Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google going down?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    ^^^

    yea

    Comment


    • #17
      Google isn't going anywhere. If there was a problem like the one mentioned, I'm sure they would have seen it coming a mile away.
      Console Racing Review

      Comment


      • #18
        Defentally, I've just got away from microsoft and gone to LInux, I really do hate it - If microsoft purchace google I'll be getting my links removed and blocking all their bots .. such a good search engine going down the drain.................................

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Game Wizards
          Defentally, I've just got away from microsoft and gone to LInux, I really do hate it - If microsoft purchace google I'll be getting my links removed and blocking all their bots .. such a good search engine going down the drain.................................
          Google isn't going to be purchased by Microsoft.
          Console Racing Review

          Comment


          • #20
            From the googlewatch site

            Even Microsoft, which is busy developing its own engine, is currently squeezed between the advertising engine of Overture and the search engine Inktomi -- both of which are Yahoo property. Microsoft might like to buy Google as a way out, but Google is not for sale. Even if it were, there might be antitrust problems that prevent such an acquisition.
            http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html
            Matt
            Avatar Generator - The ultimate avatar and banner generation tool. It's a Google Image search mashup.
            Christian Gaming - A forum for Christians who like video games.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Chris Stewart
              Google isn't going to be purchased by Microsoft.
              Yeah, he's right guys. Take some time, and read up on the background behind Google. Does anyone even know who the two guys who invented it were? How did they get the cash? http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html

              Google isn't going anywhere because their principles are too far from those of Microsoft. The two people who invented it (I know there's someone who didn't read that link, so I'll leave them out) clearly put a lot of work into it, and will fight for it.

              Google still hasn't had an IPO yet either. That means that it is still owned by the employees (around 800-900).

              As to the disk space. They have more disk space than you can imagine. They have people assigned to every hundred terabytes of data. That's a lot.

              The running out of arguments number isn't too strong:
              1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111
              That's a 64 bit number (2^64-1). Most computers can handle that as a long. The article states, "When the core programs were developed for Google several years ago, it's reasonable to assume that the 4.2 billion upper limit was not seen as a potential problem. "

              Years ago. Everyone knows that nothing will be scalable in the first incarnation. It's probably been rewritten dozens of times. Also, eight byte numbers can exist. The article claims that is more than they will need, and is too large....but isn't that dogma what caused Y2K, and this supposed problem? 18,446,744,073,709,551,614 (think of the above binary twice). That is 18 quintillion, 446 quadrillion, 744 trillion, 73 billion, 709 million, 551 thousand, 614.

              To tell you the truth, I'm not amazed that page was rejected by /.

              Quit singin 'Bye Bye Miss American Search' beause 'The day the Goooooooogle died' isn't coming for a while

              *gets off his soap box*

              Mike
              Last edited by Beorn; Mon 4th Aug '03, 7:43am.

              Comment


              • #22
                Thank God for your post Beorn!

                Originally posted by Asendin
                you didnt hear it from me, but microsoft is considering buying google
                Even if Microsoft wanted to buy Google the move would be blocked by Google

                Originally posted by djnoz
                From the googlewatch site
                Nothing from that site should be taken as fact

                Sean
                SitePoint Advisor (seanf)
                http://sitepointforums.com
                Harry Potter

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Game Wizards
                  Defentally, I've just got away from microsoft and gone to LInux, I really do hate it - If microsoft purchace google I'll be getting my links removed and blocking all their bots .. such a good search engine going down the drain.................................
                  This is actually a childish and petty reaction... Name one thing that Microsoft has done to cause you lasting harm.

                  I also use Linux on a machine and Windows XP on two others. If Microsoft bought Google, I would no sooner stop using it than people have stopped using MSN Messenger or Internet Explorer (which I still use from time to time in Linux even). The fact of the matter is that Google provides the most relevant results with the least amount of garbage. Who cares who owns it if the results are the same?

                  Besides the rumor I heard is that Microsoft is developing their own Google Killer and will be competing with them not buying them out. Who knows which is true.

                  AS for the two people that created Google, if Microsoft wanted to take control of the company they better have a lot of money to put into Stock. Google is publicly traded which means Microsoft just has to purchase enough stock to have a controlling interest. In most companies this is as little as 5 percent of total shares. They can buy them on the open market or offer existing shareholders a good deal to take the company out from under the creators. If they really wanted to keep it to themselves and protect it, they wouldn't have gotten in bed with venture capitalists, whose only goal is to make money, or had an IPO which opens the company for hostile takeovers.
                  Last edited by Wayne Luke; Mon 4th Aug '03, 9:37am.
                  Translations provided by Google.

                  Wayne Luke
                  The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
                  vBulletin 5 API - Full / Mobile
                  Vote for your favorite feature requests and the bugs you want to see fixed.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Wayne Luke
                    This is actually a childish and petty reaction... Name one thing that Microsoft has done to cause you lasting harm.

