How Objective Is Microsoft's Search? 470
bot writes "There have been a number of stories on Microsoft trying to do a 'Netscape' on Google.. what would a world in which Microsoft provides search look like? A search for 'linux' on msn.com give amazon and ebay as the top two results, and a microsoft site promoting migration from Linux to Windows as the fourth listing. A search on MSN India is even more amusing -- the top result is a dead link, and the second one is Linuxsucks.com."
What a MS search would look like (Score:2, Funny)
The True MSN telling (Score:5, Insightful)
This might take a bit, but bear with me. On google.com, you can search for how many times a site is linked from another site. You use the command (e.g.) link:www.websitehere.com This search is very cool to discern how popular a site is. For example, google.com itself is linked almost a half million times. Yahoo, well over a million times.
However, www.msn.com has a lot fewer than half million. Fewer than a thousand even! In fact, there are only 51 (yes, Fifty One) People in the world who link to www.msn.com. www.MSNBC fares even worse with 7 (SEVEN) links to it. Compare this to www.cnn.com with 74,000 links.
What does this mean? Well, if you consider these links as votes (which they are... if you like a site, you link it from your website or blog), it means that no one likes MSN or MSNBC at all. But, i wonder, why do people still go to these sites? The only answer i can give is this: Monopolistic practice. If you have almost a complete monopoly on the desktop, and you link your website on every one, of course you'll get some people to go to it. Could this example be used in a court case? Possibly, i guess (IANAL, but my bro-in law is
Do what you want with this info, i just thought the /. crowd would like to see this.
Re:The True MSN telling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The True MSN telling (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has captured the marked and has cornered it. It's interface and features are unbeatable. Only Google can beat Google. If they start plastering adds all over their site and their links become commercials then I'll certainly look for an alternative because it is no longer useful.
Re:The True MSN telling (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you for your note. Yes, we do offer this kind of search. To find the pages that link to any given URL (say www.stanford.edu , for instance) go to the Google advanced search page at http://www.google.com/advanced_search and do 'link' search. If you do not want to use our advanced page, you can perform a link search directly from the Google search box by typing
link:Stanford.edu
or
link:www.Stanford.edu
This link search, however, may not return a comprehensive set of results. The results show a sample of the links that point to a page, but this list is in no way indicative of the link structure utilized by Google to formulate a page's PageRank.
To obtain a comprehensive list of the links that point to a page, perform a Google search on your URL. From the result page displayed, select the "Find the web pages that contain the term" link and Google will provide you with the web pages that mention the address.
Regards,
The Google Team
Re:The True MSN telling (Score:3, Informative)
www.google.com - 638,000
www.cnn.com - 624,000
www.yahoo.com - 381,000
www.msnbc.com - 199,000
www.msn.com - 76,600
www.searchking.com - 1,010
Google still has significantly more than MSN. More than Yahoo, even.
Re:The True MSN telling (Score:3, Insightful)
Links to:
www.msn.com
alltheweb.com 2,792,044
AltaVista 514,819
google 51
HotBot/Inktomi 338,827
MSN 338,818
I should also point out www.msn.com shows 72,100 pages that contain the term www.msn.com
Re:The True MSN telling (Score:3, Informative)
Google should fix that but i assume it takes quite a bit of googlepower to implement
The link: feature is broken, and I think they should fix it, or at least stop advertising [google.com] a feature they c
News like this... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:News like this... (Score:5, Funny)
Not true! There are tons of people who hate Microsoft without even knowing what Slashdot is!
Re:News like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only logical that the majority are going to hate what Microsoft is and does.
Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Funny)
Sheesh, it's like the Twilight Zone!
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Interesting)
If an MS article was posted WITHOUT an anti-Microsoft slant I'd probably start running through the streets for fear that the apocalypse is coming.
Here's what happened, plain and simple. People are so eager to find something against Microsoft that they turned into typical "users" and didn't read. Now instead of admitting their typical "user" mistake of not READING they're trying to justify it by saying "most users will be fooled into thinking the ads were real results." Wait, you're telling me that a business is trying to get stupid people to click on ads through a little deception? Wtf is this world coming to. If you can't trust a business to not mislead you with ads, who can you trust?
