Comment 19F 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 22:22 (#19A)

Can you really not guess what webserver? httpd. Sheesh, was your head in a hole in the ground at the time?
Protocol? Erm, HTTP over a TCP transport over IP - does that really surprise you?

It seems people who are unwilling to associate themselves with their comments are as useless here as everywhere else.

Re: Google (Score: 1, Informative)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-30 06:15 (#19E)

If you would have written 1994, no one would have questioned anything. But 1993 httpd didn't even run on Solaris yet and the Linux network stack was beta at best. Gopher was also more common than HTTP at that time which makes people wonder if you're just a poser. The RFC you cite is the first result when you Google IP over Ethernet. You should've better googled when it was supported by Linux which was indeed 1994. You only support this doubt because because you get immediately offended.

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by on 2014-04-30 08:15 (#19F)

The job editing the English language webpages for the department was from Oct 1993 to Nov 1993 (a hard end-point, I never spent more than 2 months at each site). And for that, I definitely used rlogin from my desktop linux box into another linux box and edited the files there. I didn't get friendly with all the sysadmins from that place until about Feb 1994, and when we were talking infra issues, I found out they were running a small cluster of linux machines for the webserver (and my pages were still visible there). That would have been May 1994 at the absolute latest. Maybe they had migrated in those 6 months, but I doubt it, as the biggest linux loons had been there the whole time.

Linux's net/ethernet/eth.c has an interesting comment:
* Version: @(#)eth.c 1.0.7 05/25/93
and that version number and date's after Alan had already done a whole bunch of fixes.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk