Alternatives to google search?

[Pandora]

Lately, I have been a bit bored by google search. Does anybody have any recommendations for alternative search engines? It's, what, 15 years since google first came online. There must something new/interesting out there that I could try?

[Xamindar]

Nope, google is still where it's at. You could mess around with bing.com by Microsoft if you like playing with the devil.

[Pandora]

Bing doesn't work so well for me. I tried googling myself. Whereas on google, it shows everything I have done and published so far (scientifically), bing only showed an actor of a simililar (but not identical) name. The stuff about myself only appeared on page 4 or so.

I can't believe there has not been any significant innovation in search engines in the last years. So google is controlling the market so much that others are not even trying?

[AlphaDoG]

Bing doesn't work so well for me. I tried googling myself. Whereas on google, it shows everything I have done and published so far (scientifically), bing only showed an actor of a simililar (but not identical) name. The stuff about myself only appeared on page 4 or so.

I can't believe there has not been any significant innovation in search engines in the last years. So google is controlling the market so much that others are not even trying?

Pretty much.

[Gekko71]

I remember reading ages ago about a search engine that searched for data on a contextual and quatitative basis - so if you asked it \"Can you recommend a good restaurant in Tokyo\" it would give you an answer based on a consensus of people's opinions.

Haven't heard anything about it in ages so I assume it's bit the dust.

There was another recommendation on these very pages a couple of years ago on a google-alternative- again, no word on it since. Can't remember what it was called sorry...

[Duper]

I use Ask.com some times, but a couples years back they changed their engine and I haven't liked it as much since. :Found This List. The \"top 100 after google\".
start clicking.

[vision]

http://www.yebol.com/ <--this one

I got bothered with Goggle a few years ago and started looking at other search engines. I used Bing for a while, but now only use it to search news (it's a big one for me) and images (the image search is better than Goggle IMO). As much as I wanted to return to Alta Vista, it just didn't meet my needs.

My friend showed me yebol a few months ago and I really like it. It's slower, but I like the way the results are organized. It's my main search engine now. I still use Bing for news and occasionally Google for \"site:url\" search (which is better than phpBB3 search when you need it for a forum). I also find myself using Wolfram|Alpha for calculations.

But it's not like there aren't more search engines out there. Just try out a bunch and see what you like!

[Jeff250]

I can't believe there has not been any significant innovation in search engines in the last years. So google is controlling the market so much that others are not even trying?

Google isn't the same search engine it was 15 years ago either.

I think that Wolfram Alpha is the coolest thing since Google. It's not a direct Google replacement. I'm not even sure if I would call it a search engine. It's more of an information/math engine. (It looks like Wikipedia calls it an "answer" engine.) For instance, it's really useful for looking up statistics or solving recurrence relations.

Microsoft is trying too, and Bing is its latest attempt. It can't compete though as long as the good hackers prefer to work at Google over Microsoft.

[Sirius]

Um...

Actually, Microsoft doesn't have any shortage of people that want to work there - the difference is most of the newer ones come from overseas now. And they might be a little shorter on \"rock star\" developers, but I don't know quite how things stack up there.

The reason Microsoft can't easily take Google on head-to-head probably has more to do with resources (the search group is still a lot smaller than Google's). It used to have a lot to do with management/development practice as well, but it looks like that had to change to get back on the radar.

[Jeff250]

I never implied a shortage of developers. Just that, all things being equal, developers, if given a choice, typically would rather work at Google over Microsoft, including, if not especially, the good ones. And that's a problem if you're Microsoft. I don't think that it's just because of any kind of rock star compelling quality of Google. But I think that Microsoft's decades of questionable business practices have had some unanticipated consequences for them, namely that good hackers tend to prefer not to work for them. They've lost the hacker cred.

[Sirius]

There is probably more than a little truth to that. Ironically, the two companies are almost the same thing.

(P.S. What's with the \"hackers\"? Most programmers aren't hackers, and they aren't necessarily the most desirable demographic...)

[Jeff250]

Oops, I mean this meaning of the word, but I'm hard-pressed to find a synonym. For instance, Bill Gates was a hacker.

[Pandora]

thanks, all. The list on Wiki was quite helpful actually. Duckduckgo really seems to work well for me. I tried a few of the most important search terms, and the results were really good --- as good as googles, or better.
http://duckduckgo.com/
have to deal with the ducky design though.

[Pandora]

Google isn't the same search engine it was 15 years ago either.

I know, but the basic paradigm is still the same. Its quite hard for me to put the finger on what specifically I miss with google. Partly, it is the user interface. It seems very anachronistic and, in a weird way, depressing to me. Also, I lately find myself weeding through so much crap to find the things I am looking for.

