Kitty Hawk was not a stunt. That flight was the first controlled flight of a human-carrying powered aircraft. What SpaceShip One did -- drop an tiny rocket-propelled airplane from a bigger aircraft, punch the thrust and then coast as far as possible -- is a technique that's been in use since the X-1 more than 50 years ago. The only really new aspect of Rutan's efforts is that it is privately funded.
Nonsense. People are tested before the drive cars. Are you suggesting we test and license people before letting them use PC's?
The car analogy is wrong because the car is delivered not broken, but the PC, or router, or whatever, as delivered is broken because it is insecure without additional user intervention.
You're asking users to compensate for inadequacies in tech products.
Sounds pretty much like "driving recklessly" to me. That's misuse of a product. Tech products are insecure even if used per SOP.
You're asserting that people are to blame for the insecure products sold by the tech industry. I don't believe that. The test of a secure product is my ability to plug it in and use it securely with no additional tweaking or adding no additional software.
Wireless is insecure, the net is insecure, operating systems are insecure, and all the people who are spending their money to support all those things is "Bas security is your fault". That's bogus and self-serving.
If the tech industry can make products secure, they should. Let the tech-savvy users bear the burden of making their products insecure, not the other way around.
If you;'re in the business of selling something, you're dependent on satisifying all those people.
People blame the tech industry -- all of it -- for insecure products because they believe IT products that are not secure are faild products. When some techie tells them they need to learn more or buy some add-on or configure some piece of software they didn't know existed, all they hear is a bunch of excuses from a lazy industry that doesn't care about people.
We'd feel the same way about a doctor who refused to treat us for heart disease but instead ranted at us about diet and exercise.
The analogy to speeding or driving recklessly is inappropriate.
PC's and wireless routers are not insecure because people use them incorrectly. They are insecure because they are made that way.
A more appropriate auto analogy is a company marketing a car with brakes that don't work in the rain. To "fix" this problem, the manufacturer resorts to posting articles on his web site warning users to avoid driving in the rain, or to go a dealer and install a patched brake system. Meanwhile, a billion-dollar aftermarket thrives selling add-ons that are supposed to make the brakes work in the rain.
Users will never bother to learn enough or spend enough to secure products that ought to be secure in the first place. Assertions that the users are to blame for the insecure products they buy is simple hypocrisy.
If the IT industry can't voluntarily figure out how to sell products that are easy to use as well as secure, then the IT industry will be regulated by legislation.
The point is that people will not buy another product to make their Linksys router secure. Or another product to make Wndows secure. Or spend hours configuring a firewall. They expect those products to be secure as delivered.
Now, if you really think my post was addressing you or any specific person, let me introduce you to the concepts of metaphor and simile.
Perception is everything. If someone buys a wireless router, they perceive they are buying a technical product. If it "leaks" their private data to anyone who happens to be driving by, then they have every right to consider that as a failure of the tech industry. Just as they would feel that incompetent or crooked mechanics represent a failure of the auto industry.
If the auto industry turned out cars with doorlocks that would open with any random activation device, then car buyers would have every right to blame the auto industry for selling insecure cars, and to be incensed when memebers of the industry harped at them about being responsible for their own security. But, that's what happens when people buy computers, or routers, or operating systems that are insecure. They're told that it's their job to spend more time and money to make the thing secure.
It does no one any good to point fingers at Windows, or any other specific product. From the consumers point of view, they're all techie products. They are justified to believe that if a product is not secure out of the box, it is faulty.
So, there's a difference between Joe Sixpack asking for help to fix his car when something breaks and Joe Sixpack needing to buy something extra or ask for help to secure a device that was sold to him broken.
That's the point: From the customer point of view, the tech industry is selling products that allow people to steal your bandwidth, grab your passwords, raid your bank account, send porn to your kids, litter your hard drive with spam, and generally annoy the hell out of everyone. Is that a gross distortion? Only a degree. But it's important to understand that customers want the tech industry to fix these problems. They don't want the tech industry to lecture at them about good security practices while it continues to sell insecure products.
Typically, post here are full of smarmy comments from geeks and techs and poseurs who may understand machines but don't have a clue about how their own species operates.
Here's the scoop: If someone's Internet connection is insecure, they will blame you -- the techies -- for not making it secure. Everytime someone starts to preach about "stupid users" getting what they deserve because they aren't running the right firewall or using some software du jour, those "stupid users" are hearing techies recommend cumbersome technical remedies for problems caused by techie failures in the first place.
People want this stuff to be secure when they plug it in. If it isn't, it's your fault, 'cause you make the stuff.
Wireless is insecure. That's not the users' fault. It's your fault. First one to make it secure makes a billion dollars.
Nor Stern's. Clear Channel buys his show, so they've got every right to stop buying it. That's no more censorship than if your local bookstore won't sell porn. Stern's right to free speech was not impaired when CC took him off their half-dozen or so stations. He kept on talking. Some folks couldn't hear him on their radio anymore, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to listen to Stern. All it guarantees is his right to talk.
Too bad, though, he hasn't decided to broadcast from the real Sirius.
SUSE 9.2 and Novell Linux Desktop: Differences?
on
SUSE 9.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Anyone have any insights about the differences between this 9.2 release and the forthcoming Novell Linux Desktop?
I gather the NLD will target the "enterprise" market. That could well mean it will be 9.2 plus a support agreement and a 3-digit price. Or, it might not.
More to the point, when are the things the Ximian developers are working on at Novell -- mono, Beagle, Dashboard, the Project Utopia stuff, etc. -- going to show up in $99 shrinkwrapped box?
I don't know who I have less respect for: an undemocratic institution like the UN or loony under-educated geeks who toss around verbiage like "business model" as a subsititute for legitimate thinking.
If something as important to me as the Interent is going to be regulated, I want then regulation done by someone I can vote out of office. I can't vote for my UN ambassador (neither can you).
Nor can I vote for the people running the Internet today. It may be supported by a lot of good people, and perhaps it really is permeated with the spirit of open source, but it isn't democratic. Attributes like open and free don't mean it is democratic.
Nice use of uppercase. But, you seem to agree with me.
On the other hand, this was a report on a Gartner survey. Nothing to do with MS, and nothing to do with any complaints about Linux.
The report says the survey found that, in the region surveyed, most machine sold with Linux end uo running Windows, and that most of those Windows installations are pirated.
The report did not say Linux causes piracy, or that Linux facilitates privacy. If Linux cost the same as a legitimate copy of Windows, and was GPL'd, then these vendors would be loading their hardware with some other no-cost OS.
The fact that the Linux press jumped on this survey as if it attributed piracy to Linux is evidence that the Linux press is devoid of journalistic principles, as if we needed more evidence.
I've only read the reports about the Gartner survey (but,then, so have you). I don't read in those reports any attempt by Garnter to document a cause-and-effect relationship between using Linux and pirating Windows.
What I do read is something rather obvious: If you live in a country where piracy is endemic, and if the cost of adding a legitimate version of Windows to a PC is enough to keep you from buying that PC, then it makes a great deal of economic sense to buy a Linux PC and replace Linux with pirated copy of Windows,
What's so difficult about that? People want to run Windows, but can't afford PC with legal Windows. They want to see the PC work before they buy, so vendors install a no-cost OS that just happens to be Linux. Buyers stop off on the way home and buy a $3 pirated Windows CD. Everyone is happy.
The reaction this story has received is indicative of the paranoia and lack of reason that exists in parts of Linuxland.
Well, of course, it's all about preferences. Even if your employer compels you to use a language you hate, you still have the choice to seek employment, and another language, elsewhere.
In your case, you've listed your preferences. Other categories exist, to which other people may attach more importance. In pariticular, I'd argue that a developer should first seek a lanuage that allows him to comfortably and rapidly express his ideas. After all, that's why they're called languages. Speed, portability, utility, etc., are only academic issues if the language stands in the way of the developer saying what he wants to say.
Obviously, then, this is a very individual thing. Some will find C++ expressive, others will be hobbled by it. Some will toss of brilliant programs in Visual Basic, while others stare at a Visual Studio display and wonder what happened to the editor.
So, whether or not Mono or.NET excel in anything is not important. What's important is a developer who excels, regardless of the language.
As for using Linux because you hate Microsoft... Well, I've been a Linux user for years, but that's because the first OS I used after DOS 2.1 was Unix. I've never understood why people would let ideology determine their choice of software. It makes no more sense to me than letting political opinion determine your choice of pliers.
