Comment 199 Re: Google


Rank your trust in the following sites:


Google (Score: 2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-28 15:02 (#17V)

It's interesting, I agree with the poll that Google makes the appearance to be way more capable and responsible to handle your data than all the other companies. Even though they're a datamining company, most people are not worried about them but have usually huge reservations about facebook, yahoo and microsoft.

Why is it easier to trust Google?

Re: Google (Score: 5, Insightful)

by on 2014-04-28 15:25 (#17W)

Why is it easier to trust Google?
Perhaps because they own the entire ecosystem and it's in their best interests to protect your data because it is also *their* data? Also, despite all the Google-hate, they do generally do a lot more stuff that is good for the 'net at large than the other companies on the list, so even if you don't trust them outright there is probably at least some feel-good factor at play.

Re: Google (Score: 2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-28 18:28 (#180)

I voted for Yahoo first, largely because of this: Here's another article at the BBC: Somewhere I thought I read Yahoo was out in front of the pack with regard to their new encryption and security platform, but now I can't find the link. Maybe I was fooled? Or maybe I just like rooting for the underdog, and it's now cool to root for Yahoo again, since Google is slowly turning into Satan ;)

Re: Google (Score: 3, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-28 19:31 (#186)

5 years ago everyone with a yahoo email looked like a noob, I don't think that changed

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by on 2014-04-29 08:27 (#18G)

The only thing I use(d) yahoo for was email, have done for a very long time. I never felt shamed by having such an address. As someone who had their first website in 1993 (yes, hosted on a linux machine), I really don't think "noob" particularly applies.

However, the reason I don't trust them further than I can spit them is that as of about a year ago, they made it impossible for me to log into my account. Initially, due to me not wanting to run their shitty javascript, and not wanting to upgrade to their shitty beta site, but now, even if I drop my scripting prejudices, I still can't get in. So fuck'em, if they can't do something as simple as letting me log in, they I don't trust them to do *anything* correctly, even if their intentions are good, which is a premise I've seen no basis for.

Re: Google (Score: -1)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-29 14:36 (#18S)

As someone who had their first website in 1993 (yes, hosted on a linux machine), I really don't think "noob" particularly applies.
I seriously doubt that since most of the network stack was not stable before 1.0 and IP over Ethernet was introduced in 1994.

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by on 2014-04-29 18:21 (#193)

There's no polite way of putting this, so I won't mince words - you're full of crap.

I'm wondering how I was hanging around on the same IRC network as the likes of Jarkko Oikkarinen, and posting to usenet back in 1993 from my linux machine at work, without the technologies you claim you don't exist. Next time I'm having a beer with Ari Lemmke, I'll ask him if he shares this hallucination too, of a mystical wonderous land that actually has RFC 894 unlike the universe you exist in which doesn't appear to have it.

Re: Google (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-29 19:22 (#194)

You would be more believable if you would be more polite. Instead of enlightening us about some details like webserver/protocol, you start flaming some BS. Considering the entire WWW had less than 500 web servers in 1993 your initial claim sounds incredible. The first AC just questioned the possibility of running a web server on Linux in 1993.

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by on 2014-04-29 22:04 (#199)

The original AC thought an RFC created in 1984 didn't exist until 10 years later. If you think I'm less credible than that, you're just as clueless as your anonymity implies.

The figure I've seen for active www sites was 1000 rather than 500, but yes, the site was almost certainly in that first 1000 as I remember in 1995-ish trying to extrapolate back to what the figure would have been, just as the web was beginning to catch on more widely.

I'm sorry that a poor little country of only 5 million people might just possibly be better at being at the cutting edge than wherever you live.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk