Desktop Search Engines Compared

nutterButter writes "After Google created a stir with its desktop search engine, other engines gained more awareness in the public eye. Slate did a comparison of them and Google was not their top pick; Copernic was. I tried it - and am quite impressed."

Comments

Re:Linux anyone?

[QuantumRiff]

No, its got a pretty interface. To be accpeted by the linux crowd, it needs to be "GREP" with a combination of C, perl, shell scrip, and awk. Oh, and better be availble in RPM, tar.gz, and .deb. And it surely better use MySQL as a backend, with apache as the gui (if your going to have one.) We unix geeks like to demonstrate our knowledge by always doing things the hard way!

Re:Why would anyone trust this?

[Old Man Kensey]

Assuming you're the kind of user with privileges to install this on your computer to begin with, every application you run already has those permissions. Any program you run has the same permissions you have when you run it, unless there are admin policies to the contrary in place. So, these apps don't inherently represent any more of a security risk than the ordinary search built into your OS.

So, do you trust your OS vendor? If so, why, exactly? For that matter, do you really trust your antivirus vendor?

Newsflash

[E IS mC(Square)]

slate is already sold to washington post. . and here

Re:Linux anyone?

[theantix]

To tell you the truth, I'm very glad that these sorts of companies don't yet write software for Linux. A free software solution like Beagle comes without spyware, doesn't send your information to their corporate masters, and doesn't shove ads down your throat or charge you money.

Someday I'm sure that these crapware vendors will be producing their garbage for Linux, and dumb Linux users will be plagued with much the same sort of problems that windows users suffer today. It's almost a golden age now, knowing that the vast majority of Linux software is truly free libre software instead of the ugliness that freeware software will bring.