Readers share their their favorite non-Google search engines:
I use Ask.com for two reasons. One, context is king for me and Ask gives
me better context than Google. Two, I don't appreciate the way Google says
"Don't be evil" and is. Three, Google has no product and is therefore
a parasite relying on advertising revenues to subject users to adverts they
don't want to see. Four...
Did I say two? "Don't be numerate."
-Christopher
The first is/was still the best: AltaVista. Allowed multiple user parsing
(date range, near, etc.).
-Anonymous
Try Mamma.com. While it isn't a direct search engine but rather a meta
search engine (and it displays Google results), you should at least check
it out. It may not find as many copies of the same whitepaper, but it does
a good job of weeding out the junk and returning only the pearls.
-Donna
One of my pet peeves about Google is that while sure it can find stuff,
it just can't count. I have frequently tested Google's hit counts, and they
are almost always overstated by one or two orders of magnitude. For a company
that creates no content (as you frequently point out) and which built its
whole reputation on search and uppity technology, is this really OK? It feels
like fraud to me.
Looking at Google's hit counts always reminds me of that scene in "Raiders
of the Lost Ark" where Indiana Jones says to Sallah: "I said NO
camels. That's FOUR camels. Can't you count?"
-Chris
And here are more of your thoughts on OSes, Vista problems, and whether Microsoft
should build its next OS from scratch:
I feel the biggest problem with Vista is lack of drivers for printers,
scanners, etc. Example: HP Photosmart 1315 and HP Scanner 5470C work fine
on XP, but Vista offers no drivers.
-Richard
All one has to do is look at the sales figures to know that Vista has
been an incredible success in terms of the typical consumer. In the enterprise
space, the rate of adoption of Vista is no more sluggish than the rate of
adoption of XP in 2001.
Have people had problems? Yes, some have. But many of those problems
are related to ISVs who weren't ready when Vista shipped and OEMs who refused
to provide drivers for old hardware. Many more problems were the result of
those consumers who expected the transition to Vista to be painless -- even
on OLD hardware. The only thing that has changed since the transition to XP
is that the "blogosphere" was far less accessible than it is today.
The squeaky wheels have a much larger forum now and the number of journalists
who are willing to repeat what they've heard instead of doing their own testing
has increased.
-Marc
Can Win ME be anything except an unnecessary expense? My least favorite
MS trick? Pulling the upgrade to Win 98 that made it equivalent to Win 98SE
from the Web before I learned to save such things. Put this in the MS Hall
of Infamy. Does anyone remember this?
I have to say Win 95 is the best, for its time. Win 2000 was the longest-serving
relevant OS from MS. (SP4! That's a lot of free upgrades, folks.) Win XP was
the most successful transition from a hard-coded bunch of bailing wire that
worked exceptionally well (Win 98 SE) to a real multi-processor, multi-threaded,
priority-interruptible OS. Many kudos to MS for this one. Vista is the best
version of Windows -- if you have the new hardware you deserve.
-Eric
It's asking a lot for Microsoft to start from scratch with a new OS. For
years I have heard that the big advantage for Microsoft Office is that they
have had access to OS development and could request code be written to make
their products work better than their competition with Windows. If Microsoft
rewrites their desktop OS, they may be in for a major rewrite of their whole
Office suite. If access to OS development is true, then either Microsoft is
going to have to give up a major advantage to the competition or their OS
project doubled in size. Wow!
-Anonymous
ME was bad and compared favorably only to BOB when it was launched. I
feel Vista is in the same vein (though I don't hate it, I don't use it either).
My point is, now is a better time than most for Microsoft to start a new OS
from scratch, and it could prove quite fruitful.
First, forget hardware; make it a tiny hypervisor (not unlike ESXi, or
is that blasphemy?). Include a loader where the OS of choice can be loaded
-- XP, Vista or any new OS you develop with this. Provide specs early and
use your clout to get hardware manufacturers to make drivers that plug into
standardized inputs to the hypervisor. All video cards must address xyz address
space at location grpl on port spzbt. Extra features may access your card
directly through ports xxzs-xxzz. All sound cards must yada, yada.
