[kwlug-disc] DuckDuckGo.com -- an alternate search engine
txwikinger at ubuntu.com
Tue Jul 27 21:23:50 EDT 2010
On July 27, 2010 05:21:09 pm unsolicited wrote:
> Ralph Janke wrote, On 07/27/2010 4:51 PM:
> > On 07/27/2010 04:38 PM, unsolicited wrote:
> >> Ralph Janke wrote, On 07/27/2010 12:32 PM:
> >> Because it is a hidden black box that history has demonstrated can
> >> have nefarious elements. 'Nefarious' meaning different things to
> >> different people. (See Khalid's note.)
> > beginning to sandbox your browser (in clear distinction to ActiveX) from
> > the rest of the computer.
> Think MUCH bigger.
> In essence, your comment says that you think every user of every page
> should pre-review the code before actually displaying the page, to vet
> that it doesn't do anything nefarious, according to their own definition.
Sorry, but where do I say that? There is a big difference between something not
being a black box and every user looking into openly available source code.
> Not gonna happen.
> Practically: This would be like knowing what temperature you like your
> toast toasted at, and measure the temperature the toaster puts out,
> adjusting the darkness dial until you get what you want - if you can.
> Instead, people choose a setting, toast a piece or two, adjust the
> setting, and eat the toast. Repeat until satisfied. Upon getting
> REALLY black toast, they toss it and try again (destructive testing) -
> on a web page, the act of going to a page also means it's too late.
Sorry, you lost me here. I do not see the relation between one and the other.
> that they can disable it) and they get bitten, and everyone looks at
> for reasons Khalid has well laid out, and functionality decreases,
> perhaps even to the point wherein the purpose for going to that page
> can no longer be achieved. [Since I much prefer text only e-mail, no
> html, I guess I'm well in this latter camp.] And everyone thinks
> they're just paranoid (even if they're not wrong), and they're just
dependent of the host it is delivered. Hence, you can make decisions that are
far more nuanced that the noscript/all scripts alternatives.
> But with search, we just want the text. Perhaps a picture or two. No
> ads, no refreshes, no anything else ... just GIVE ME THE ANSWER! If we
> knew they didn't have the answer, we wouldn't have gone there in the
> first place. And, somehow, not having the answer almost becomes the
> fault of the page creator. <sigh>
No. I don't only want text. I want additional functionality like auto-
completion of web-forms, realtime updates, etc. Only because you do not want
to have that, it does not mean that nobody else wants to have that.
More information about the kwlug-disc