Slashdot Mirror
Who Do You Trust Least?
Mister Furious points to a story on Yahoo! "about how a recent study found AOL to be the least trusted site on the net. It even got lower trust ratings then Microsoft." It would be good to see the actual survey questions and results, since they're referred to only in vague terms. Partly because of that, the story could proabably appear in the Onion without raising many eyebrows -- it seems to tacitly acknowledge that to these companies, perception is more important than reality. If you don't use AOL or MSN, one's current ISP is always a good recipient of distrust.
I trust the news they report, but more then once, while visiting their site, some advertiser of theirs installs some sort of browsing enhancement thing on my computer. (Similar to gator.)
Grr.
Eventhough least trusted site on the net sounds fine, the survey is about "Internet Companies" not about internet sites...
Do you trust slashdot ?
If whats being reported here at the register is true then hell has frozen over. According to that article VA Linux is going to add closed source subscription software to SourceForge. I'm still shell shocked from reading it. Can you imagine the backlash if this ends up being true?
The way I gauge how to trust is as follows
Ask for email address without apparent reason=back away slowly avoiding eye contact
Others=trust
:)
The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this lousy T-shirt
...when you see on the "Always trust content from Microsoft Corporation" checkmark?
Adversive
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
"...consumers said they were highly distrustful..." I appreciate the news article is summarising, but really, I reckon they sorta need to define trust. I mean is it in terms of privacy, is it reliability of service? I.M.H.O. it could be taken to mean any number of different things by those being surveyed. I'm not sure you can seriously look at figures like that to mean anything (of course, it could just be a jounalistic summary of a more in-depth survey).
Nevrar
The story mentions first 37 and 29 percent and then 15 and 17 percent, drawing HUGE differences -- Microsoft is referred to as nearly as trusted as online brokerages, while AOL is paraded as completely untrustable.
Is 2% (or even 8%) really that significant? It may seem huge, but it really depends on the survey size and how the questions are asked. Does anyone know more about how these surveys are done, their margins of error on average, etc?
I think they are jumping to conclusions on this one, unless they know more than they are telling. It almost seems like they are jumping on a "let's hate AOL" bandwagon. (Not that that's necessarily completely unfounded)
-nicole
If the study conducted was about the most/least trusted internet companies, why was Microsoft included in the survey?
My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.
AOL are no saints, but they do seem to have developed some scruples as a sort of reponse to potentially bad publicity.
went down a notch. I dont think I could trust any news service who did a report on a report without providing SOME sort of link or reference information(other than NASDAQ I mean) to back it up.
It reads like something out of a checkout-stand rag.
"Sources say they dont trust the other rags."
-- END STORY
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I sure don't trust slashdot for the correct spelling (english is not my mother tongue).
i dont trust any place whose domain ends in .mil or .gov
because people are generally known to implicitly trust huge corporations in general?
...Chello, an Austrian ISP is the worst of all.... Instead of providing me bandwith he is charging enormous amounts for a malfunctioning connection , spam and (although swearing not to do so) filtering my mail
".Sig Stealer" was here
... anything ending in .gov.
Perhaps Yahoo! weren't too far behind AOL and M$FT in the ratings.
That would have to be my mother-in-law.
Oh - on the net. Still my mother-in-law.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Hmmm... must have been them dead people answering them surveys. How else can you explain it?
Of course the average user is going to distrust AOL. One has to think, out of all of the users on the Internet, how many are probably AOL users? AOL is in their eyes 'the authority figure over all the internet' because it is what they use to get on the internet.
So is this distrust misplaced? No. I think that one could safely say that AOL TIME-Warner, just like we have noted with Microsoft, is one of the 'big companies' that we should have to keep our eyes on. Think about it, AOL/Time-Warner controls so much of the media and multi-media world and so many people's access to the internet with Road Runner and AOL it's almost scary when you think about it. If AOL/Time-Warner wanted to push an agenda or put a company out of business, they could do it easily.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that there is always going to be distrust, and by scruptiously looking at companies as they 'come into power' as controllers of the information and providers of it to the population, being at least a little distrusting is definitely in order. But does that mean that we should start necessarily start believing everything that is in a less-legitimate or large scale newspaper, perhaps the National Enquirer?