Then, once this hypervisor is out and the hardware vendors are writing
to it, you can settle down for some real functionality in a new OS that loads
into this hypervisor. Moreover, it isolates the user data and programs from
the hypervisor so upgrades to the hypervisor does not upset a user's settings,
programs, etc. It is a new twist on desktop computing, but it is what I have
been dreaming of for a while. Don't go for the all encompassing OS, just make
something that works out of the box and allows users to upgrade to the new
OS when it actually benefits them!
-Thomas
I would like to call for an open forum where ALL the hardware and software
concepts are presented and discussed. If Microsoft would sponsor this, involving
many from communities outside Microsoft, with open design reviews, we may
truly get a better operating system. The tendency to limit focus, get stuck
on a design and exclude alternatives must be fought. This will take some time,
and we may have to deal with intellectual property and copyright issues, but
I think the outcome will be better. Or we make the tradeoff to accept whatever
Microsoft comes up with.
-Brian
Let us know what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on August 07, 20080 comments
We wrote about Zimbra and other open source alternatives a year-and-a-half ago
here.
The company, now owned by Yahoo, has a new alternative to Outlook: the Zimbra
Desktop. The software, now in beta, works with Yahoo e-mail and also supports
to-do lists, calendars, contacts and documents. Check out a First Look here.
Posted by Doug Barney on August 06, 20080 comments
IBM has plenty of cash to throw around. After all, with $98 billion in yearly
revenues, it's the second-largest computer company in the world (HP is now No.
1 with some $104 billion in annual sales, while Microsoft barely rates at only
$51 billion).
So when IBM announces that it's spending $360 million to build
two new cloud computing datacenters, it's really just chump change.
The message is serious, though. IBM wants a big stake in the cloud, a model
of computing that could loosen Microsoft's death grip on operating systems.
Is cloud computing the next big thing, and if so, who has the lead? Answers
welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on August 06, 20080 comments
Usually, this newsletter is all about Microsoft. Today, though, it's mostly
about IBM with a little Yahoo tossed in. So let's get started.
IBM once owned a big chunk of the desktop. There was the original IBM PC, PC-DOS
and finally OS/2, which almost became the de facto PC operating system.
Since then, IBM has slowly lost ground. OS/2 is dead, as is any IBM-made PC.
It has no real PC OS and, after buying Lotus, both SmartSuite and Notes have
lost more market share than Pet Rocks and Pokemon put together.
But IBM just won't give up and is reportedly trying to get hardware makers
to build
PCs that run Linux, along with Notes, Lotus Symphony (the revived, old office
tool), and Sametime messaging.
Gartner has its pretentious probability ratings, so I'll steal that pompous
idea and give IBM a one-in-fifty chance of any kind of success.
Would you use Linux PCs in your shop? If so, why? Shoot your thoughts to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on August 06, 20080 comments
In the last week or so, Microsoft released a patch to fix a DNS vulnerability
in its software. Shortly thereafter, an AT&T DNS server was compromised
-- reportedly the
first
DNS attack ever.
Apple is feeling the heat, as well, and this week released
a patch designed to cure its DNS security ills. This is all well and good,
except some experts claim the fix is incomplete and doesn't fully protect clients.
Posted by Doug Barney on August 05, 20080 comments
PHP may be a popular Web scripting language, but it's far from safe,
according
to research just published by IBM. Tens of millions of Web sites and over
a million Web servers are driven by PHP, making its vulnerabilities cause for
concern.
So the next time your Web weenie kids you about patching Windows, ask what
he's done to secure PHP lately.
Posted by Doug Barney on August 05, 20080 comments
After word leaked that Midori would be Microsoft's
next,
all-new OS, Doug asked readers whether Microsoft building an OS from scratch
is a good idea. Most of you said yes:
Absolutely! When you're a leader, isn't it better to aggressively compete
against yourself as opposed to aggressively competing with others? Besides,
it sounds like Midori already has a starting code base, or at least architectural
models from the Singularity project.
-Jim
Absolutely! How refreshing.
-Dallas
Absolutely! I am a former Microsoft software engineer; I worked as a developer
on Microsoft Works and Office. We've learned a great deal about what works
well in an operating system and what doesn't. Hindsight is 20/20, and taking
a look back from where we are today, it's easy to see that there are things
that we would have done differently before if we knew then what we know now.
