Boycott Bing
Bing is not Google, but it is a spin engine.
http://linux.com/community/blogs/Bing-is-not-Google-but-it-is-a-spin-eng...
Microsoft's search engine suppresses search results that might be viewed negatively towards Microsoft. Something that Google does not seem to feel the need to do...
"Google has thrived despite competition. Microsoft has succeeded only where it can choke out competition"
- softwarejanitor's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Let me ask this of everyone.
Let me ask this of everyone. How come now whenever I try to follow a link in a Google search, I've been led not to the URL in question but to some other URL that looks like a shopping list? Although it now appears to have been fixed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a creature of habit and will continue to use Gogle as long as it remains my valuable research tool.
I haven't had what you are
I haven't had what you are talking about happen to me. If you have weird things happen to search results and you are a Windows/IE user you may want to run a spyware check. Some malware hijacks searches and returns altered results. Although that is mostly if you are finding that every search is leading you to mounds of pr0n, phishing or other garbage links.
Ever since I started using
Ever since I started using Twitter, I've had two spyware/malware problems. This isn't a function of Windows/IE, or any anti-Microsoft issues, this is pure and simple "BS!!!" cause by Twitter and the a-oles who seem to take joy in causing people computer issues.
This won't surprise anyone, but as far as I am concerned, any little "twit" caught creating cyber-havoc should be strung up by his beitsim ("little bits") and hung out over Congress Ave.
BTW, it looks like it is something called Infostealer.Bancos and I am running a sweep of the computer right now.
I don't think Twitter has
I don't think Twitter has any connection to malware creation. I've been using Twitter for a long time w/o issues. Anyway, the suggestion to do a spyware scan wasn't directly intended to be a slam on MS, its just that IE and Windows are just by far the most common targets for malware. If you use a different browser you will generally be a lot less likely to get infected, and if you use a different OS, even less. It is partially because of the size of the market, but the fact that IE and Windows are shoddily written and have lots of security holes and Microsoft tends to be slow to fix problems all play into it as well. Oh, yeah, and the fact that there is a great deal of animosity towards Microsoft, especially in developing nations doesn't help either.
Exactly, spyware and trojans
Exactly, spyware and trojans can totally screw up Explorer!
I agree with SJ - I'm not
I agree with SJ - I'm not sure why Twitter would have anything to do with malware/spyware infestation. The Twitter website itself is clean. If you installed a third-party Twitter app, that could be a culprit.
I could look it up, but just
I could look it up, but just last weekend there was a Twitter scam: http://mashable.com/2009/05/30/juste/
I didn't say that Twitter was dirty, but it is well known that Twitter is a target for malware and scams.
If its well known, I'm
If its well known, I'm uninformed because its news to me...
I can't see how any of those scams work unless they are trojans, phishing variants or exploiting browser vulnerabilities.
Here are some
Here are some links.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=twitter+vulnerabilities&aq=f&oq=&aq...
http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=d8EZFlu8w58K9oM7...
Next? Remember, I'm not an IT guy, I'm "just" interested in security.
Very interesting... it
Very interesting... it isn't clear from those links though whether the average user who accesses Twitter through the web interface and uses a non-IE browser on a non-Windows platform is vulnerable past any phishing type attacks which are non-platform specific though.
I'm still not terribly worried though, it doesn't appear that the way that I use Twitter that I am at much risk.
I'd expect nothing
I'd expect nothing less.
Whether the "average user who accesses Twitter through the Web" (which I do), but I am not anti-Microsoft and therefore I use Windows and Internet Explorer is not at all relevant. Don't you see that?
You can remain in your non-Microsoft world. Most of the rest of the Internet (prove by percentages that it isn't), is vulnerable. I was personally caught in the Mashable warning, but before I read it, and I am security conscious.
One of the points made by SJ
One of the points made by SJ and echoed by Matt is truely relevant. It is also a corollary to the point NY2TX is making. ..."IE and Windows are just by far the most common targets for malware..."
MS products are ubiquitous in homes and businesses around the world -- as NY2TX points out. It isn't that MS products are more or less vulnerable, although some would argue that point, it is that they are where the money is. In the same sense that someone (who's name I forget) once quipped when asked why they robbed banks, "Because that's where the money is." Money = MS in the internet world.
Social media sites have been getting a lot of attention and will continue to get a lot of attention from the "bad guys" because usage is sky rocketing and data is available from profiles that can be used in illicit activities, and access to user's systems can be obtained through trojans and variants. Facebook, Twitter, and others have all had their share of malicious activity recently. But those malicious activities are primarily through browser specific attacks.
No one's system or product is immune if targeted. For hackers however, their biggest bang for the buck lies in breaching MS products and especially (for internet users) the various flavors of IE. If FireFox or Google Chrome should suddenly take over the #1 spot, the same thing happens to them.
It's not bias against MS -- although there are folks out there who qualify in that department. It's just reality; numbers; sanity.
