Could IBM Shake up the Search Engine World? 193
overshoot writes "IBM has just tossed a bucket of chum into the whole search showdown, which Microsoft thought was between them and Google. Apparently, IBM Research has developed a 'key facts' search technology (as distinct from 'key words') over the last several years. Now they're going public with it -- by putting it on SourceForge under an OSS license!" (According to the article, it's expected to show up on SourceForge by the end of this year, not immediately.)
Slow down IBM ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slow down IBM ... (Score:1)
SourceForge proposal... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SourceForge proposal... (Score:1)
Re:SourceForge proposal... (Score:2)
Re:SourceForge proposal... (Score:2)
ok but (Score:5, Funny)
Yay. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yay. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yay. (Score:2)
Seriously though, isnt that how msn search gets the skewed usage statistics that it does (ok, I digress, IE is *technically* not spyware..... yet).
Re:Yay. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, let's just hope it becomes one big, honkin' FOSS project.
Search technology is huge. Having it available which apparently can index conceptual links as opposed to literal links is astounding.
I say smart move on IBM's side. Get all the publicity of opening up really cool tech to the open-source community, then proceed to make a gazillion dollars in professional services gigs, and get the added benefit of everyone making your tech better because it's useful.
Provided this isn't steamingly fresh technology (unlikely from IBM realy) they should see some interest in this.
I for one, can imagine a nice bunch of associative content, and am wondering how much resources this might require to run on a machine and I'm going to go RTFA. =)
Re:Yay. (Score:1)
Re:Yay. (Score:2)
That way either
1. Google, MS, Yahoo etc can use the open source implementation (which is a licence to use the code including the patented stuff), possibly requiring opening their own codebase or
2. they licence the patents from IBM
Remember IBM still has the largest patent portfolio.
Re:Yay. (Score:2)
Let's hope it is complicated enough that not everyone will be able to set up their own search engine easily.
I would be excited though if it was a single large open source entity that works on a competing search engine. That would be neat!
Re:Yay. (Score:2)
Re:Yay. (Score:2)
Long hard road. (Score:1, Redundant)
More competition is better. I would enjoy more innovation. They do have a hard long road to follow however, and they may find it difficult.
Check out my journal if interested in a difficult problem.
Re:Long hard road. (Score:2)
Just for Reference (Score:5, Funny)
10 fews = 1 some
10 somes = 1 alot
10 alots = 1 load
10 loads = 1 buttload
10 buttloads = 1 assload
10 assloads = 1 shitload
10 shitloads = 1 fuckload
I do not have the book here or I would give the non-metric chart, you know how hard it is to remeber how many hogsheads are in an imperial buttload?
Re:Long hard road. (Score:1)
Re:Long hard road. (Score:1)
http://almaden.ibm.com/cs/crawler (Score:5, Informative)
wfp2.almaden.ibm.com - - [08/Aug/2005:15:48:38 -0400] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 41317 "-" "http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/crawler [fc7]"
I've been getting once a day connections on my server from ibm for quite some time now (a year or so). Doesn't surprise me in the least.
Re:http://almaden.ibm.com/cs/crawler (Score:2)
Re:http://almaden.ibm.com/cs/crawler (Score:1)
almaden.ibm.com
I had to look at that twice because the first time I read laden.bin.com... they really are declaring search engine jihad!
Re:http://almaden.ibm.com/cs/crawler (Score:2, Funny)
Re:http://almaden.ibm.com/cs/crawler (Score:2)
not a web search engine (Score:5, Insightful)
The posting implies that IBM is entering into competition with MS and Google. I saw no indication that IBM intends to launch a web search engine.
Re:not a web search engine (Score:4, Informative)
Chum (Score:2)
No, the posting (at least tried to) implies that IBM is changing the rules on the search game.
Chum are the bait that you throw to sharks to get them fighting each other.
Re:not a web search engine (Score:1)
One of Google's products is an intranet appliance for "sifting through the piles of data stored inside organisations". This would put IBM in direct competition with them in that market. Public search isn't the only thing that Google does, you know.
Both? (Score:2)
Finally some competition (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally some competition (Score:2, Insightful)
How's that?
This software has 0% market share (and that was with all the IBM's sales, support and development efforts).
They couldn't make a dent in the market (why do you think they're releasing it to open source if it's so good)?
>And google finally could have a nice open source competitor.
I don't think so. Those search engine guys are mean mother fuckers - thousands and thousands of full-time engineers working on solely one task - imporoving their search pro
Re:Finally some competition (Score:2)
I don't think so. Those search engine guys are mean mother fuckers - thousands and thousands of full-time engineers working on solely one task - imporoving their search products/services.