Given this perspective, I would say that Microsoft engineers can build
a new operating system that is significantly better than our evolutionary
operating system of today when the engineers are free from the historical
baggage that's pent-up in Vista. I think that there is a great potential for
immense improvement and I'm very excited about Microsoft's new OS project!
-Chad
Yes. A new alternate OS with NO backward portability. Get rid of the
junk, all of the emulation and legacy compatibility layers. Just make it work
exceedingly well on modern hardware, perhaps 64-bit only. Create a subset
of tools in one or more of the popular programming languages for it and call
it done. That would be simplicity at its best.
-John
Although starting from scratch to build a new OS can be extremely time-consuming
and complex, who else but Microsoft could pull it off in a short timeframe?
And I think it is an excellent idea, considering that is basically where Windows
NT came into the picture. Now, when we look back at Win9x, it looks ancient
and very inferior. Now the NT codebase is reaching its limits and is getting
way too bloated. I'd be very interested in seeing where this goes and how
it turns out in the end.
-Dustin
IMHO, a less complex OS which stresses reliability (which includes security
of data) is what MS desparately needs. Vista's market problems are largely
the fault of the success of XP -- Vista is prettier and has cool features
like the sidebar, but I haven't seen a truly useful application that requires
Vista, and I have struggled with device drivers and program compatibility
both at work and at home. Even this far into Vista's life cycle, that's still
a problem. Vista recovers from crashes more gracefully than any previous MS
operating system, but they seem to happen a LOT. If a "killer app"
that requires Vista turns up, then maybe the picture will change, but I'm
not holding my breath.
-Peter
In this respect, Microsoft's success is its own millstone. Having to maintain
compatibility with prior versions (i.e., Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000 etc.)
makes any improvements extraordinarily clumsy. If indeed Microsoft intends
to offer a from-scratch version, I imagine their priority needs to be on speed,
stability and security. I imagine as well that all the Microsoft apps must
be rewritten or adjusted to work cleanly with the new OS.
If this were a possibility and we could gain a serious improvement in
these three aspects (to me, this is the order of priority, as well) then supporting
prior versions could be a purely secondary issue. Anyway, though I am only
one of millions, a ground-up approach would be worth investing in from my
point of view.
-Lindsay
Why not? Didn't they do this with Windows 95, ME to Windows 2000? What
happened to DOS? Using Modori as a foundation, couldn't they then rebuild
Windows around it, redesigning around it? Keeping backward compatibitliy using
virtual technologies transparently. I can keep backward compatiblity using
a VM now, except I need go thorugh a few more hoops than others may be willing
to do.
-Stanley
If they're not going to let us continue to buy XP, most definitely! Vista
has been such an administrative nightmare. It's really unacceptable. It's
insane that we're forced to use sub-par technology simply because MS says
so. While UAC is good in concept, I shouldn't have to buy a CAD capable system
in order for a secretary to write Word documents.
As for your statement that "Singularity is designed to be simple
and safe. For instance, components are isolated from one another, and code
is automatically inspected before running to make sure it works with the OS.
And all the components are tested to make sure they interoperate." Let's
ask the real question: Will Microsoft create a new OS from scratch or will
there be a new Linux distro? That quote sounds like Linux to me. MSX, Microsix
or Winix, perhaps? I'm not very creative with names. It would be funny to
hear what other people come up with.
-Cory
A couple of you expressed some doubts, however:
Start from scratch? Absolutely not! All-new code sounds good, but I hope
they will have an eye toward the "look and feel" of what everyone
is used to. One of the most objectionable parts of Vista and Office 2007 is
that they are different in their user interface. If Microsoft wants a hit,
they better keep their eye on what is really important, and to be user-friendly
means that features are in familiar places. The first time I used Vista, I
had to be shown how to shut down the computer. Does MS think I want to leave
the power on all the time?
-John
The debate can rage on both sides, but a new OS will mean starting over
-- bugs, SPs, security fixes, upgrades, new releases, new "end-of service"
considerations, backward/cross-compatibility concerns, everything. General
uncertainty is not a pretty picture for someone in Microsoft's position or
for its customers. It basically negates all the work that's been done in these
areas to shore up the old Iron Maiden that is Win32.
If you think a "fresh start" is all positive, wait a minute.
