Poll - Pipedot

Borda Count (Score: 2, Informative)

by bryan@pipedot.org on 2014-04-28 12:06 (#17J)

More information on this poll can be found here .

Re: Borda Count (Score: 1, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-28 19:32 (#187)

It should be grayed out or show the result when a user already took part in the vote ;)

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 zocalo@pipedot.org 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: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/232807 Here's another article at the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25001373 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 fatphil@pipedot.org 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 fatphil@pipedot.org 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 fatphil@pipedot.org 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.

Re: Google (Score: 1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-30 05:20 (#19D)

No, you misinterpret. The first AC meant IP over Ethernet was introduced to Linux in version 1.0 in 1994, which is true btw. Of course the standard existed earlier.

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by fatphil@pipedot.org 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 fatphil@pipedot.org 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.

Re: Google (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-30 13:59 (#19K)

The fact that there was no revision control at that time makes it of course difficult and I was quite sure there were many problems at the end of 1993 regarding networking.

Thank you for the elaboration. This is not only very interesting but also very credible :)

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by fatphil@pipedot.org on 2014-05-01 12:10 (#19Z)

There were many many problems, Alax Cox worked miracles. I'm not pretending it was anything apart from Finnish homerism that made the guys I was working around so keen on using Linux. It wasn't ready for the bigtime for a couple of years, but that didn't stop people using it. Budgets were tight, and students would happily admin things pretty much for free.

Re: Google (Score: 2, Interesting)

by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2014-04-28 20:09 (#188)

It isn't in my opinion. Maybe I did the poll wrong. Its really my own website is #1, and everything else is far, far behind. However, in order to rank them, I just considered how much data I currently store in each one. Figuring, that over time I already made the decision of which I trust. I'd prefer not to have to trust any of them, If I didn't have to.

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by darnkitten@pipedot.org on 2014-04-30 21:46 (#19P)

Actually, they should have ranked for "Distrust," rather than "Trust;" I'm not even sure I trust the ISP that hosts MY website, much less known collectors like google, facebook, MS, et al.

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by vanderhoth@pipedot.org on 2014-04-29 10:38 (#18K)

The one thing that Google's doing that's really getting under my skin is asking for my cell number. Drives me up the wall every time I log in to G-mail it was the number so if I ever get locked out of my account they can send me a text. Good in principal, but I don't trust anyone outside my immediate friends with my cell number. The last thing I want is to start getting telemarketer calls while I'm at work like the lady in the cubical next to me does. I'm sure Google would be responsible, but I'm still not going to take the chance, after all telemarketers are the reason I got rid of my land line in the first place. I'm so sick of "You've won a cruise for TWO!!" and "Hi, this is RBC calling to see if you'd like a credit card that has no limit!", especially right in the middle of dinner or right after I put my two year old to bed.

Re: Google (Score: 2, Interesting)

by rudolph@pipedot.org on 2014-04-30 05:20 (#19C)

I, too, am tired of all these places asking for a cell number "for security" reasons. I have a google voice number for this very reason, created back when it was still grand central or something. The other day some place I don't recall popped up the thing asking for my cell and when I punched in that number it errored stating it's not a cellular phone. Awesome. Even google accepted it as my cell number.

Re: Google (Score: 2, Insightful)

by darnkitten@pipedot.org on 2014-04-30 21:53 (#19Q)

Thirded. I don't even HAVE a cell, as I live in a rural town that is too small for the carriers to bother with. Google needs a "No. I will NOT give you my cell number--Now Stop Asking!" checkbox.

Re: Google (Score: 1)

by vanderhoth@pipedot.org on 2014-05-01 11:57 (#19Y)

If I could give you more than one mod point for that comment I would. I couldn't agree more.

Poll Problem? (Score: 2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-29 14:54 (#18T)

I voted zero (0) for all options and the poll system might have crashed because I was taken to a blank page...

The secure internet is dead.

There is no trust.

The internet is over.

Unable to login (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-30 08:30 (#19G)

Hi! I am unable to login. Login: cubancigar11

Re: Unable to login (Score: 2, Funny)

by bryan@pipedot.org on 2014-05-01 12:23 (#1A0)

Clear your cookie.

Clarity is good! (Score: 1)

by appalbarry@pipedot.org on 2014-05-08 02:22 (#1FK)

Grumble grumble... if you want to ask people to rank a list numerically you really need to tell them which end of the scale is "high" and which is "low".

I assumed that "1" was the best, but I'll bet others thought that "8" was the top ranking.

Of course, I'm also pissed off that it wouldn't let me rank Facebook as "99".