No....
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Also, most of their articles touting new products, etc are really thinly-veiled adverts for MS, Intel, etc. and never seem to badmouth anything too badly. Their "videos" are also little more than mouthpieces for company spokespeople to get their point across.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Does anyone else find it interesting that the two companies who are prime examples of consumer lock-in (AIM/Windows & Office) are the most distrusted companies on the 'net? Both have the "walled garden" approach, and while all the suits seem to be talking up how great the idea is, this speaks differently.
Perhaps this study just goes to show that, while they may be complacent, people aren't completely blind to what these companies are potentially denying them.
Freedom and empowerment is more important than a friendly "You've got mail". The problem is that in order to be empowered in the sense of having access to the net, many people are willing to go the easy route (i.e. AOL) and it puts them at someone else's mercy. Same idea applies to many of Microsoft's customers.
People sacrifice complete freedom and empowerment for the ease and extra free time gained by using AOL and Microsoft's products. And while many are quite satisfied with the choice (as the AOL rep stated in the article) it doesn't take away distrust of what may potentially happen or be happening to them. That's still fertile ground I think.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I mean, what do you expect from AOL? A serious internet provider? Don't make me laugh. It reminds me of my newly invented SPAM filter. It's quite short. Basically it comes down to this: If from:==*@aol.com,*@msn.com,*@hotmail.com then | SPAM. Personally I do not have "friends" who in their right state of mind have an AOL account. And anybody which has is not serious enough to spend my time on. Their problem.
;)
But it's quite interesting that a gigantic provider like AOL can be labeled as "not serious". That brings up another question: Are there any "serious" or "trustworthy" providers? Some elite ISPs which do profile checks on their customers if they are good enough to have services from them?
Forgive my ramblings, I'm but a worm. I just wanted to make some noise like the rest of you dweeps.
Do NOT EVER trust what you see on CNN! They manipulate everything. If you want news, go BBC World!
Greetz
Menteb
I trust /. the least for many good reasons.
Am I wrong to doubt the open forum?
Ok, Ok,,, sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory but give it a thought. Target threads, pre story posts, gov tech recruitment...
Who knows how your post will be used?
and share the software.
lalala
Hey, they're relentless and consistent. Evil, maybe, but hardly untrustworthy.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
AOL may suck, but they're hardly the least trustworthy site on the net.
What about www.scientology.org, or www.worldnetdaily.net, to name two?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Fluffy articles with little to no technical content, error-prone reporting (especially of anything MS or Intel), superficial quotes from "journalists", for example: "shutting down Napster will be a blow against your rights" or "The slowdown has had no effect on VA Linux" -- they get paid for this???
Also, most of their articles touting new products, etc are really thinly-veiled adverts for Unix, RMS, etc. and never seem to badmouth anything too badly. Their "Geeks in Space videos" are also little more than mouthpieces for company spokespeople to get their point across.
What's next, they'll run an open source jobs site on IIS?
Ohh wait. They do.
Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.
I can trust it to remain irrelevant.
It might suprise some people but microsoft are very low on my list on this one - i can trust them totally as they keep doing business the same way - they are predicatble.
The site i trust least is c/net - might sound strange but think about it this way - think of all the beat up stories you have seen - Optus@home looking at peoples downloads, code red, etc and look at the stories they run - and dont even talk about product reviews or releases - they are almost entirely re written PR blurbs - you cannot rely on them at all for 'news' without bias.
Companies i trust least - Compaq - Another one some wont agree with but i have reasons - they still persist in proprietary systems, their support (speaking from a corporate point of view) is mosty abysmal, their website is confusing, slow and badly thought out (try finding the drivers you want - i dare you) their products are prone to failure (Armada notebooks, prolinea desktops to name 2 i have had major problems with)
Now you may not agree - thats cool - but they are the ones i dont trust
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Let's face it folks, unless you have the ability tonconjure up some omnicient trust model, you have no clue what's going on in people's noggins (sometimes includeing your own, as in the case of skitzoids...)
Just thinking how refreshing it has been the last couple of days not to see a story which is a blatant anti MS attack on /.
New it was too good to last.
I predict by toomorrow AM there are 300+ posts in this topic and 75-805 will say MS.
This is a first - a troll post hiding as a story - how did this get approved ?
2) Click on "Software & Drivers" under "Support"
3) Choose your machine and OS
4) Choose the driver you want from the list and click to download.
It's hardly rocket science, is it? I mean, you really couldn't do away with a single one of the steps mentioned above and they're in the only order they could be in. I rebuild my Compaq laptop frequently and get the drivers off their site every time because it's easier than trying to keep hold of a local copy. I think that if you have problems with this, you should seek a career outside IT as you are probably not up to it. Ask at your local McDonald's - I'm sure they need someone to clean the toilets.
the end of the world as we know it
Actually the story says that VA linux is going to sell some investigate ways to make some money from their software development and thus build some applications that move in new ways - this is perfectly reasonable as their employees have mouths to feed.
I quote: (lifted without permission but maybe this wil stop the register being slashdotted)
SourceForge is the new ERP - VA Linux
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 24/08/2001 at 07:49 GMT
Barely six weeks ago VA Linux Systems was an open source hardware vendor. Now, the company is undertaking a Napoleonic retreat from the hardware business and it's doing the unthinkable: adding proprietary subscription software to its open source software flagship SourceForge.
VA swallowed charges of around $230m in the last quarter - $160 million coming under the category of "impairment of goodwill and intangible assets", and almost $70 million as a one-time charge - contributing to a net loss for the quarter of $290 million as it liquidated its PC manufacturing and sales businesses.
Costs will continue to affect the bottom line for two further quarters, said VA. Its Japanese subsidiary will continue to sell hardware, the company said, but that amounts to chump change.
The new software-only VA expects to make an operating lost of $10 to $13 million on revenue of $3 to $4 million in the forthcoming quarter. With a cash pile of $83 million, that gives the company as little as six months to ramp revenue, or else seek new investment. VA said its burn rate will continue to decline, suggesting that more layoffs are to be expected.
But CEO Larry Augustin is bullish. He says there was no competition for the distributed code management system SourceForge. Current development processes and tools haven't kept pace with geographically dispersed or ad hoc teams, according Augustin, who predicts that the impact of SourceForge could be as great as ERP or CRM.
Typically VA deals with in-house developers using a range of tools (it cites Borland, Rational and Microsoft as well as GNU tools). The company emphasises that seeks to complement rather than supplant existing tools.
VA is gunning for $600 revenue per seat per year - it claims that buyers typically see a return on investment within six months.
Augustin talks of adding "proprietary software features and functionality" to the subscription version SourceForge. That VA is looks at the software-hoarding model to save the business is an irony a few will savour, but we guess that by now badly singed VA investors will simply be hoping it flies. ®
IN OTHER WORDS
They are not 'going closed source' they have had a subscription service for some time - the code is well developed and they are looking at new areas like ERP - they have a right to do it and if they dont they may very well be down the tubes.
From someone who works in MIS and who's company has just spent AU$20 Million on SAP let me tell you that this is a field where some competitors would be good - there arent many new products that ar worth buying and three companies have it tied up - SAP, Peoplesoft and JD Edwards.
And no - no company in their right mind would ever buy a free GPL erp system - these systems are the heart and sould of a business when you implement them - they do all payroll and accounting functions etc and no one would trust a product without a company with cash and controlled development backing it up.
I have been accused in the past of defending MS - so it might seem strange for the people who can't see past the MS sucks argument to defend an open source company but im not that narrow minded.
VA Linux have not sold out the GPL - they are simply running their free software projects and at the same time trying to make enough money to survive and build a new product in the meantime.