MS has spent a lot of time, capital, lawyer fees and blood getting Windows
to the point where it's respected -- even in the eyes of haters. If they think
that dumping the name/concept will untangle and extract certain negative connotations/experiences,
it might be a rude awakening and undo all this perception repair-work. For
this to be effective, it should've been done years ago when the OS' rep was
worse. Sometimes, the better hallmark of your dedication to a cause is not
by abandoning it for another more palatable one (in name or action), but to
press on with what you have; this tends to be better at stifling the "I
told you so"s from the spectators, while letting you say your own "I
told you so"s in vindication.
-Victor
What do you think? Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on August 05, 20080 comments
This is admittedly an old story, but it still serves as a warning for those
in IT to not trust others in IT, and for IT not to abuse its access to corporate
and personal information. According to a survey by Cyber-Ark, a third of IT
pros
spy
on company employees.
I've met with hundreds of security companies and I'd always ask the same question:
What are you doing to prevent internal security breaches? They'd all wax on
about how their software keeps employees from getting at private information.
Then I'd say, "But what about IT itself? What do you do to keep IT insiders
from breaching?"
In pretty much every case, the vendor would be dumbfounded. It never occurred
to them that IT would do such a thing.
I decided to find out how big a problem this was and used my usual approach:
Ask you, the Redmond Report reader. I got horror stories of IT snooping into
executive e-mail and using machines to commit fraud, stalk old girlfriends and
commit blackmail. If you want a real eye-opener, check out my story "IT
Gone Bad" here.
Confess your sins by writing to me at [email protected].
When we run letters, we don't publish last names, so you can admit your wrong-doing
with no consequences (except maybe easing of your guilty conscience).
Posted by Doug Barney on August 05, 20080 comments
Lately, the news has been full of reports of
Cuil,
a new search engine that will be the death of Google. Founded by former Google-meisters,
the new search engine promises new algorithms and claims to index a vaster swath
of the Internet.
It's pretty easy to easy to check this out; just type in your name. In my case,
the results were more scant than they should've been, and many of them were
downright random. For instance, there are images from things I've written next
to items that have nothing to do with the text. And when you click on the image
-- say, of a white paper -- it brings you somewhere else. Bizarre.
As for the "Doug Barney" search test, Google returns 4,300 while
Cuil only gives me 3,235 -- not exactly a wider swath. Also, the only option
I could find in Cuil was a straight search, with no options for images, news
groups or blogs.
Next, I searched "Cuil" on Cuil and got 121,578 results, mostly about
Ireland. I searched for "Cuil" on Google and got over 5 million. The
first result? "Cuil Needs to Fix its Technology Before it Gets Hot."
Coincidence?
And as my 15-year-old son David pointed out, Cuil is spending money like it's
already made it, with free lunches, free personal trainers and complimentary
strawberries and muffins.
Dave did some investigating himself. Knowing that Digg has been knocking Cuil,
he did a little searching. He looked on Digg and Cuil, and didn't see these
any of these negative articles. He did the same thing with Google and the second
result is "Cuil = Epic Fail."
While I'd love for someone, anyone, to knock Google off its pretentious perch,
Cuil ain't it -- at least, so far. Does anyone like any search engine other
than Google? Tell us why it's safe to ditch Google by writing [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on August 04, 20080 comments
Recently, I've been talking about potential vulnerabilities with DNS. One reader
set
me straight, pointing out that DNS has never been attacked.
Someone may have taken that as a challenge, as an AT&T DNS was attacked
by someone using a recently reported vulnerability. That's exactly why Microsoft
was so
adamant that IT should patch their DNS.
Posted by Doug Barney on August 04, 20080 comments
A couple recently
sued
Google for invasion of privacy after Google took pictures in their private
driveway for its Street View tool. Doug asked readers whether they think we
have enough privacy from Google and others. Here are some of your responses:
I think that you're just trying to bash Google ANY chance you get. Please
try to write from a more unbiased position.
-Anonymous
There have always been technologies to compromise privacy, from telescopes
to wiretaps. It does not mean that there is no longer a right to privacy.
Google's argument is chutzpah, which is classically defined as a child killing
his parents and then begging leniency from the court on the grounds that he
is an orphan.