                    I also use Linux on a machine and Windows XP on two others. If Microsoft bought Google, I would no sooner stop using it than people have stopped using MSN Messenger or Internet Explorer (which I still use from time to time in Linux even). The fact of the matter is that Google provides the most relevant results with the least amount of garbage. Who cares who owns it if the results are the same?

                    Besides the rumor I heard is that Microsoft is developing their own Google Killer and will be competing with them not buying them out. Who knows which is true.

                    AS for the two people that created Google, if Microsoft wanted to take control of the company they better have a lot of money to put into Stock. Google is publicly traded which means Microsoft just has to purchase enough stock to have a controlling interest. In most companies this is as little as 5 percent of total shares. They can buy them on the open market or offer existing shareholders a good deal to take the company out from under the creators. If they really wanted to keep it to themselves and protect it, they wouldn't have gotten in bed with venture capitalists, whose only goal is to make money, or had an IPO which opens the company for hostile takeovers.
                    I defentally agree there, though Microsoft products that I've used have caused no end of problems, thus moving to Linux. I have yet to have 1 serious problem with Redhat...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If I was searching on Google and Clipit popped up suggesting I search for something else I would not be amused.
                      Sig? What sig?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Thanks Beorn and Wayne for the assurance. Even if MS did somehow control Google, why would you stop using it? Neverless, the service would still be the same. I also don't think MS is going to write a converter for 4.2 billion unique IDs in order to switch Linux/MS. Really, in reality, I don't think there is anything really to be scared about. All companies have glitches somewhere along the line, its just that Google is live 24/7, so its easily noticeable.
                        Trent Gillespie Mod Theater Gillespie Photography

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Wayne Luke
                          Google is publicly traded
                          Do you have the slightest idea about what you're saying?

                          Obviously not.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by stanmxl
                            Do you have the slightest idea about what you're saying?

                            Obviously not.
                            I think he does.

                            He was probably refering to its market status
                            Trent Gillespie Mod Theater Gillespie Photography

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Beorn says:

                              > To tell you the truth, I'm not amazed that page was rejected by /.

                              I wrote that page.

                              Best estimates are that on the average, each docID is used twice per word per page. That's because they have two inverted indexes. One is "fancy" and the other is "plain."

                              The average number of words per web page is 300. Here are the space requirements for the docID if we assume 4 bytes, 12 bytes, and 20 bytes, for 4 billion web pages:

                              4 bytes: 300 * 4 billion * 8 = 9.6 to 12th power (10 terabytes)

                              12 bytes: 300 * 4 billion * 24 = 2.88 to 13th power (29 terabytes)

                              20 bytes: 300 * 4 billion * 40 = 4.8 to 13th power (48 terabytes)

                              If you were designing a search engine, how many bytes would you choose for your docID?

                              No, you wouldn't use 8 bytes. That's wasting 10 terabytes because you can use 4 bytes instead, for 4 billion web pages. A waste of 10 terabytes means your processing slows down, in addition to the fact that you have to spend all that money on RAM or on hard disk space to store your inverted indexes.

                              Instead of 8 bytes, you'd use 4 bytes. No question about it. Then if you want to display or preserve the ID somewhere, like in a URL, you would use the 4 bytes to retrieve the long version of the ID, using a conversion algo. You can insert this alphanumeric long version into the cache copy URL and use it to retrieve the 4 bytes later. This conversion process is cheap, because it doesn't have to be done all that often. Certainly not as often as the intensive amount of processing required on the inverted indexes, which are immediately consulted with every new query coming into the front end of Google.

                              Take a look at this paper:

                              "The Term Vector Database: Fast Access to Indexing Terms for Web Pages" by Raymie Stata, Krishna Bharat, Farzin Maghoul, which can be found at http://www9.org/w9cdrom/159/159.html

                              Bharat is a member of the research staff at Google and has a Ph.D. in computer science. Here are some quotes from that paper:

                              "Rather than deal directly with URLs, the Connectivity Server uses a set of densely-packed integers to identify pages."

                              "Recall that page identifiers are a dense set of integers."

                              "To avoid wasting space, we pack vector records densely."

                              "Functions in the Connectivity Server convert between these integers and text URLs. In our work with the Connectivity Server, these identifiers have proven more convenient to handle in code than text URLs."

                              "Notice the use of integers to represent terms; as with page IDs in the Connectivity Server, we find these to be more convenient to manipulate than text strings."

                              "The page ID of the vector is stored in the first 4-bytes of the vector's record."

                              It's clear that four-byte docIDs were used at one time. It's also clear that increasing beyond four bytes is not trivial. Finally, there is no way they would use 8 bytes if they can use 5 bytes instead. Remember, this docID is used twice for every indexed word on every web page on the web. You want it as efficient as possible.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by tgillespie
                                I think he does.

                                He was probably refering to its market status
                                I think you don't either.

                                Google is not a publically traded company. That is its current market status.

                                Do you still think he knows what he's talking about?
                                Last edited by stanmxl; Mon 4th Aug '03, 11:33am.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X