And you can only attack them ?
Christ have you stopped to think what this means if these guys get this right - ERP's are run on Windows or Unix Platforms - what this might give the world is a stable lower cost ERP alternative that is built on linux.
The problem with free sourcing applications like this is that VA would be expected by their clients to do all the development work but by the brethern to give everyone that work for free and thus give competitors the chance to profit off their hard work when they adapt the code and havent got to pay for the development.
Open source does not have to mean free IMHO - devlopment of corporate systems costs money - but maybe VA can start the ball rolling and we might win a few of those corporate file and app servers and some corporate desktops.
So please no more meaningless VA have sold out posts - its boring and innacurate and they are only being posted here because they own Slashdot and your trying to be smart (and failing)
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Ok look for dirvers for a prosignia 1650 or any thing older than 12 months or so - or better yet ring their support.
You have one laptop ?
How nice i have 394 of them (mainly dell but about 50 are compaq of various ages and types) and yet every time you upgrade one you can never find the right drivers only to ring up and find that no that product is more than 18months old so we dont support it with drivers for newer OSes
Try it on the hard side sometime - i resent the mc donalds crack as well but im not going to flame you as i want to show maturity and i like my karma the way it is - thanks for your post in reply to mine
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Nutty post office plan to put serial killers on stamps!
The page 5 girl I trust, no one else. Okay, and batboy's girlfriend. She's been through so much.
The fact that Compaq don't do drivers for old hardware + new operating systems is hardly a problem with their website, is it?
You are the one doing the trusting (or non-trusting) so who/whom is the object of the sentence.
10. Microsoft
9. AOL8. Wall Street
7. NSA
6. ZDNET reporters
5. online shops
4. the register
3. Hotmail
2. Slashdot
1. Anonymous Coward
I really do not understand this. The ISP:s are not Angels, but are they Archdaemons?
All the political/religious/environmental wacko pages, you ever visited them?
Many oppressive 3rd world governments also have their sites, you ever heard of them?
Sites mentioned in spam, (get-rich-now etc.). Or have you never received spam?
EOF (end-of-flame)
...except that David Duchovny, he's so dreamy! ::sigh::
--
I found THE back-to-school item:
www.cafepress.com/skoolbag
Learn to speaks english
is http://slashdot.org ;-p
Especially stories by Timothy.
Didn't he get a new job or something?
-Shaunak.
My biggest fear would be someone who is *not* under public scrutiny like larger companies. Look how many small companies constantly try to fly under the radar and install spyware onto your computer in their latest release. The whole Gator thing is a perfect example of this, they start off initially as a company who helps people autocomplete forms on websites, then they start sending rival adds to pages that you goto, then they intentionally build an app to go over the existing banner add on the page.
A company like Microsoft would *never* be able to get away with a gator like stunt, someone would be suing the heck out of them (the government would have their antitrust lawyers out like a pack of ravenous wolfs). Only people who seem to get away with doing stuff like this is the small little company that nobody seems to really care about; but that company is the first in line to screw you over in dirty little tricks.
Any survey that doesn't list Microsoft as the most untrusted must have something wrong with it!
in all those pay sites with the 100% genuine Britney Spears lesbian action movies. I'll try maybe a couple more but I'm starting to have nagging doubts about their authenticity.
Actually, it got lower ratings THAN Microsoft. What is so difficult about the difference between then and than?
Especially those on which the so-called-editors add a little "Here's my in-the-know take on it" blurb at the bottom to lull you into a false sense of security.
Even worse are sites where they let anybody and everybody with an axe to grind post huge informative comments which actually just serve their hidden agendas.
Worse still are those which let anybody and their dog moderate, I mean just because somebody's posted a few +5 Funny's doesnt mean they know the first thing about Satellite Phones. They, too, are going to be following their agendas.
Whoops, I work for a company selling chips that go in satellite phones, oh no I've accidentally marked all negative comments as trolls. Doh.