Re:MSN still at fault (Score:4, Interesting)
At some point, you have to say that being truthful but misleading goes too far. If you have something in your Policy Agreement twenty paragrahs in that says that the first seven hits are ads, I consider that not acceptable. Microsoft is numbering their ads as if they are actual search results. They label them as featured results. First of all, at least to my possibly not-cynical-enough brain, "featured" does not translate to "advertisement". It makes me think that perhaps this is a particularly useful or notable link. Second of all, when I search in Galeon, I see a medium-gray background with a hard-to-read, only slightly darker text stating that a given site is a featured site. It does not exactly stand out. (I cannot help but think that the fact that of all the websites I've seen in the past three months, the MSN one is the only one where using the default color choices in a non-IE browser is such that reading is annoying is somewhat nasty).
I agree that the author could have pointed out the "FEATURED" bit, but given that I made the same assumption, I don't think that it's all that egregious.
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that a massive majority of the general population knows to use google, but the fact that IE defaults to MSN (and much of that massive majority doesn't know how to stop it) is scary.
Although Linux India pointing to linuxsucks.com is almost too funny.
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't straightforward- you have to do a bunch of registry edits to make IE automatically submit search requests to google.com instead of msn.com. (See here [logicalexpressions.com] for details on how to do this.)
Some ISPs like to put banners in IE's title bar (e.g. "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters - Brought to you by Verizon!") You can get rid of this (when you're finished cleaning the spyware off your non-computer-savvy relatives' computers, that is) by going to \HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main and deleting or editing a REG_SZ key there called "Window Title", which is usually put there by ISP software installations. Mine says "This is a necessary piece of the operating system!"
Ironically, I find the only thing that makes IE usable at all for me is the current Google toolbar, which implements the popup-blocking that Microsoft neglected to include in their user-hostile browser. With no popup blocking, simple everyday computer tasks like surfing for porn are like walking in quicksand.
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, some people really DO have an axe to grind.
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:2)
If people visit and run through a bunch of the links, he probably nets a profit on every hit.
How can you revoke something that does not exist? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, back to the topic: saying that MS is funding the SCO lawsuit isn't spreading neither Fear, Uncertainty nor Doubt. It is a fact: as the lawsuit was announced, MS bought a totally unnecessary Unix license for quite a large sum of money. I cannot say that they are directly funding the lawsuit, however the timing was highly suspicious, especially considering that MS would greatly benefit from SCO winning the case (which seems less likely every day). You may not have the same opinion as I have regarding this, however you cannot prove me wrong - and I do believe that to be the truth, therefore I am indeed abstaining from flase speech.
The RTFM attitude, the "end-luser" attitude, the "it works for me" mentality?
Actually, in the two years since I've started using Linux, I've nearly always found other Linux users to be helpful and polite. Not once was I ever told to RTFM. On the contrary, the great spirit of cooperation and general helfulness has been one of the things that has kept me with Linux.
Surely, I must also be a Microsoft employee since I don't like Linux and speak of it in public?
Not necessarily. But I am curious as to why you have such hostility towards Linux...If you do not have a personal stake in MS, why do you feel compelled to defend them even though they have shown themselves to be capable of such shady behavior? You aggressively attack anyone suggesting that MS might be involved...without offering any other counter-arguments than personal insults. In fact, you display the same kind of bad behaviour that you accuse Linux advocates of...however, speaking out of personal experience, I've seen much more personal insults coming out of anti-Linux posters than from pro-Linux ones (who generally aim their attacks at MS, not at invidual Windows users).
In other words, no, I do not spread FUD. But those anti-Linux web sites are. Why aren't you concerned with those? Oh, I forgot, you're not really interested in fair and balanced debate, just in tarnishing the free OS's name and the reputation of those who use it...
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Right you are. Interestingly, I would never have noticed that had you not pointed it out. Google, at least, does a much better job separating the sponsored links from the results (and the sponsored links are more appropriate to the search, too, I might add).
At this stage of the game, MSN doesn't look like much of a threat to the One True Search Engine.
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. I know for a fact they have a soul. We have tried to get them to mix ads with results because we are a huge advertiser and want better return for our investment. You can't even BUY your way to the top of the advertising list. You place a bid, but the highest bid doesn't get the best position, it is also based on "relevence". They have used this method for over a year now.
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, we are top listed
It just so happens we ARE relevent for our search terms, at least the one's we care enough to pay a few dollars EACH for. But we would still love to see the ads mixed in, in a purely selfish way (of course) to make more money from people who are adverse to ads. Most of our customers only seach when they are ready to buy anyway, so its not critical, it would just be handy.