Yes and no. I've now installed twice. The first install was over a complete 9.1 install. The desktop looked very good; one of the Smooth variations is the default theme. I added dbus and hal successfully, but broke things trying to install a volume manager that could. So, I re-installed a KDE-less SuSE and then reinstalled ULB. This time the root desktop was fine, but the user desktop was as you described: blank paper icons. Deleting every Gnome-related config file in my home directory didn't improve things. Eventually, I wiped that directory and recreated the user. That fixed the problem.
ULB seems much more responsive than the standard SuSE desktop, which is consistent with my experience comparing Gnome to KDE. The display quality is just about the best I've seen on my hardware.
ULB does not include dbus and hal, or, apparently, a volume manager compiled to use them. As a result, Gnome 2.8's automatic volume detection doesn't work. I.e., it doesn't detect a CD or know when an extracted tar file has created a new directory.
And, Cogley's directions for using apt seem out of synch with this release and its sources.list file. I had to go through multiple iterations of updating and upgrading on both installs.
I agree with that court decision. The D.C. police are widely criticized, often with reason, for being intolerably slow to respond to calls, but they are under no obligation to prevent any specific criminal act. They are, as I said, obligated to protect me from crime. Protection does not equate to prevention.
I've no problem with restricting the ability of criminals to exercise their rights. They've forfeited their freedom to exercise those rights for a period of time. That does not mean that they lose, permamently, their absolute right to liberty and freedom. It simply means they can't exercise some of those rights. Society compels certain changes in behavior; it cannot affect the rights of any individual.
To argue that society can determine the rights that accrue to an individual, rather than regulate how those rights are exercised, is to also argue that society creates an individual's rights. I do not accept that. Our rights exist by simple virtue of our existence.
If you want to run Windows, and you live in a place where the cost of a PC with Windows installed is greater than the cost of a PC with Linux installed plus the cost of a pirated copy of Windows, it makes sense to buy the Linux PC and install your pirated Windows.
Whether or not.NET or java or Mono offers anything better than C++ is akin to asking if C++ offers anything better than C, or if C offers anything better than assembly. Or, if a peach pie offers anything better than an apple pie.
People choose apple over peach because they prefer apple. Some people choose peach. Some people choose C++ because they like it. Some people can't stand C++ and will never use it. Some people will choose Mono because they like it. Some people won't.
Linux is an improvement over DOS and DOS-based Windows, and less of an improvement over Windows 2000 and XP. But many people acknowledge that Linux is technically superior to Windows and still continue to use Windows because they like using Windows more than using Linux The same logic applies to languages. If two languages can get the job done, why not use the one you enjoy? Why use the language that fights you every step of they way?
And, if you want to clone Linux and release it, no one is stopping you. There's no reason why you should not do what you want. No one is keeping score, you know.
I installed it last night on SuSE 9.1 Pro. Appears to be very well done.
Quibbles: It doesn't include hal and dbus; OpenOffice won't launch ("...libvcl645li.so: undefined symbol: XineramaIsActive"); install instructions seem out of synch and in need of updating.
Dropline's release should be happening soon. It's put out two release candidates. Drop by the Dropline forums to see what's going on.
One issue for Slackware, and Dropline, is that some of the new goodies in Gnome 2.8 use hal and dbus, which require a 2.6 kernel. Slack runs fine with a 2,6 kernel, but ships with a 2.4 kernel.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Slackware move to Gnome 2.8, KDE 3.3 and a 2.6 kernel via a point release.
Style, syntax, design, structure, etc., are at least as important as innovatory features in determining if a developer feels comfortable with a language. If someone can express his ideas more readily in one language than another, he's likely to choose it, all things being equal.
In truth, all languages solve the same set of problems, just in different ways. (I'm deliberately not including developer candy like bounds checking. These things can be implemented in any language.)
Because Google does not create, i.e., write, any news. It simply points to news at websites that it has crawled.
Google is competing with businesses that also collect, sort, and present news created elsewhere. Google is not competing with any business with an editorial staff that covers stories and creates news.
Remember, Google has no reporters, writes no stores, takes no photographs, and would have nothing to display but an empty page unless it could suck content from real news sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Kitty Hawk was not a stunt. That flight was the first controlled flight of a human-carrying powered aircraft. What SpaceShip One did -- drop an tiny rocket-propelled airplane from a bigger aircraft, punch the thrust and then coast as far as possible -- is a technique that's been in use since the X-1 more than 50 years ago. The only really new aspect of Rutan's efforts is that it is privately funded.