Four levels of risk mitigation: The software manufacturer, the web site owner(s), the user, and the infrastructure owners in-between. All must play and no one is immune.
For the user, a simple mitigation strategy -- lower risk but not "no risk" -- is using a browser less targeted by bad guys than IE... in addition to virus protection, firewalls, and other tactics. There are good browser options other than IE (I'm using one now ;~)and there is no penalty for use. None are inherently "more safe" in my opinion but there are less likely targets.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting
I agree with you up to a
I agree with you up to a point, but I am one of the people who would dispute that the only reason why MS has more security problems is because they are a bigger target. I believe there is ample evidence that it is also because not only are they a bigger and more attractive target, they are also an easier target because up until recently they did not take security seriously. The prevailing culture at Microsoft was always one where "every PC was an island". Their early OSes had no security at all, and when they went to a mini-computer style kernel with NT/W2K/XP unfortunately they had to make a lot of compromises in order to allow software written for their previous lax systems to work. By contrast *nix based OSes came from a multi-user and networked environment from much further back and the needs for security are much more ingrained in the culture of users and developers. Apple, for example had many of the same historic problems as Microsoft, earlier versions of MacOS had no security either, however when Apple came out with their NeXT based MacOSX they switched to a *nix style kernel and made significant architectural changes throughout their UI which although they had significant pains compatibility wise they ended up with a stronger system in the long run.
While you are absolutely correct that there is never "no risk" if you your computer is networked or you share any software and data with anyone else, I do believe that there are options that would be safer than MS even if they were just as large a target. There is some reasonable evidence to that fact if you follow competitions in the hacker community where hackers are almost always more easily able to 'p0wn' a fully patched Windows box than MacOS, Linux, *BSD or commercial *nix.
Microsoft, although I will admit they've done a better job over the past couple of years still hasn't gone far enough. Some things they need to do to fix their problems will break backwards compatibility and force users to learn different ways of doing things. They've got some serious underlying design and architectural flaws that need to be fixed but lots of software is written around those things and users are accustomed to them so they don't get done.
Agree -- there are lower
Agree -- there are lower risk operating systems with better architecture and more inherently secure environments / networks through design.
Users have the same backward compatibility issues that systems have ;~) and, at this point in time, the simplest thing a user can do to enhance their internet security (in addition to other tactics) is simply switching to Firefox, Chrome, or Opera instead of IE.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting
I agree, just changing
I agree, just changing browsers is a good first step which has a lot of benefit with relatively little to no pain. There just isn't much of a learning curve with a different browser.
The fact that you are
The fact that you are security conscious and yet you still choose to use Windows and Internet explorer is completely relevant. You can be anti-bad software without necessarily being Anti-Microsoft. If Microsoft doesn't have competition and see their market shares become vulnerable they get complacent. One of the reasons that IE has has such a horrible security track record is that once Microsoft built a dominant market share by forced bundling they became very slow at coming out with improvements to IE and responding to security issues.
I understand that there may be issues which may force some people to use Windows if they use very specialized software that only runs on Windows, but these days there are equivalents to most common applications and in the case of browsers, there are very few web sites that one is forced to use IE to access, and many people just decide those really aren't that necessary.
I don't have the time or
I don't have the time or patience to migrate from an MS platform. I am lucky to know how to use the software that I have installed on my computer. I have no knowledge of any of that (you volunteering to help me do the migration?) However, I take every precaution I can to avoid cyber-BS. Sometimes that is not possible.
I don't have the time or
I don't have the time or patience to deal with malware. I don't find learning to use software to be a big problem, but then I'm a software guy. And in my case, it is Windows that seems weird and foreign if I have to use it. Although I've had to use them some at work over the years I've never owned a Windows box or used one at home. I've been using Linux as my primary OS since 1993 and I switched to it from MacOS (the pre *nix one). Before Macs I used a Apple IIs for years.
Anyway, it is basically nice not to have to go out of my way to deal with or worry about most kinds of malware. Not to say I have nothing to worry about, but knock on particle board, I've had little to no actual problems in the past 15+ years.
Although I've also got limited time to help people migrate, there are resources available for those who choose to explore that option.
As I am an avowed non-nerd,
As I am an avowed non-nerd, and you are somewhat of an expert critical of my use of MS-OS, lack of help to migrate is like me commenting on or being highly critical of "someone else's" naïveté and/or lack of sensitivity to security issues on a national/world scale (I'm not involved in IT security other than my membership in Infragard which has now broadened its scope to include counter-intelligence and industrial espionage).
