Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Wants to Buy Google
xihr writes "Harry Fletcher writes in The Inquirer about an obvious discrepancy between searches for "linux windows" on Google and MSN; the former comes up with almost 9 million hits, but the latter only comes up with -- wait for it -- 16. The author then speculates on Microsoft's ulterior motives for their attempted (and failed) purchase of Google."
I went to MSN.com because that sounded crazy. Not only was it crazy but it was a lie. When I went to search.msn.com I typed linux windows and got many, many links to linux sites. This is just false and slashdot ought to be more responsible.
You just easily and quickly proved how much of an idiot this Harry Fletcher really is...:)
This is the type of evidence that should block such a purchase.
JAV
OMG... you *ARE* kidding, right? Please tell me you aren't THAT F**KING STUPID!?!?!
Learn how searching works MORON.
You've all missed the point...
(1) MSN is a web portal NOT a search portal. It's search engine is a convenience.
(2) Google's business model IS searching the web. Therefore their index is radically larger than pretty much anyone.
(3) Google uses patented algorithms to index their sites that take into account the number of pages that link to another page.
(4) Google is in the business of providing generic search information. MSN is not - they are not going to have many GNU/Linux (l)users on the site so there's not much point in providing GNU/Linux content.
(5) Take any search and run it against the two engines - Google is going to beat MSN pretty much any day due to the sheer size of its indices.
(6) This is a prime reason why no one can take Linux (l)users seriously - because the whole damn bunch of you colour things to the shade you prefer to see. You're all living in a damn dream world.
Do a search on msn.com for "linux vs. windows" (here) and you get 521343 hits.
Do the same on Google (here), you get 2,150,000 hits.
Now, if you want to conclude that MSN is an inferior search engine, I agree 100%. Saying or even implying that it gives bogus results tailored to support MS's whim is just a bold-faced lie.
Just because one search engine returns different results than another is in no way proof of a conspiracy on anyone's parts. It just highlights that the engines work in different ways and index different amounts and likely types of data.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
even funnier is when you go to the fourth result, "Alternatives to Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP" and you get this quote from Microsoft:
Microsoft provides alternatives for most open source products.
Hey I think M$ just admitted defeat! The stated 'alternative' is usually the underdog. You don't hear Bill Ford saying, "Ford is an alternative to Citroen" do you? Or Adobe saying, "Photoshop is an alternative to Gimp"? No!
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Typing "M$" is totally immature. Grow up, bitch.
I think there's two things going on here:
1. Microsoft has a pathetic excuse for a search engine due to mediocre technology.
2. Their search engine (much like all of their other products) was built solely with profit in mind.
This is not surprising since Microsoft is all about mediocrity to boost profits. It's a natural conclusion. Working to make "the best" of anything is never profitable. If profit is your main goal, then "good enough" or something like it is all that is needed. This is one of Microsoft's biggest problems. They need someone to whip them into shape and realize that sometimes having an "insanely great" product is much better than making a pile of money.
Un-news