Slashdot Mirror
Does Bing Have Google Running Scared?
suraj.sun alerts us to an anonymous-source story up at the NY Post, not what we would normally consider a leading source of tech news, claiming that Microsoft's introduction of Bing has alarmed Google. "...co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service, The Post has learned. Brin, according to sources..., is himself leading the team of search-engine specialists in an effort to determine how Bing's crucial search algorithm differs from that used by [Google]. 'New search engines have come and gone in the past 10 years, but Bing seems to be of particular interest to Sergey,' said one insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The move by Brin is unusual, as it is rare these days for the Google founders to have such hands-on involvement in day-to-day operations at the company, the source added." CNet's coverage of the rumor begins with the NY Post and adds in Search Engine Land's speculation on what the world of search would look like if Yahoo exited the field.
COULD IT BE??
It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could reanimate the corpse at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
bleak fu7ure. In BSD has always
You should consider writing short stories... thats pretty damn good
Elephant scared of teeny tiny mouse.
You should consider writing short stories... thats pretty damn good
You should consider turing off your computer and reading more literature. That actually sucked in the context of what someone moderatley well read would refer to as a "pretty damn good" short story.
Can I recommend something?
"Give it up! Give it up, said he, and turned away with a great sweep, like someone who wants to be alone with his laughter"
--Anonymous Cowardon
Even as I sit here, I can't believe I'm writing this. I've never been one to voice my opinions in such a public manner. But after learning that David Gerard wants to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals, I felt I at least had to set a few things straight. But before I continue, allow me to explain that if he honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him.
I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing David of planning to tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that he has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but sometime in the future David will subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will unequivocally happen if we don't transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence.
David's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that Pyrrhonism is a noble goal?) David's fairy tales are just an outcropping of his hatred of us. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. By allowing David to divert our attention from serious issues, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
How did David get so vulgar? I have my theories, but they're only speculation. At any rate, he is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for David to practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of crafty death cult.
David has an uncriticalâ"almost a worshipfulâ"attitude toward vile blackguards. It follows from this that some people apparently believe that if we don't bother him, he won't bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. David wants to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. We, in contrast, want to alert people that he once had the audacity to tell me that the existence and perpetuation of moral relativism is its own moral justification. My riposte was that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. David has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.
Yeah, you're not biased whatsoever. Let's ignore that Republicans took over Congress two years into Clinton's term, and that unemployment under Bush was lower than it was under Clinton. Not to mention that the planning for the 9/11 attacks began in 1998, back when we had "world diplomat" Clinton as president, so blaming Bush for hate from people around the globe is crap.
Why do people pretend they're not biased? I don't get it...I don't get how someone could not be self-aware of how their mind works. Did you know scientists found a location in the brain that stimulates you emotionally when your belief system is bolstered, and that the same location is stimulated when you disregard criticism of your beliefs? That explains why you justify criticism of Bush but dismiss criticism of Obama, even though Obama has become Bush 2.0 (he even supports warrantless wiretaps!).
"Sufferin' succotash."
Or, for a more recent example, Democrats bringing up Bush whenever Obama is being criticized.
[citation needed]
And I don't mean from Obama himself. What is Obama doing that people are defending by saying "Bush did it too!". During the Bush Presidency, all you'd ever hear from Republican pundits and right-wing television and radio was "Clinton thought there were WMD's!", "Clinton bombed Iraq too!", "Clinton wiretapped people!" etc. ad nauseam. I don't see anything remotely similar going on in defense of Obama.
Ironically enough, you're engaging in the exact behavior I pointed out initially--diverting the blame to someone else saying "they do it too!".
...because they treat people "outside" from their shiny world like sh*t...I had an on-site interview a few months ago, in one of their European offices, for a technical position...After some days of waiting, they sent me an e-mail, telling me that I wasn't chosen, but without any detailed or convincing explanation... Thus, I sent 5 e-mails in 2 months, to 3 different people, among the ones who interviewed me, asking for more feedback, but never received any answer... For me this is simple rude behaviour, and lack of respect for people...