I want a GNU Search Engine

[john bailo]

I microcrap is buying Google --

then I want a GNU search engine !
( Cant that decrepit creep keep his hands off of anything ? )

[jbailo]

poster->Rick <ri**@none.co m>

Idiot

..T.

[Alan Connor]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 07:13:34 GMT, Rick <ri**@none.co m> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:25:26 -0800, Jeff Relf wrote:

Attention all readers . ( Yes ... Both of you ! )

John Anthony Bailo , M.D.
has asked your royal author ( me ) :
" Why can't you address your posts to the group
instead of to * me * in particular ? "

Why don't you try plonking me ?

Idiot
--
Rick

I just checked my kill.log. My anti-troll utility has killed around 20
posts from that bozo.

Judging from the above I'm not missing a thing.

--
Alan C this post ends with w
q

[David Kastrup]

Alan Connor <zz****@xxx.yyy > writes:

Barry Margolin wrote:

Alan Connor <xx**@yyy.zzz > wrote:

There would be no need for GNUGLE to be available to the general
public.

Just to Linux users.

For a community that promotes freedom and openness, that would be
extremely restrictive.

I thought we were promoting Linux.

Look where you are crossposting to. This includes gnu.misc.discus s,
seattle.general (for whatever reason, I am taking this out of the
followup list), microsoft.publi c.dotnet.genera l (also taken out since
I can't imagine why this topic would be of interest there).

But let's talk about gnu.misc.discus s here: it has always been the
stance of the GNU project to promote freedom also to those that have
to work in unfree environment. More than a decade, GNU tools ran
exclusively on proprietary platforms (the whole autoconf business is
born from that).

Nowadays the situation is such that the FSF does not invest any of
their own resources into proprietary platform support, but they
certainly don't keep others from doing so, and they don't wilfully
cripple their software to fetter in other people to free software.

Apart from which, there is now an abundance of other free systems,
like FreeBSD, OpenBSD and things like that, and it would certainly
not be the policy of the GNU project to keep people from using them.

Then search engine technology like Google _naturally_ is based on
existing Web technology. There is no point into creating something
that would not work with browsers regardless of underlying operating
system platform.

And how would you even know if a client is a Linux user?

That would be established when they signed up for access to the
search engine.

You are promoting a _very_ discriminatory stance, denying other
people access to technology out of sheer spite instead of technical
necessity.

That's not what freedom is about.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Jeff Relf wrote:

Hi Paul Hovnanian P.E. ,
You say :
" why can't a software company
with a bottomless R&D budget
build their own competing product ? "

Because Google is _ Smarter _ than Microsoft ?
Actually, no.

Microsoft essentially has a bottomless pit of money and has hired some
very talented people. I suspect that the mere existence of Google, or
any other search engine that ranks pages purely based on content
interferes with Microsoft's business model. That model is:

If you ever want your page to be found, pay me. The more you pay, the
better a score it gets. Since there are no alternatives (we bought them
all), you will pay, or starve.
Pit Money vs. Smarts and Smarts wins every time .

But that doesn't mean that GNU won and Google lost .
Everything comes down to money. GNU wins because it is good and it is
cheaper. Google wins because it is good and cheaper as well. Cheaper in
this case is the amount that page owners must pay to be listed, which is
zero. As a result, they have no 'Microsoft tax' to pass on to their
customers.
Wiki is an amazingly good concept ,
but _ Some _ money is always need ...
Hence Google beat Wiki .
Wiki is 'free', but since it operates on a slightly different model, the
effort to use it (both as a page owner and a page user) is slightly
higher.

Wiki works very well in situations where information creators must take
the time to enter their data into some sort of structure anyway.
http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki :
" The first ever wiki site was created for
the Portland Pattern Repository in 1995 .
That site now hosts tens of thousands of pages . "

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa**@Hov nanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
On a clear desk, you can sleep forever.

[news.microsoft.com]

Google doesnt just rank based on content, its also got PAID ranking.
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa**@Hovnanian .com> wrote in message
news:3F******** *******@Hovnani an.com...

Jeff Relf wrote:

Hi Paul Hovnanian P.E. ,
You say :
" why can't a software company
with a bottomless R&D budget
build their own competing product ? "

Because Google is _ Smarter _ than Microsoft ?

Actually, no.