Just my 2p (of humour).
Gartner has acted as Microsoft's hatchetman before, this fits well as another MS move to counter AOL getting an icon on the desktop on Windows XP via the OEMs.
You shank my Jengaship!
some genius just told me:
"we should not trust everything we read."
It's not the consumer lock-in that makes them distrusted, it's their abuse of the power that lock-in gives them.
Many other companies have something akin to consumer lock-in, and don't get the negative feedback. To give an obvious example, Java is a proprietary technology, and Sun does retain a high degree of control. However, Sun have never seriously screwed the Java community in several years, and have only really used the authority they have to defend the language, e.g., against Microsoft's Visual J++. As a result, people are much more prepared to give Sun credit for being trustworthy.
Much the same is true of Borland and C++ Builder, which has sufficiently many extensions to C++ that porting to another platform would be tricky. However, again, Borland have consistently maintained the product and thus kept their customers happy.
Now compare and contrast these with MS, whose new OS and office suite offer precious little new functionality and the same old bugs, as reported in numerous reviews by the IT press. And yet, in exchange, they're looking for a blank cheque from your company HQ, because they're Microsoft and so they're obviously worth it. Is it surprising that people distrust such a company?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Is there one tiny bit of meaning to this post? What the hell does this mean? Trust for what? Trust to sleep with our 13 year old son/daughter? Trust that the cats will be fed and the litter box cleaned? Trusted to make good on its World Bank debt? This has got ot be the silliest posting I've ever seen here!
- Sig this!
Don't install things on my PC
I hate real player, porn sites, and comet cursor
Where's the grammar Nazi when you need him?
Of course, a lot of the problems I've run into with AOL are conflicts between Windows and the AOL software, so it could just be something along the lines of two cancers fighting each other or something. Dunno.
Anyway, food for thought.
- Jonathan
"We don't know anything about the methodology or how the questions were asked, but [the survey] directly contradicts what we hear from our members," Weinstein told the E-Commerce Times.
Imagine that. People who don't trust AOL aren't inclined to fill out AOL customer satisfaction surveys.
I don't trust AOL either. They took money from my bank account without my authorization.
------DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE------
They don't? Huh, funny, last time I checked (albeit it was over 5 years ago) AOL popped up about 20 advertisements when you FINALLY managed to log on. When you were done sifting through them you got logged off for being "inactive".
Nope, no pop-ups there.
[insert witty comment here]
they are just waiting to go chapter 11 now a days it seems =(
WAZZOUGH!!!!@##@$
I do! It sometimes ruins my whole working day, cause I just sit and stare the screen reloading all the time.
They're working hard at being mediocre, and that's good enough for me.
The article on Yahoo! appears to be a report based on--turn off JavaScript before you go--this press release from Gartner.
The press release isn't much more detailed, as it is a teaser for a Gartner symposium in October.
It does mention Amazon, but for the most part is framed as a battle between AOL and Microsoft over instant messaging clients.
It even got lower trust ratings then Microsoft?? Did there just have to be some form of MS bashing in this?
Sure, to US MS may not be the most trusted, but this person sounded surprised to see that MS didn't get the worst rating... I mean, come on, there is a world out there and most of the general public adore MS or are simply unknowing. I wouldn't have been surprised to see MS being the most trusted (well, that's stretching it). But I think that comment was hitting below the belt, unnecessarily.
Boo to Mister Furious.
I am sorry that I haven't capped yo' dome with a .45 yet...
How's that for an apology?
I think .mil would be even worse...
If you don't use AOL or MSN, one's current ISP is always a good recipient of distrust.
Ummmm my folks own the ISP I surf through.
I noticed that quote in the orginal story I read last week or whenever. AOL says customer "satisfaction has never been higher." But that doesn't mean it's high!
It could be at 3%, when it never previously topped 2.5%.
It's like when a commercial says "Nothing lasts longer" or "Nothing is stronger." It's not saying that it is any BETTER than the others. It's not even saying that the others a don't last as long, or are weaker.