On the other hand, as a USER of google, I would hate it if they did that. If I had to choose, I choose mix them because I get a % of sales, and yes, I am a greedy fucker working very hard toward the day I do not have to do this for a living.
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, but that is just as bad as having a soul...;)
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, now? And I suppose they only stopped carrying graphical ads when folks complained, right? (Hint: Google's advertising was clearly deliniated from Day 1 -- I've been using it since before they had ads at all, and have no clue whatsoever wtf you're talking about).
Not all companies are soulless -- they just look that way when you're wearing your cynic-colored glasses. I've been at a few engineering-driven c
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:2)
Then, those "featured" and "sponsored" links use the same formatting like all the other links and the featured and sponsored text is so tiny and light grey that I didn't see it on first sight. In stark contrast Google uses different colors to distinguish sponsored links.
Then, "featured site" does NOT mean ad, it means sites chosen by MSN to get shown for some search term. D'oh, that's exactly what this story is abou
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the difference being that it is not easily discernible that the "featured" and "sponsored" sites are paid for or some such. All ads on google are obviously ads. furthermore, on msn.com you have to scroll down about 1/
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:2, Insightful)
google.com: 1 - 10 of about 57,500,000
so?
run a search on dmoz.org, see how many you get.
Run a search for 'Microsoft'. You'll also get less on MSN than google.
Hint: msn is not an 'all the web' search engine.
Quick! Hang him! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:4, Insightful)
Not exactly. MSN says that:
So the very top sites are not necessarily advertizing driven. It appears to me that they're heavily driven by Microsoft's own interests. They want to drive you to other Microsoft owned content, like Encarta, MSN, and some businesses (including advertizers) who already do business with MSN.
Re:Actually, the top links are ads (Score:5, Informative)
No. The top 4 results are not paid advertizements. They are HAND PICKED by MSN. About Featured Sites results [msn.com].
Featured Sites are links that MSN Search editors believe are likely to be particularly relevant and useful.
It is quite reasonable to look at the objectivity of that editorial process. Rather than including one of the top sites in Linux news they provided a link on how to UNINSTALL Linux and other open source software. I find it hard to believe that link is one of the top 4 "relevant and useful" results for a general search on Linux. At best it look like a clear case of editorial bias, and at worst it is deceptive concidering that is it far from clear that the top 4 results are "editorial".
-
Don't ignore the flaws and look closer. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your examination is both superficial and incomplete. The first seven or so links on the Microsoft site are adverts and sites that want your money, ignoring them for purposes of comparison is kind of like ignoring the first seven hours of your day. Secondly, the choice of sites and the words used are highly der
Deja Vu (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Deja Vu (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
And finally:
Just because you have a spine and refuse to do business with Microsoft and/or the mob, doesn't make you a "zealot".
Re:Pretty obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pretty obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
This may happen with the product groups but I haven't seen this in Microsoft Research, they seemed much more comfortable bashing C# or
its just ads (Score:2)
msn.ca (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me and it was interesting to see how tailored the results were given there were a lot of canadian sites up there and canadian area linux organization links. I have to say I was actually impressed given what I was ready to see from the headline of this article
Re:msn.ca (Score:2, Interesting)
If you search Google for Linux you will find something useful: SuSE, debian, RedHat, etc. Everything a new Linux user needs.
Provincial Linux are exactly that: Provincial and useless for 99.9% of users who don't happen to live in that area.
Even more support to the claim that Microsoft is tainting the search results.
I don't know what algorithm MSN uses to search it's results, but I can hardly think of any that would put provincial organizations on top and worldwide Li
Priceless (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Priceless (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Priceless (Score:4, Funny)
OTOH, look at the title ... (Score:5, Funny)
so they got something right
Re:OTOH, look at the title ... (Score:3, Funny)
Google: We can't get any more useful, we're already perfect.
mentioned before (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Return results on top payer (Amazon?)
2. Return results on other payers (Ebay, etc)
3. Return results from a search of Microsoft's site
4. Return the reults from a search of the internet
Then linux isn't singled out. Of course we can speculate all we want to, since this is Slashdot and everything is a conspiracy. In all honesty it looks fishy, but if my above theory about their algorithm is true it makes perfect sense. Sorry MS, but if you want to replace Google on the internet, you need to be OBJECTIVE. Right now you're just another search engone, and a crappy one at that.