Microsoft essentially has a bottomless pit of money and has hired some
very talented people. I suspect that the mere existence of Google, or
any other search engine that ranks pages purely based on content
interferes with Microsoft's business model. That model is:

If you ever want your page to be found, pay me. The more you pay, the
better a score it gets. Since there are no alternatives (we bought them
all), you will pay, or starve.

Pit Money vs. Smarts and Smarts wins every time .

But that doesn't mean that GNU won and Google lost .

Everything comes down to money. GNU wins because it is good and it is
cheaper. Google wins because it is good and cheaper as well. Cheaper in
this case is the amount that page owners must pay to be listed, which is
zero. As a result, they have no 'Microsoft tax' to pass on to their
customers.

Wiki is an amazingly good concept ,
but _ Some _ money is always need ...
Hence Google beat Wiki .

Wiki is 'free', but since it operates on a slightly different model, the
effort to use it (both as a page owner and a page user) is slightly
higher.

Wiki works very well in situations where information creators must take
the time to enter their data into some sort of structure anyway.

http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki :
" The first ever wiki site was created for
the Portland Pattern Repository in 1995 .
That site now hosts tens of thousands of pages . "

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa**@Hov nanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
On a clear desk, you can sleep forever.

[Buford]

Barry Margolin wrote:

In article <bn************ ******@newsread 4.news.pas.eart hlink.net>,
Alan Connor <xx**@yyy.zzz > wrote:

There would be no need for GNUGLE to be available to the general public.

Just to Linux users.
For a community that promotes freedom and openness, that would be
extremely restrictive.

Agreed.
And how would you even know if a client is a Linux user?

Good question. Maybe Microsoft would soon add code to IE (or winsock or
something) that would prevent Windows users from connecting to that site.
You could then at least be sure that it wasn't a Windows user. :)

--
Buford

[jbailo]

poster->"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Pa**@Hovnanian .com>

Microsoft essentially has a bottomless pit of money and has hired some
very talented people. I suspect that the mere existence of Google, or
any other search engine that ranks pages purely based on content
interferes with Microsoft's business model. That model is:

(a) not 'bottomless' you are simply viewing a local maximum.

(b) the 'web model' of 'free information' interferes with them. this
model -- similar to the GNU model ( which takes it to its
ultimate conclusion, and hence evolutionarily will supercede
all other models ) makes software a function of information
delivery. therefore, the cost of software can float to zero or
below in the effort to deliver content, and the content creates
the value.

(c) microsoft cannot hold market dominance with a 'software'
monopoly because of (b) -- and as it tries to convert to a
'content' seller it puts itself into a horse race with players
who have a lot more 'smarts' and savvy than they do.

(d) at this point, ms is basically a 'bottleneck' -- it is
the old wife of computerdom that will not grant computers
a divorce so they can join the GNU world of free software.
So it continues to harange, interfere and bother people even
though it's usefulness ended int 1995 with the ascendency
of the Web economy.

(e) Is 50 billion not enough alimony for Bill?

We will see...

[Joe Fineman]

Jeff Relf <__**********@N CPlus.NET> writes:

Pit Money vs. Smarts and Smarts wins every time .

The comparison may not be appreciated in all quarters, but back when
Rockefeller & Nixon were battling for the Republican nomination, Bill
Mauldin published a cartoon series of which the first showed Rocky
with a pile of chips in front of him, and Dicky shuffling the cards.
The caption was "Assets".
--
--- Joe Fineman jc*@TheWorld.co m

||: The best includes the beginning of the decline. :||

[Jeff Relf]

Hi Paul Hovnanian P.E. ,
You say :
" I suspect that the mere existence of Google ,
or any other search engine that ranks pages
purely based on content interferes with
Microsoft's business model . "

Wiki is shear brilliance ...
No amount of money can't even compete with them .

The people running Google make Bill Gates look like a retard .

They were smart enough to wait before doing their IPO .

They forgoed buying mansions , yachts , and muscle cars .
Instead they peddled their bicycles to work .

And they were Linux enthusiasts .

Gates needs a billion dollars just to wipe his ass .

I've discovered that a " Free " e-mail / news client ,
40tude Dialog , beats the crap out of outlook express .
( At least as far as I am concerned )

Why ?
Because many of Microsoft's programmers are millionaires .
They're too busy sailing their yachts to come into Usenet
like Marcus Mönnig does . ( Marcus is Dialog's author )

Smarts trumps money ... Every time .

[Jeff Relf]

Oops ! I wrote :
" Instead they peddled their bicycles to work . "

Make that " Pedalled " .