Nonsense. People are tested before the drive cars. Are you suggesting we test and license people before letting them use PC's?
The car analogy is wrong because the car is delivered not broken, but the PC, or router, or whatever, as delivered is broken because it is insecure without additional user intervention.
You're asking users to compensate for inadequacies in tech products.
Well, you are perfect example of the title to my post: Geeks Understand Machines, Not People.
Proof of that is your expectation that people will read manuals so they can make their purchases do what they expected them to do out of the box.
>>"if I buy a car and crash it..."
Sounds pretty much like "driving recklessly" to me. That's misuse of a product. Tech products are insecure even if used per SOP.
You're asserting that people are to blame for the insecure products sold by the tech industry. I don't believe that. The test of a secure product is my ability to plug it in and use it securely with no additional tweaking or adding no additional software.
Wireless is insecure, the net is insecure, operating systems are insecure, and all the people who are spending their money to support all those things is "Bas security is your fault". That's bogus and self-serving.
If the tech industry can make products secure, they should. Let the tech-savvy users bear the burden of making their products insecure, not the other way around.
>>"People will never be satisfied..."
If you;'re in the business of selling something, you're dependent on satisifying all those people.
People blame the tech industry -- all of it -- for insecure products because they believe IT products that are not secure are faild products. When some techie tells them they need to learn more or buy some add-on or configure some piece of software they didn't know existed, all they hear is a bunch of excuses from a lazy industry that doesn't care about people.
We'd feel the same way about a doctor who refused to treat us for heart disease but instead ranted at us about diet and exercise.
The analogy to speeding or driving recklessly is inappropriate.
PC's and wireless routers are not insecure because people use them incorrectly. They are insecure because they are made that way.
A more appropriate auto analogy is a company marketing a car with brakes that don't work in the rain. To "fix" this problem, the manufacturer resorts to posting articles on his web site warning users to avoid driving in the rain, or to go a dealer and install a patched brake system. Meanwhile, a billion-dollar aftermarket thrives selling add-ons that are supposed to make the brakes work in the rain.
Users will never bother to learn enough or spend enough to secure products that ought to be secure in the first place. Assertions that the users are to blame for the insecure products they buy is simple hypocrisy.
If the IT industry can't voluntarily figure out how to sell products that are easy to use as well as secure, then the IT industry will be regulated by legislation.
The point is that people will not buy another product to make their Linksys router secure. Or another product to make Wndows secure. Or spend hours configuring a firewall. They expect those products to be secure as delivered.
Now, if you really think my post was addressing you or any specific person, let me introduce you to the concepts of metaphor and simile.
Perception is everything. If someone buys a wireless router, they perceive they are buying a technical product. If it "leaks" their private data to anyone who happens to be driving by, then they have every right to consider that as a failure of the tech industry. Just as they would feel that incompetent or crooked mechanics represent a failure of the auto industry.
If the auto industry turned out cars with doorlocks that would open with any random activation device, then car buyers would have every right to blame the auto industry for selling insecure cars, and to be incensed when memebers of the industry harped at them about being responsible for their own security. But, that's what happens when people buy computers, or routers, or operating systems that are insecure. They're told that it's their job to spend more time and money to make the thing secure.
It does no one any good to point fingers at Windows, or any other specific product. From the consumers point of view, they're all techie products. They are justified to believe that if a product is not secure out of the box, it is faulty.
So, there's a difference between Joe Sixpack asking for help to fix his car when something breaks and Joe Sixpack needing to buy something extra or ask for help to secure a device that was sold to him broken.
That's the point: From the customer point of view, the tech industry is selling products that allow people to steal your bandwidth, grab your passwords, raid your bank account, send porn to your kids, litter your hard drive with spam, and generally annoy the hell out of everyone. Is that a gross distortion? Only a degree. But it's important to understand that customers want the tech industry to fix these problems. They don't want the tech industry to lecture at them about good security practices while it continues to sell insecure products.
Typically, post here are full of smarmy comments from geeks and techs and poseurs who may understand machines but don't have a clue about how their own species operates.