Re:mentioned before (Score:2)
Another non-story. Next.
Really... (Score:2)
I expect their searching would be as evenhanded as their installation routines.
Advice: when building a multi-boot configuration, install the monopoly-ware first, then whatever else you care to run.
And if you need to find reference information, use google.
Oh come on... (Score:3, Interesting)
Everybody knows that the 1.0 release of every Microsoft product sucks. But for the markets they want to take over, they are often able to squash the competition by v. 3.0 or 4.0.
Google's obviously done a fantastic job so far in the search world. But then, Netscape did a fantastic job with Navigator until it turned into Communicator bloatware. Then Microsoft came out with a 4.0 release that ate Netscape's lunch.
Google clearly has the brains to fight, but do they have the resources to remain the #1 engine, now that The Dark Lord has decided he wants that particular crown?
In any case, MS often has the last laugh over people who ridicule their 1.0 releases.
Re:Oh come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as resources go, MS may have 40B in the bank, but Google has the ENTIRE internet behind it and that's not something to take lightly. Outside of OS's, web browsers, and office suites, Microsoft hasn't exactly done well with every venture they've tried. Look at Smartphones,TVboxes,Consoles, etc. Beyond its desktop monopoly its not as successful a company as one would think. I guess we will see if they are able to leverage their OS to force users into making MS their default search engine. Up till now setting MSN to the homepage has ensured they can claim the page hit crown from Yahoo, but we all know when it comes to actually finding things on the Internet everyone goes elsewhere.
Re:Oh come on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't overrate Microsoft. They have two huge monopolies, the OS and Office. Almost everything else they do loses money. They are powerful but they are not invincible.
They also have the problem that Google has some very broad patents. I don't see how Microsoft can build a better search engine without infringing; it would seem that they would have to attack the patents themselves as overbroad (which they arguably are -- Google patented the very idea that links are considered when scoring a result).
Microsoft always sucks, lies and sucks some more. (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but version 5 and 6 still suck. It has something to do with their bizare goals. They are not in business to make a better browser, GUI, search engine or anything like that. They are in business to make money and they pervert their program's functionality to achieve that any way they can. So, M$'s GUI is sold like a billboard to the highest biders, their OS forces depencence on M$ servers, M$'s browser pushes whatever M$ feels like, Windoze updater breaks unix compatibility and their search engine delivers a message. Microsoft makes things do what it wants them to do, not what their custormers want.
A search for Linux cancer [msn.com] is instructive. Someone just reading the story summaries would conclude that The Register and O'Riely think Linux and the GPL are bad. Additionally, the casual reader would conclude that Linux vendors are going out of business and that Paladium is "clever". These quotes are so targeted and numerous that it must be intentional. I'll quote what it produced because, M$ is known to change things like this:
The more I look at that list, the more respect I have for the designers of that search engine. It's brilliantly able to force the Microsoft message into even the most hostile of mouths. Ha, they call me a troll and put atribute words to me I never wrote [msn.com]. Compare that to the results Google gives [google.com], which looks more like what the user would want to see. Microsoft is evil and this is what an evil search engine looks like. Oh well, thats one search engine I never used before and will never use again. I also don't read or watch MSNBC news, yes, they suck too.
Never attribute to malice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indian search [msn.co.in] on Windows. Only 10th result is good. First one is Windows Media Player, 2-6 are about Tablet PC with the same page for WinXP for Tablets appearing twice. There are also such wonders of relevance as Windows into the Soul of Satyajit Ray [tripod.com] and Windows to the Universe - Jupiter [ucar.edu].
Search [msn.com] for Windows at MSN is only marginally better. The poster of the story overlooked that first 4-6 results are "Featured sites", which (as well as "sponsored") is the marketese for "advertisements". Amazon will happily sell to MSN searchers practically everything. Heck, the second result for shit [msn.com] offers that I "Purchase Expensive Shit" on Amazon. I shit you not.
There are other gems at the MSN, like a "featured" result, suggesting that "MSN 8 offers a better browsing experience: Try it free for 60 days." when you search for netscape [msn.com] or gnu.org [gnu.org] results starting after 12th position when you search for gnu [msn.com]. The first result, of course, being the famous E-gnu.com African Safari Travel [e-gnu.com]...
MSN (despite their claims to the contrary) is a mix between marketing crap and inferior technology. Thanks, I will pass.