<snip>
Google's engineers will be on collective vacation, taking it easy while allowing this open source search engine to get its shit together.
Make up your mind. Are they on vacation or are they working solely on improving their search engine? (leaving out any comments about your use of such colorful language)
IBM has so much unpublished advanced research (Score:2, Interesting)
I have heard of stories from researchers there that IBM has its own terminology for alot of technical EE/CS stuff, as they discovered it way before the world did but were so secretive they didn't publish any of it.
I'm not surprised if IBM has enough tech in search to seriously knock down Google!
This OSS thing comes as a surprise, as it contradicts their secretiveness about their research.
chum and guns (Score:5, Funny)
This is an awful mixed metaphor. How does Slashdot expect its readers to navigate the treacherous IT seas with such poorly-seasoned and half-baked information?
Re:chum and guns (Score:1)
Amy, I think you're going to earn a place as our Official ASR Sysadmin's Chum. In a secondary, particularly bloody-minded sense of the word.
Steve VanDevender
First thing that I though of.
Soko
Re:chum and guns (Score:5, Funny)
It's easy when you're three sheets to the wind, even if you pepper your reply with editorial condiments. Anyway, the goose is sufficiently sauced to be worth a gander.
Re:chum and guns (Score:2)
Re:chum and guns (Score:5, Funny)
Re:chum and guns (Score:2)
I wuz there.
what about yahoo!? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cmp/2005
sorry bill, but if anything its between yahoo (22% share of all searches) and google (47%).
Not to mention most of those MSN searches (12%) are from IE users who don't know how to change their browser's start page.
Re:what about yahoo!? (Score:1)
I expect this post to be modded informative of course...
Re:what about yahoo!? (Score:4, Funny)
My grandparents are weird.
Re:what about yahoo!? (Score:2)
Last I heard it's pretty darned impossible to tell just how many searches are processed by which search engine unless you are actually within those companies and have access to that company's numbers.
It's possible to get averages from websites by referal beacons, but some engines list sites higher than others, some are enhanced by paid ads, etc. etc. IT's just not scientific at all to post percentages of what you don't know.
S
Re:what about yahoo!? (Score:2)
And it's not MS love, either - I even had her using Opera for a while, and it wasn't even b/c of security. Of course, this was all at school, and they took down the public share, so Opera was harder to use...
Get it now (Score:4, Informative)
Go you crazy Java dudes, go.
I, for one, ... (Score:2, Funny)
This means K-... (Score:1, Offtopic)
KDeskfinder?
Koogle?
Kahoo?
What is still missing... (Score:2)
That would make it possible to give back control of every aspect of the 'web experience' to the user.
Ok, I'm dreaming
Re:What is still missing... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is still missing... (Score:2)
Just ignore the link in the slashdot item (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just ignore the link in the slashdot item (Score:5, Informative)
The annotator premise is almost too simple; it's brilliant.
The "Don't Be Evil" Contest... (Score:2)
Just a thought - distrubuted search (Score:1)
Maybe I'll patent it, before Epicrealm does...
We might start to see the limits of OSS (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
Where did this come from? It certainly wasn't part of the article. With BAIDU's IPO [fool.com], and Yahoo expanding its index count [yahoo.com] to 20B pages (almost 4x Google's count), I seriously doubt that anyone in the search engine business thinks they can predict who will dominate in a few years - it's possible that the next "pagerank killer" is written by some CS grad students or by a search engine company that hardly anyone has heard of (yet).
Re:huh? (Score:1)
Ask Jeeves tr
Wait... (Score:2)
I think it still is pretty much between them (and perhaps Yahoo) as IBM is obviously not actively persuing this market. From first glance it appears that they wanted to give search engines a swing, and in the end decided not to go after it. However being IBM, instead of burying their research they released it into the public so others can benefit from it.
While this is good, but Microsoft and Google really have nothing to worry about. It's not like Bi
Re:Wait... (Score:2)
IBM may yet live to benefit from this project. A new google-like startup will need their own software to start their business, so they won't use it. IBM own the copyright, and have their own capital so they could start their own search engine with the OSS software at a later date.
Big Blue Marbles (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM's move does have the power to shake up the open/proprietary software jihad underway. If Microsoft used their open code, it would be hard for MS to claim that open source is inherently bad, or proprietary code is inherently superior. Google would demonstrate the same argument, but no one complains about Google's code remaining proprietary, because it mainly runs on their servers, which few people yet demand should be opened to outsiders. These are the kind of subtle strategic moves that let IBM continue to pull the strings of the entire industry. Success that generates more business and flexibility for IBM, in the mixed open/proprietary space it's carving for itself, will also demonstrate another powerful idea. American corporations can achieve market influence through strategic deployment of basic R&D. Not just through proprietary products, but also through manipulation of competitors who adopt open tech they create.