Here's the scoop: If someone's Internet connection is insecure, they will blame you -- the techies -- for not making it secure. Everytime someone starts to preach about "stupid users" getting what they deserve because they aren't running the right firewall or using some software du jour, those "stupid users" are hearing techies recommend cumbersome technical remedies for problems caused by techie failures in the first place.
People want this stuff to be secure when they plug it in. If it isn't, it's your fault, 'cause you make the stuff.
Wireless is insecure. That's not the users' fault. It's your fault. First one to make it secure makes a billion dollars.
Well, it isn't about my rights, that for sure.
Nor Stern's. Clear Channel buys his show, so they've got every right to stop buying it. That's no more censorship than if your local bookstore won't sell porn. Stern's right to free speech was not impaired when CC took him off their half-dozen or so stations. He kept on talking. Some folks couldn't hear him on their radio anymore, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to listen to Stern. All it guarantees is his right to talk.
Too bad, though, he hasn't decided to broadcast from the real Sirius.
Anyone have any insights about the differences between this 9.2 release and the forthcoming Novell Linux Desktop?
I gather the NLD will target the "enterprise" market. That could well mean it will be 9.2 plus a support agreement and a 3-digit price. Or, it might not.
More to the point, when are the things the Ximian developers are working on at Novell -- mono, Beagle, Dashboard, the Project Utopia stuff, etc. -- going to show up in $99 shrinkwrapped box?
I don't know who I have less respect for: an undemocratic institution like the UN or loony under-educated geeks who toss around verbiage like "business model" as a subsititute for legitimate thinking.
If something as important to me as the Interent is going to be regulated, I want then regulation done by someone I can vote out of office. I can't vote for my UN ambassador (neither can you).
Nor can I vote for the people running the Internet today. It may be supported by a lot of good people, and perhaps it really is permeated with the spirit of open source, but it isn't democratic. Attributes like open and free don't mean it is democratic.
Nice use of uppercase. But, you seem to agree with me.
On the other hand, this was a report on a Gartner survey. Nothing to do with MS, and nothing to do with any complaints about Linux.
The report says the survey found that, in the region surveyed, most machine sold with Linux end uo running Windows, and that most of those Windows installations are pirated.
The report did not say Linux causes piracy, or that Linux facilitates privacy. If Linux cost the same as a legitimate copy of Windows, and was GPL'd, then these vendors would be loading their hardware with some other no-cost OS.
The fact that the Linux press jumped on this survey as if it attributed piracy to Linux is evidence that the Linux press is devoid of journalistic principles, as if we needed more evidence.
I've only read the reports about the Gartner survey (but,then, so have you). I don't read in those reports any attempt by Garnter to document a cause-and-effect relationship between using Linux and pirating Windows.
What I do read is something rather obvious: If you live in a country where piracy is endemic, and if the cost of adding a legitimate version of Windows to a PC is enough to keep you from buying that PC, then it makes a great deal of economic sense to buy a Linux PC and replace Linux with pirated copy of Windows,
What's so difficult about that? People want to run Windows, but can't afford PC with legal Windows. They want to see the PC work before they buy, so vendors install a no-cost OS that just happens to be Linux. Buyers stop off on the way home and buy a $3 pirated Windows CD. Everyone is happy.
The reaction this story has received is indicative of the paranoia and lack of reason that exists in parts of Linuxland.
Well, of course, it's all about preferences. Even if your employer compels you to use a language you hate, you still have the choice to seek employment, and another language, elsewhere.
.NET excel in anything is not important. What's important is a developer who excels, regardless of the language.
In your case, you've listed your preferences. Other categories exist, to which other people may attach more importance. In pariticular, I'd argue that a developer should first seek a lanuage that allows him to comfortably and rapidly express his ideas. After all, that's why they're called languages. Speed, portability, utility, etc., are only academic issues if the language stands in the way of the developer saying what he wants to say.
Obviously, then, this is a very individual thing. Some will find C++ expressive, others will be hobbled by it. Some will toss of brilliant programs in Visual Basic, while others stare at a Visual Studio display and wonder what happened to the editor.
So, whether or not Mono or
As for using Linux because you hate Microsoft... Well, I've been a Linux user for years, but that's because the first OS I used after DOS 2.1 was Unix. I've never understood why people would let ideology determine their choice of software. It makes no more sense to me than letting political opinion determine your choice of pliers.