Double-speak - it will sway the weak minded every time.
"If you don't use AOL or MSN, one's current ISP is always a good recipient of distrust."
What the hell does this mean? Are we supposed to have a certain amount of distrust that MUST be assigned to someone or something?
If I didn't trust my ISP I wouldn't be using them.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Ted turner who is the owner of Cnn does not allow his anchors to voice important things on the air, such as that homosexuls need to repent and that the homeless ought to shut their Black mouths and go out and find a job. This is why you should watch Fox news channel which is about the Only source of christian news left. My family stopped watching the Liberal media years ago and you should too.
Here's the frightening part. One time quite a while back, when w98 was still brand new, I found out about the windowsupdate site. The first couple of times I tried it, everything was quick and easy, and all was right with the world. I was actually praising Microsoft for a fantastic feature.... UNTIL...
About the 4th or 5th time in, they wanted to upgrade my ActiveX controls when I tried to enter the site. Hearing the bad things that ActiveX can do (and not being very wise at the time) I told the applet not to accept the upgrade. On top of that, I clicked the "never ask me this again" checkbox, basically denying any microsoft ActiveX updates on my computer.
In doing so, this broke the windowsupdate site, almost all ActiveX functionality, and actually forced me to do a complete reinstall to get that damn toggle out of my system. I thought it was a little ironic that telling your computer not to trust the company that made the OS it's running caused it to eat itself from the inside out... and to this day, I put quite a bit of thought into either checking the "yes" or "no" boxes on Microsoft installs, and I have never touched any "always" or "never" checkboxes since.
I've read that newspaper. I don't think that all of them are true.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
New Slashdot poll?
:)
Which site do you least trust:
1. AOL.com
2. Microsoft.com
3. Slashdot.org
4. Whitehouse.com (for all your White House news!
5. CmdrTaco.com
Ag!
The coolest voice ever.
yeah and it's "the least"
so let's try this again:
"WHOM DO YOU TRUST THE LEAST?"
not "who do you trust least"...
get it right for once!
and throw in some padding around your story boxes...
flip your mouse over and surrender
You know how people distort statistics. Actually, what's more significant than the raw numbers they're throwing around is the set of questions. What exactly do they mean by "Trust"? How do you measure it? Do you trust the people who run the site, or the members who contribute to the site?
For example, if I have a MS application, and I need a patch, I have a fairly high level of trust that I can go there, download updates and patches, and they will fix the problems they say they will fix. On the other hand, I have absolutely ZERO trust in their marketing and PR machines and the opinions they express.
So, depending on the underlying agenda of the people funding the "survey", you could interpret (i.e., "twist") my response any way you want.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I guess with billions you can resurrect dead citizens to lobby for you as well as buy independent reports.
From the article (my attempt to avoid the much feared off-topic moderation):
>Last week, AOL launched a test with computing giant IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) and its Lotus Sametime messaging
I'm confused... I've used Sametime to talk to friends on AIM for about a year. I fail to see how this is suddenly new "last week". Is the impact of Sametime so small that AOL didn't bother to care in the past? Seemed like they managed to block everyone else out pretty nicely.
I sure do trust slashdot for the incorrect spelling !
Maybe not trusting your ISP is a side-effect of using one of the large, faceless companies as an ISP. I use sonic.net (www.sonic.net), which is relatively small, has great tech support, provides equipment status (and failure) notices on its home page, and is currently fighting SBC to overturn its new, restrictive DSL contract.
I pay about $5/month more for my DSL with Sonic than I would with SBC, but I get a static IP address, no limitations on running a server, a shell account, 50MB of web space on their server, and I get a nice warm feeling from supporting a mom-and-pop company.
If you don't trust your ISP, you've got to wonder why you're giving them money in the first place.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
i can't believe that there is still anyone who trusts any corporation, or the government, or pollsters...
Microsoft Network - They're in direct competition with AOL
Microsoft - We're distrusted less than AOL!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
what i find TRULY amazing is the number of unique users during July. Microsoft got number THREE???! Even AFTER code red?
