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
More
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
More
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.
More
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.
More
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
More
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
More
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
More
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.
More
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
More
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
More
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.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on August 04, 20080 comments