Yes and no. I've now installed twice. The first install was over a complete 9.1 install. The desktop looked very good; one of the Smooth variations is the default theme. I added dbus and hal successfully, but broke things trying to install a volume manager that could. So, I re-installed a KDE-less SuSE and then reinstalled ULB. This time the root desktop was fine, but the user desktop was as you described: blank paper icons. Deleting every Gnome-related config file in my home directory didn't improve things. Eventually, I wiped that directory and recreated the user. That fixed the problem.
ULB seems much more responsive than the standard SuSE desktop, which is consistent with my experience comparing Gnome to KDE. The display quality is just about the best I've seen on my hardware.
ULB does not include dbus and hal, or, apparently, a volume manager compiled to use them. As a result, Gnome 2.8's automatic volume detection doesn't work. I.e., it doesn't detect a CD or know when an extracted tar file has created a new directory.
And, Cogley's directions for using apt seem out of synch with this release and its sources.list file. I had to go through multiple iterations of updating and upgrading on both installs.
I agree with that court decision. The D.C. police are widely criticized, often with reason, for being intolerably slow to respond to calls, but they are under no obligation to prevent any specific criminal act. They are, as I said, obligated to protect me from crime. Protection does not equate to prevention.
I've no problem with restricting the ability of criminals to exercise their rights. They've forfeited their freedom to exercise those rights for a period of time. That does not mean that they lose, permamently, their absolute right to liberty and freedom. It simply means they can't exercise some of those rights. Society compels certain changes in behavior; it cannot affect the rights of any individual.
To argue that society can determine the rights that accrue to an individual, rather than regulate how those rights are exercised, is to also argue that society creates an individual's rights. I do not accept that. Our rights exist by simple virtue of our existence.
If you want to run Windows, and you live in a place where the cost of a PC with Windows installed is greater than the cost of a PC with Linux installed plus the cost of a pirated copy of Windows, it makes sense to buy the Linux PC and install your pirated Windows.
Whether or not .NET or java or Mono offers anything better than C++ is akin to asking if C++ offers anything better than C, or if C offers anything better than assembly. Or, if a peach pie offers anything better than an apple pie.
People choose apple over peach because they prefer apple. Some people choose peach. Some people choose C++ because they like it. Some people can't stand C++ and will never use it. Some people will choose Mono because they like it. Some people won't.
Linux is an improvement over DOS and DOS-based Windows, and less of an improvement over Windows 2000 and XP. But many people acknowledge that Linux is technically superior to Windows and still continue to use Windows because they like using Windows more than using Linux The same logic applies to languages. If two languages can get the job done, why not use the one you enjoy? Why use the language that fights you every step of they way?
And, if you want to clone Linux and release it, no one is stopping you. There's no reason why you should not do what you want. No one is keeping score, you know.
Just discovered that OpenOffice isn't part of ULB_Gnome. Must have been dragged in from one of the other sources in the suggested source.list.
I installed it last night on SuSE 9.1 Pro. Appears to be very well done.
Quibbles: It doesn't include hal and dbus; OpenOffice won't launch ("...libvcl645li.so: undefined symbol: XineramaIsActive"); install instructions seem out of synch and in need of updating.
Actually, that "community" is one busy Brit named James Ogley.
Dropline's release should be happening soon. It's put out two release candidates. Drop by the Dropline forums to see what's going on.
One issue for Slackware, and Dropline, is that some of the new goodies in Gnome 2.8 use hal and dbus, which require a 2.6 kernel. Slack runs fine with a 2,6 kernel, but ships with a 2.4 kernel.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Slackware move to Gnome 2.8, KDE 3.3 and a 2.6 kernel via a point release.
Style, syntax, design, structure, etc., are at least as important as innovatory features in determining if a developer feels comfortable with a language. If someone can express his ideas more readily in one language than another, he's likely to choose it, all things being equal.
In truth, all languages solve the same set of problems, just in different ways. (I'm deliberately not including developer candy like bounds checking. These things can be implemented in any language.)
News producers have nothing to fear from Google.
Why?
Because Google does not create, i.e., write, any news. It simply points to news at websites that it has crawled.
Google is competing with businesses that also collect, sort, and present news created elsewhere. Google is not competing with any business with an editorial staff that covers stories and creates news.
Remember, Google has no reporters, writes no stores, takes no photographs, and would have nothing to display but an empty page unless it could suck content from real news sites.