Well, you just have to
Well, you just have to decide whether you are wasting more time and taking more risk with dealing with the known malware and security issues using an MS OS vs. the time required to install and learn something new. All I can do is let you know that you've got options (lead you to water). I can't make you drink. Although I'm not in the business (nor do I have the time to volunteer) to help people migrate, I can give pointers to people who do, some for free, others not. These days it doesn't even have to be an all or nothing choice, as there are various ways for people to run multi-platforms (multiple machines, dual boot, emulation, virtualization, etc) depending on their desires and needs. FWIW, I know quite a few very non-nerd people who made the jump from Windows to MacOS X pretty much on their own once they were pressed far enough by circumstances (mostly crashed machines). I can understand if you aren't at that point yet. I'm really not being critical of you personally, I just don't always quite understand the sort of "Stockholm Syndrome" that Microsoft users seem to exhibit.
Stockholm Syndrome? Indeed.
Stockholm Syndrome? Indeed.
I'm afraid I have to side
I'm afraid I have to side with SJ on this one.
First, changing to a different OS isn't all that difficult; you just need to be properly motivated. If your current experience with Windows isn't sufficient motivation, then by all means stick with it.
Second, you don't really need to switch to a different OS to improve security significantly. I'm sitting here typing this on a Windows machine, though I also have a FreeBSD machine. I'm running appropriate security measures AND I'm using both Firefox and Opera as my browsers. The learning curve for either browser is not at all steep, both have features that I like far better than IE, both are updated far more regularly than IE (closing security holes as they are found), and both are targeted much less often than IE.
Additionally, you should understand that the primary paths into your machine for the bad guys are your browser and your e-mail client (MUA). Once you switch to a safer browser you should make sure you're using a safe MUA. Outlook and Outlook Express suffer the same way that IE does in that they're inherently less safe than many other choices PLUS they're everyone's favorite target. I use a MUA that never, ever runs ANY script or other executable. I may miss cute little things that people send me embedded in messages, but I also never get infected by e-mail.
While I believe that Windows is inherently less secure than other popular OSes, I also believe that for the typical user it's not difficult to achieve a reasonable level of security while running Windows. Just know what the biggest risks are and respond appropriately.
--
Jerry Dunham
No trees were harmed in the production of this posting, however a huge
number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Back to the original post, I
Back to the original post, I tried Bing and found it a good search tool but still no big change from MS Live. Wolfram|Alpha on the other hand is a new direction in search methodology by creating a computational knowledge engine. I admit although, a number of my basic queries have failed there as well. I continue to use Google as a tech tool (crutch) when needed and don't see that changing.
Thanks
Abel
Abel Garcia
GTGweb Technical Solutions
www.gtgweb.com
blog.gtgweb.com
Ditto. William W. (Woody)
Ditto.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting
Microsoft is advertising
Microsoft is advertising Bing in Adsense.
Check it out: http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3814/15m.png
Now that's worth a Friday w00t!
William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting
Microsoft paying to
Microsoft paying to advertise on Google... now there is some desperation for you...
I call that smart marketing.
I call that smart marketing.
Time will tell...
Time will tell...
The article seems to make
The article seems to make some dubious claims and the author clearly has some preconceived notions about MS that he is inserting into his analysis.
First: Several of his examples didn't give the results he claims they do.
Second: When I did the Linux search, I did get comparisons to Microsoft operating systems as a suggestion, but isn't it possible that the suggestions are based on the click through rates on results? Further, isn't it likely that people who use a MS search tool are more likely to be Windows users and follow links relating Linux to Windows? Conspiracy solved.
BTW: There are similar anti-competitive search result tinkering claims being leveled at Google.
Is Google Dabbling in Anti-Competitive Practices?
It is entirely likely that
It is entirely likely that MS has changed some of the search results between the time the article was researched and when you ran your searches. It is well known that they actively monitor criticisms of their sites for one (and attempt to suppress them), and also since Bing is relatively new it is likely that they are still tuning things.
As for the anti-Linux bias in MS search engines from what I gather it is nothing new, their previous MSN Live and earlier incarnations also delivered results spun their way.
And I'd agree that Google isn't completely free of spin either, but in general they seem to have been less likely to spin things strictly for their own financial advancement at the expense of objectivity.
I'm not sure what you are
I'm not sure what you are basing the statement that Google is less culpable on other than the fact that MS has been in the business of anti-competitive behavior for a lot longer. However, if you google (heh) "Anti-competitive google" there is no shortage of hits.
On the other hand, at least they aren't hiding those articles. =)
That's exactly what I'm
That's exactly what I'm referring to... Google doesn't seem to be as anxious to suppress articles that aren't flattering to them as Microsoft has been. There are few organizations that are more aggressive at spin doctoring than Microsoft with the possible exception of the Church of Scientology.
You should be expecting Tom
You should be expecting Tom Cruise and Isaac Hayes to be knocking on your door in about 15 minutes to rough you up for that comment. Was it worth it? =)
Awww... poor little clams.
Awww... poor little clams. Snap snap snap.
Is MS so worried about their
Is MS so worried about their crappy products that they have now become total fascists? Anyway, I have not intention of using Bing not because it is MS product, but because between Google and Yahoo, there really is not reason to use anything else.