the site and became hostages when a well-coordinated terrorist attack was launched on it. Officials of the United States, Japan, Norway, France and Great Britain have all been loudly reproving that the Algerian government gave them no warning that it would launch a raid to free the hostages. In general, these protests are hypocrisy.
It is difficult to envision a circumstance in which the United States---or any of the others---would warn another country that its citizens may be at risk during a domestic counter-terrorism operation. Among other things, the operational security required for the success of such a raid precludes telling anybody about it, even people inside the country. To complain about Algeria's refusal to share operationally sensitive information is transparent grandstanding.
Algeria maintains there was strong evidence that the terrorists were about to take the hostages out of the country, probably to Libya, after which the government's options would be severely limited and the chances of success greatly reduced. Those who understand how to deal with such situations agree that the reduction of optionality is a loss of control that must be avoided.
For its part, Algeria is very familiar with terrorism, having conducted its own terrorist campaign as a French colony. It gained independence because it became a community of terrorists, and the French finally quit. As an independent state, Algeria has earned its chops as terrorists' uncompromising adversary, dealing harshly---and not unsuccessfully---with jihadists of all stripes. Although some countries, including the United States, say they do not negotiate with terrorists, Algeria really means it.
Perhaps treading a bit more lightly than, say, Japan (who now has its own problems with China), France can't afford to complain too loudly, since it needs Algerian airspace through which to launch attacks on the jihadists in Mali. If it looks like there are too many jihadists running around, it's because there are, and they will continue to be a threat to citizens of all nations who travel to unstable places. But any country that insists a host nation protect foreign workers unconditionally would be dishonest if it swore that it would do the same.