All in all, this looks like a smart move by IBM. Let's hope 1> this rumor is true; 2> the tech is really good; and 3> we're not already too far gone down the entrenched lines between our corporate jihadis to get the benefit of the mutual cooperation that this tech could enable, to great mutual benefit.
Re:Big Blue Marbles (Score:3, Interesting)
will it be good enough (Score:1)
Little to do with opponents... (Score:5, Informative)
And from the Slashdot summary... IBM has just tossed a bucket of chum into the whole search showdown, which Microsoft thought was between them and Google.
No, IBM's technology has little to do with Google, Yahoo or Microsoft's search technology. This isn't a competition until either three introduce similar technology. Reading the article's third paragraph would clarify this, and would make the summary a little more accurate, too.
Re:Little to do with opponents... (Score:2)
Similar private-record search products? Like the google search appliance that has been around for years now?
http://www.google.com/enterprise/ [google.com]
IBM DB2 extensions... (Score:2)
ttyl
Re:IBM DB2 extensions... (Score:2)
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/umm/umm.html [ibm.com]
Why wait for SourceForge? (Score:4, Informative)
It's available now [ibm.com]. As the article says:
UIMA technology is expected to be made available through open-source software site SourceForge by the end of 2005. The UIMA framework can currently be downloaded free of charge from IBM AlphaWorks at http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/uima/ [ibm.com].
So, I ask, why wait for it to appear on SF if we can get it now?
Re:Why wait for SourceForge? (Score:3, Informative)
um, because it's closed source right now
IBM has so much unpublished advanced research (Score:1)
Re:IBM has so much unpublished advanced research (Score:1)
I thought IBM tried to patent everything and anything plausibly patentable that came across the desk of someone on their research team.
If they patent everything, they can be pretty sure that they'll be able to extract some pretty hefty licensing fees from the industry at large. However, if they keep too many things under wraps, while they might gain a competitive advantage for a product that they're bringing to market relatively soon, they risk loosing the ability to file for all of the r
Open Source, but who will be able to run it? (Score:2)
Obviously most of us simply don't have the bandwidth or the computing power & storage to do that.
So are IBM treating the search engine source release as a hypothetical interest for people who can't actually make practical use of it, or are they going to give access to their own trawled data?
If the latter, then this is very significant.
Re:Open Source, but who will be able to run it? (Score:2)
I would look forward to this (Score:2)
They keep giving stuff away! (Score:1)
Don't count on it being of any use. (Score:2)
Re:Don't count on it being of any use. (Score:2)
Not quite a new concept... (Score:2)
Jaws reference (Score:2)
To which Paul Allen responded from the deck of his yacht [yachtcrew-cv.com], "We're going to need a bigger boat!"
Seth
Proposal to start OSS search organisation (Score:2)
Why not do the following: Several of us have access to sufficient infrastructure (own/lease with diskspace to spare, plus a bandwidth surplus).
Why do we not combine that in a distributed search environment with mirrored nodes with this technique of IBM. The addition of the distributed technology to spider and index the web will be a significant challenge, but the concept is I think pretty appealing. I for one will be willing to "donate" the necessary domain and starting facilities.
Anyon
So, whats the real deal here? (Score:2)
A Bucket of Cold Water (Score:2)
You still have to buy the software that will plug into the framework in order to actually process the information, though some open source projects are certain to come along.
This is
Author says Google is largest computer company... (Score:2)
Re:IBM? YOU SERIOUS? (Score:1)
Re:IBM? YOU SERIOUS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:IBM? YOU SERIOUS? (Score:1)
eBay runs on Sun, not IBM. (Score:3, Informative)
That was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away. eBay now runs on Sun [ebay.com].
Re:Information wants to be free... (Score:1)
isn't that supposed to be bheer?
However, while I agree that Information wants to be free, I prefer cider myself.
What information really wants (Score:2)
Re:Beer wants to be free, too. (Score:1)
Re:The only thing IBM is going to do... (Score:1)
Re:Spotlight! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Spotlight! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spotlight! (Score:2)
Re:Spotlight! (Score:2)
Re:Spotlight! (Score:1)
By about 180 degrees.
Re:Google? (Score:3, Informative)
Jerry
Re:LOL - Google is more than an algorithm (Score:2, Interesting)
This is good news anyway. Keyword/phrase searching becomes less useful as the universe expands. I have 11000 texts fully indexed with swish-e and I get way too many hits unless I use phrases. If I knew what phrase was in the books I sought, I would not need the search engine.
I love search engines because I cannot figure out how to organize a file cabinet or a ha