Re:Never attribute to malice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to malice what you can explain by stupidity.
That has to be my number one mantra ...
Indian search on Windows. Only 10th result is good. First one is Windows Media Player, 2-6 are about Tablet PC with the same page for WinXP for Tablets appearing twice. There are also such wonders of relevance as Windows into the Soul of Satyajit Ray and Windows to the Universe - Jupiter.
However, you're not comparing Apples with Oranges. Or Apples with Windows. Ahem.
The term 'Linux' is variously used to describe:
- An open source kernel
- A complete operating system
There are no other regular uses of this term.The term 'Windows' is applied to:
Searching just for Windows is likely to pull up a wide range of possible answers. Searching for 'Microsoft Windows' might be expected to pull up the same sorts of results as 'Linux' on its own. Searching for 'Linux operating system' or 'Windows operating system' would maybe be fairer.
So while I think you are onto something by pointing out that MS search technology is 'crap', a blind search for Linux should stand a decent chance of getting something about some OS code. A blind search for 'Apple' or 'Windows' is much less likely to pull up something computer related.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
I don't think Microsoft has thought this through (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you continue to use a particular phone book if it failed to supply you with accurate or consistent phone numbers? Of course not and you would tell your friends the same thing. Word of mouth is still the most powerful force the Internet has and if the Microsoft search engine supplies searches with "sponsored" links or sub-quality links that do fuck all for your search then that is going to get around.
End of story.
Re:I don't think Microsoft has thought this throu (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has been proven in court to be a monopoly, and this is how monopolies work.
Re:I thnk we both have a point (Score:4, Interesting)
But I don't think the analogy with Netscape is a good comparison. What allowed IE to seize the market share was that Netscape went dormant for a year while MS continued to advance. By the time Netscape woke up, they were far behind. That will not happen with Google. Google has a big head start, and I'm sure they will not just lay down and let themselves be run over like Netscape did.
I hope you are right about MS not being able to pull this off. They have failed quite a few times.
One more thing - watch for the next version of IE to lock out the Google Toolbar, probably in the name of security. Then I wouldn't be surprised if they use the DMCA club to keep it locked out.
Check out msn's search for linuxiso (Score:5, Interesting)
http://search.msn.com/results.asp?RS=
It's the layout that (Score:3, Insightful)
Their search is wierd ... it is a cross between a search and a directory.
They have the paid "feature sites", then the "web directory sites", and only then the rest of the stuff, which autmoatically puts all the non-commercial things onto page 2. Screw that. I prefer Google, mainly because the paid-for stuff is at the side and yoou cna get right to the results faster.
Mr. Hanky (Score:2)
after you loged out.
How about an open source search engine? (Score:2)
Re:How about an open source search engine? (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd also need to pay engineers to maintain it. It would be a full time job for several people, and you're not gonna get people doing THAT for free.
I think google does a pretty good job of balancing commercialism with a very functional fast search engine. I see no need for anything else right now.
Google != Netscape (Score:2)
Google is the leading search engine because it returns the most useful results. IE has directed people to vairious search engines for years and still people will type "www.google.com" when they want to search. I suppose Microsoft could always start a astroturf FUD campaign but I don't see what else they can do to unseat google.
When 'MSN' starts beeing a verb then maybe google has something to wor
Re:Google != Netscape (Score:2)
Re:Google != Netscape (Score:2)
whois trace on linuxsucks.com (Score:2, Interesting)
Registrant:
Sucks, Linux (LINUXSUCKS2-DOM)
LinuxSucks
1 my way
my way, TN 43365
US
Domain Name: LINUXSUCKS.COM
Administrative Contact:
Sucks, Linux (KG4621) linux__sucks@HOTMAIL.COM
LinuxSucks
1 my way
my way, TN 43365
US
(221) 261-3088 fax: (914) 296-1088
Technical Contact:
Go2Net, Inc. (DA3706-ORG) dns-admin@HYPERMART.NET
Go2Net, Inc.
999 Third Ave, Ste 4700
Seattle, WA 98104
US
206.447.1595F fax: - - - - - 20
Dealer (Score:2)
Referrals. MS wants to partner with everyone and direct the hapless Windows owner or MSN subscriber to targeted purchases like a junkie to a fix. Ideally so they can get a kickback from both the buyer and seller and become enough of a market presence that they can make demands. It's an extension of their "become necessary" type of business model. They
3rd link on MSN search (Score:2)
Huh?!