________________________________________________
Best example I can think of: the elder George Bush routinely asked "Who do you trust?" when running against Bill Clinton. Of course we know the outcome.
sulli
RTFJ.
If Microsoft didn't fund this report, I'll eat my shorts. I mean come on:
1. It's hot on the heels of the whole 'AOL on the desktop' debate and the surveyer SAYS that people will be more likely to try out Microsoft products in XP.
2. It gives no methodology for its results, nor does it disclose who is behind Gartner's survey.
3. The story is way to negative towards AOL and positive towards Microsoft -- are we supposed to believe these were the only two companies asked about?
4. What's with the rider about IMing at the end? Does this have any relevance to the story if Microsoft is not in the back of one's mind as having troubles with the government?
I dislike AOL and see them as only useful inasmuch as they're bullying Microsoft -- but come on... how much more blatant does FUD need to be?
cough...linux on ipaq..cough
By that logic, I guess your mistrust Sun, HP, Cisco, Nvidia, Sony, IBM, as well...just to name a few. Whose routers are those 394 laptops running on? You have your own opinion, that's fine, but in my case dealing in proprietary systems doesn't make one less trustworthy, just short sighted.
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
I think that AOL owes a lot of their unique visitors to Microsoft and their codered problem.
We got thousands of unique visitors on July 19-20 from codered infected machines. I bet AOL got more.
-mark
it would also be intresting to see which ISP's users are least trusted/liked... i remember back in school, a group of us were running a mud. there were two sites that got so bad they were permanently banned (we even hard coded it so the lower level imms could not remove it)... AOL... and of all places the san fransico pulic libary... go figure
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
I found a fairly easy way to trust my ISP. I went to work for them. I know exactly where each of my packets go, and I can verify that there's nothing sniffing, snooping, or doing anything else besides routing between me and our upstream bandwidth provider. Believe me, it's a very comforting feeling.
Of course I do! It's the Internet! Everything on the Internet is true. I thought everyone knew that.
I love how Slashdot editors sniff about "for these [evil] companies, perception is more important than reality." That's the case for almost any public venture, not just MS or AOL. If Slashdot were really serious about equating the two, it wouldn't call itself "news for nerds" -- it'd call itself what it is, namely a pro-Linux, anti-IP editorial site.
Get a life people. Running sourceforge COSTS valinux money. That isn't generally a good business model for companies, so it's hardly surprising that they might want to try to make some cash out of the sourceforge software (because it is rather cool).
Would it be better if valinux went out of business and sourceforge was gone?
Now that is funny. People who trust and want to use MS xp, and AOL. Could these be the same people who like being chained and locked up? Hmmm....
Science Rules
IP tracing sucks my balls. Who cares? See why I don't trust you. You go and threaten IP trce on my ass. Why? Because I state that I don't trust Slashdot? This reply above this is only proving my point. Fsck Slashdot!
AOL is run by idiots. Microsoft is run by a gang of tech "support" monkeys and scheming corporate nazis. I can't really complain about Windows yet since I'm running 98. I'm a bit wary about XP, though, after finding this article. Maybe it's time I switched OS's. If the final version ends up like this, they won't get my business.
Microsoft to me: We're turning off your Office
In dust we trust!
try .mil
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
I thought they were cool at first, like 10 years ago, but they totally suck now.
Over half of the talking heads on that channel spent more time on their tan than studying in school. Over half of them wear fake eye-glasses, nothing makes someone look dumber than a pair of fake glasses.
It is so funny when they try to pronoun foreign names. It is really funny when they subtitle some guy from england or wales. Anyone dumb enough to have trouble understanding them would not be watching a news show anyway.
Worst is the totally shallow, pointless, uninsightful, 100% pro-American Government shit they squeeze out on a daily basis.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
And that crazy googley eye'd bobbi batista!
She's using her mesmer powers to take control of America, don't look into her eyes or you will fall under her evil sway!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!