-Stephen
In the age we are in, we have to be very careful to not have our rights
bulldozed over by a bunch of arrogant, rich companies who only see the moment
and their profits. This type of blind disregard for the views, wants, desires
and needs of those who currently are not in power can lead to serious backlash
when the infamous worm turns. People will only stand for so much before they
rise in mass and overthrow an oppressor.
Since the chains that bind us to companies such as Google are only those
of personal choice, they can be severed in a heartbeat. Google needs to tread
very carefully in this matter. There are plenty of alternatives for each and
every function it offers. Piss us off and we as a people could shut them down
by the most deadly method available in this Internet age: We could ignore
them.
-Mike
Read "Woodswoman II: Beyond Black Bear Lake." If you're not
familiar with who the author is, she's a self-described advocate for the environment
and especially for the Adirondack Mountains. But what I found interesting
in this book was the fact that she moved from a pretty obscure lake in the
Adirondack Mountains to a super-obscure lake due to the fact her fans kept
on trying to find her. Now, if she doesn't have privacy (she actually fought
the USAF and won on the fact they aren't allowed to fly over her place anymore),
who does?
I'd be interested in the details of that case you cited. I'll bet the
couple didn't have "posted property" signs on their road. Also,
if they really think their road is a private road, then it should be gated.
Also, it could be declared "public" if they have a deal with the
state/locality for road maintenance. There are "private road" signs
up in one hood in my county, but people go up them all the time to "house
view." Unfortunately for them, unless they took really stern measures
to safeguard the privacy of the road, they don't stand a chance in court.
However, Google's take on it is pretty bad, too, and that isn't right either.
-Bruce
Vista is the least-favorite
OS of one more reader...but a few more of you think it's not all that bad:
From 1985, my company used DOS, Windows 3, 95, 98, ME, XP Pro and Vista
Ultimate. All except Vista were certainly acceptable and our real favorite
is XP. We tried Vista on two new machines and after five months, had the hard
drives reformatted to remove all traces of it and put XP Pro on them. The
effort of installing XP and reinstalling our applications was certainly worth
to get rid of Vista.
-Gerry
I like Vista. Most all of the negative comments I've read to date concerning
Vista is just whining. The only downside that I've experienced has been support
for drivers, primarily equipment older than two years and adding print drivers
in a locked-down environment. This took a lot of time to resolve due to the
new driver signing requirements. In fact, MS said it couldn't be done, but
we proved them wrong. If you're ready for a hardware refresh, it doesn't make
sense to look backward.
-Greg
In my experience, I think that Vista itself is pretty much where enterprise
needs it to be -- although you need to have a pretty modern PC to get the
most from it. Unfortunately, it is third-party support that is still lacking.
For example, the Cisco VPN client for Vista does not have the same level of
functionality as the client under XP. You cannot, for example, pre-connect
the VPN before logging onto the PC, which is an absolutely necessary for remote
GPO updates, etc.
I don't know if Microsoft can do anything to help third parties overcome
these issues, but the slow adoption of Vista is not entirely of Microsoft's
making.
-Philip
And Jonathan wonders why OneCare's more obscure OEM supporters
got
mentioned in a recent Redmond Report, but not others:
I saw your post regarding Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare announcement
in the Redmond Report and wanted to thank you for the coverage, but I'm also
hoping you can provide some clarity as to why you omitted mention of Sony
and Toshiba from the list of participants. I understand that OEM deals outside
the U.S. may not be relevant to all of your readers, but I'm concerned that
actively excluding mention of Sony and Toshiba in your commentary provides
a limited view of the actual news that was announced.
-Jonathan
Got something to say? Let us know! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail
to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on August 04, 20080 comments
Last week, I
told
you about the Mojave experiment, in which end users tried out an unknown
operating system and loved it, and the OS turned out to be a disguised version
of Vista.
Microsoft has been fighting back against critics in other ways. For instance,
after Forrester Research declared that far less than 10 percent of enterprise
users were in Vista, a Microsoft exec blogged that Forrester
was "schizophrenic" because some analysts were big fans of the
OS.
The problem? The blog by Chris Flores included a comments section. Actual end
users ripped Microsoft a new one, not just by complaining, but by going into
great detail about Vista problems, lost files, crashes, multiple rebuilds and
things just not working. Oops!
Posted by Doug Barney on August 04, 20080 comments