More (Score:4, Interesting)
Look this 'google' seach in msn search [msn.com]. You will notice that below 'google' as first entry, is MSN Search...
Another interesing thing: A frind of mine tell me that the word 'Linux' doesn't exists in Encarta 2003 DVD :-D When you search for 'linux', it shows 2 non-related topics
And.. will you trust in a 'Microsoft Wallet'? :-D
MSN Linux section (Score:5, Funny)
http://tech.msn.com/software/OS/Linux/
section of the MSN website. Watch MS try and sell you boxed RedHat!
How objective is www.linuxsucks.com? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/
And there's more than that, do a search for "Infospace inc" and Microsoft on Google and you'll find many more connections between the companies.
So, don't let the amateurish appearance fool you, while linuxsucks.com appears to be written by ordinary people simply expressing a point of view, it's actually a well funded website with a clear agenda.
Re:How objective is www.linuxsucks.com? (Score:5, Informative)
"Well, I just couldn't believe the insanity of this claim, so I did some research. Turns out Infospace, Inc does own linuxsucks.com [netcraft.com]. However, it was originally owned by Go2Net [netcraft.com] (scroll down to the bottom), and Go2Net was bought by Infospace Inc in 2000 [elibrary.com], so the domain is now hosted by Infospace Inc/Go2Net. Go2Net offers hosting [internetnews.com], and is therefore hosting the site as a subsidiary of Infospace Inc; it has been hosting LinuxSucks.com [linuxsucks.com] since before Infospace Inc's acquisition.
Hence, LinuxSucks.com [linuxsucks.com] is an amateur effort; it was neither created, nor funded my Infospace Inc, nor was it created or funded by Microsoft.
As for Microsoft's supposed ties to Infospace Inc? Microsfot did a case study [microsoft.com] of Infospace Inc's use of "Microsoft Message Queing 3.0", and how it "Reduces Costs While Improving Reliability at InfoSpace". Hardly the deep, cash infused ties this tin-foil hat wearing zealot implies.
Sorry, but that was just SO moronic I couldn't stand it."
Re:How objective is www.linuxsucks.com? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh come on now, be fair to poor Miss Coney. A search for "infospace microsoft" reveals that not only have Microsoft done a case study on them, but the two companies also partnered in digital TV trials, and a former Microsoft "technology veteran" has joined them as their CTO.
That's just looking at the first page Google gave me. I haven't even bothered doing any more research. It's pretty clear they, uh, think along the same lin
Re:How objective is www.linuxsucks.com? (Score:3, Flamebait)
First, the domain IS owned by InfoSpace. You assume that it's merely hosting, but it IS owned by Infospace, that's a fact.
You assume without ANY facts that LinuxSuck.com is an amateur effort. Remember, it IS owned by InfoSpace.
You utterly failed to read my post. There are MANY connections between Microsoft and InfoSpace. Like I said, do a search on Google and you can read them yourself.
Furthermore, Microsoft has out right LIED in the past. It stated under oath in the anti-trust lawsuit that
Re:How objective is www.linuxsucks.com? (Score:3)
I know plenty of people who talk like that, and are damn smart to boot.
Re:How objective is www.linuxsucks.com? (Score:4, Funny)
Just injecting some perspective.
Red Hat more expensive than Windows? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah. That's quality reporting there :)
Google = the anti-MSN? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bueller? (Score:5, Funny)
I bet the people who wrote that Apache->IIS migration page are pretty excited to see people actually reading it all of a sudden.
Classic search (Score:5, Interesting)
Latest News: microsoft
It cuts both ways :)
MS ODDITIES (Score:5, Funny)
SoBigF is not your default worm
would you like to make this your
default worm?
click yes cancel
in all fairness (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla (Score:3, Funny)
Search for Open Source on MSN (Score:5, Interesting)
FreeBSD fairs much better (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess they dont see *bsd as much of a threat, today.
Not evil, just useless (Score:3, Informative)
This is Just Too Funny (Score:5, Funny)
# Santa Cruz Operation Top Pick
Long-time vendor of UNIX for PCs has made the transition to Linux. [emphasis mine] Learn about their consulting services and their software offerings.
www.sco.com
More (Score:5, Interesting)
The following links aren't much better. They have this carefully hand-crafted look to them. "Alternatives to Linux", "Linux Training, only $2095 for 5 days", etc.
It's funny to see how far the world's biggest software company will go to bash free software rather than trying to beat them with better software. They've got enough spare cash to hire a hundred thousand programmers for ten years. They could basically write a new operating system from the ground up that runs almost anything on almost anything (assuming enough ram & hard disk space), and does it well, but instead they have probably under a thousand people developing their products and they're getting roughed up by dozens of open source teams of 1-20 active developers each. Not to mention that they sell a stripped down version of Windows to their main audience, when they could give everyone copies of their best version and only see a small drop in sales. Their licensing strategy is holding them back.
there is no MSN search engine (Score:5, Informative)
MSN provides up to five "featured" sites for a search phrase, usually to companies that have marketing relationships with MSN (like Amazon or eBay).
Overture gets to throw three "sponsored" sites at the top of every page of results, so these are companies who bid to be shown for a particular search term.
LookSmart provides the "directory" results. Of course, you get into the LookSmart directory by paying a fee to have your URL(s) associated with certain (a) certain search phrase(s). In the case of a search for "linux", you have to wade through 400+ directory results before you get to...
"Web" results, which are provided by Inktomi. Inktomi's engine collects URLs in one of two ways: through a regular crawl of the Web (like any search engine), and through a fee-based "paid inclusion" program where companies can submit their sites through a direct XML feed into the Inktomi index.
At least, that's the way it works for now. Given that both Inktomi and Overture have been bought by Yahoo!, there's very little chance that Microsoft wants MSN to fatten a competitor's coffers. Microsoft's moving as fast as they can to get their own technology in shape to replace the outside vendors. But MSN Search isn't powered by Microsoft quite yet.
Anyone else notice... (Score:3, Funny)
They must have a full time Linux correspondent, eh? :)
.02
cLive ;-)
MSN's search is not a user service... (Score:5, Informative)
In order to be listed at MSN, you must deal with Looksmart [looksmart.com], a company that touts itself as "the global leader in paid inclusions [looksmart.com]". In other words, Microsoft's MSN Search is not in the business of helping you find what you are looking for, but the business of making sure you go where thier customers want you to go.
Google, on the other hand is a search company, that specialized in search technologies, for your corporate intranet [google.com] or for your web page [google.com] before they added advertising [google.com], first, to thier search page and later to your own page [google.com].
While there is no doubt that Google Advertising is a large part of thier revenue, the success of Google Adverts is due to thier apropriateness to the viewer of the page. This appropriateness is only possible if there is an attempt to keep the pagerank formula somewhat objective.
IMHO, Google's business model is the stronger, because they are not attempting the impossible task of keeping the viewer while simultaneously attempting to manipulate him (like MSN is), and the advertising model that Google has created is the only advertising that I would allow on a page of my own.
Typical M$ (Score:4, Interesting)
I thing that this should be easy enough to kill though through the anti-trust (ha ha ha ha, like M$ gives a shit about the law,) because its something external to the operating system and M$ should not be allowed to put it on their desktop AT ALL as anything else than a legitimate install process. They should be forced to compete like everybody else.
The alternative is to have the systems report bogus pages and broken to M$ web crawlers and spiders to shut them out of the useful information while leaving anybody else's search-engines go through untrameled.
After a while, people will get the hint "Wanna find shit, use NOT M$ because M$ search engine sucks and gives you a ton of broken links."
Credit where credit's due... (Score:3, Interesting)
# Latest News: microsoft
Microsoft warns of critical IE flaws (MSNBC - Aug. 21)
Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design (Washington Post - Aug. 24)
Microsoft finds security flaws (Boston Globe - Aug. 22)
Nobody beats netscape (Score:5, Insightful)
(I've discovered this recently when using internet kiosk with netscape browser).
I don't know that, but I do know... (Score:2)
Re:Sponsored and Featured sites (Score:2)
On top of that, the if you click on the "about" link, the "Featured Sites" (the top 4 links, none of which point to a Linux site) are supposedly hand-selected by editors to match your results (ie, a hand-tuned index). No mention of pay-for-placing is made.
Featured Sites are links that MSN Search editors believe are likely to be particularly relevant and useful. These sites are
linuxsucks.com (Score:2)
Re:Sponsored and Featured sites (Score:2)
and they are certianly featured by MSN.
So what's the diff?!