[edit]one thing that I really liked is Inquisitor. Its one of the most helpful tools I have used so far, but it does not work in my newests version of OS X anymore. In fact, my dissatisfaction with google might be due to a large part that Inquisitor is not working anymore.
http://www.inquisitorx.com/ie/index_en.php

[Pandora]

Found This List. The "top 100 after google".
start clicking.

oh dear! I'll be busy for a while now.

[snoopy]

There is probably more than a little truth to that. Ironically, the two companies are almost the same thing.

(P.S. What's with the "hackers"? Most programmers aren't hackers, and they aren't necessarily the most desirable demographic...)

As Jeff indicates, the media has done a lot to sully the commendable title of "hacker." I'd say that I aspire to be a mini-hacker.

[Sirius]

The definitions given in that article are exceptionally broad, and can pretty much describe any programmer with a passion for his/her work. Even back in the mid-90s before the media understood computers, the term \"hacker\" seemed more often to refer to a particular kind of programmer - namely, one who altered existing systems, often using reverse-engineering, to do things they were never intended to do. There is a market for the sort of skills that teaches, but you don't learn much about software design by figuring out how to get Descent 2 to run without a CD drive.

[Krom]

The definitions from my corner of the universe: Truly skilled and professional programmers usually get called something like \"software developer\" or \"software engineer\" or something like that. \"Hacker\" is used by the industry professionals to describe unskilled programmers that \"hack\" their projects together and spit out slow, inefficient, unnecessarily complicated, or otherwise poor quality code.

The other definition of \"hackers\" can later go on to become \"security specialists\" when they become true professionals.

[Isaac]

Monkey patching duck punchers?

[Jeff250]

I thought that this term was more ubiquitous. Paul Graham has a good essay where he attempts to flesh out what makes a hacker, how to find and recognize one, and perhaps even how to become one. I frankly can think of no quality more important to look for in someone whom you want to work with on a project. I cherish working with hackers, and, like snoopy, I strive for being one myself.

In general, \"hacker\" and \"good programmer\" aren't synonyms, but the former implies the latter (at least so long as we are talking about programming). I've heard people described as being \"a fine programmer, but just not a hacker.\"

As far as \"hacker\" vs. \"software engineer,\" the former is more of a way of life whereas the latter is a job title. Beyond that, I don't really know what a \"software engineer\" even really is. The term always seemed made up to me. I'm sure that there are hackers that work under that title though. I think the same goes for the equally vacuous \"industry professional.\" But that sort of vanity label doesn't seem to be the sort that hackers go for.

The hackers that I know tend to look at programming, or more aptly, \"hacking,\" as a passion, an art form, and something in which they invest a lot of pride, whereas most programmers want to do the bare minimum to satisfy requirements, see programming as a strictly mechanistic process, and don't feel any pride/shame in writing good/bad code or working on good/bad projects. They enjoy working on difficult problems but tend to avoid working on boring, tedious, or ugly projects. They seem preoccupied with this question of, \"Is the project I'm working on and what I'm writing beautiful?\" Hackers tend to outproduce other programmers by significant factors.

Jargon File's definition for hack value includes: \"As Louis Armstrong once said when asked to explain jazz: 'Man, if you gotta ask you'll never know.' (Feminists please note Fats Waller's explanation of rhythm: 'Lady, if you got to ask, you ain't got it.')\" Maybe more accurately, recognizing a hacker is the U.S. Supreme Court's stance on pornography--you know it when you see it.

Once someone I was working with joked that I must be more of a hacker than another person we were working with because he drank *diet* Mountain Dew whereas I drank *non*-diet. He's jokingly correct, but I can't explain why.

[Sirius]

Seems like someone trying to redefine the term to me. I'm guessing the meaning has changed since when the term \"hacker\" was in such vogue. \"Software engineer\", \"software developer\" or just \"developer\", and at the more lay-person level \"programmer\" or even \"coder\", those are the terms I hear these days.

[Xamindar]

Sirius, looks like you fall under the category of people who listen to what the media tells them. Sadly the media is often mistaken. The wikipedia article puts this pretty clearly when it reads (on hackers): \"Today, mainstream usage mostly refers to computer criminals, due to the mass media usage of the word since the 1980s.\"

People who are hackers are not criminals. Of course, there can be criminals who are hackers. They are usually called crackers, script kiddies(less skilled), and a few other things.

Bill Gates is a hacker, Linus Torvolds is a hacker. Kevin Mitnik was a criminal cracker that the media call a hacker.

Think of the locksmith profession. It is a usefull and good profession but some can also use it for criminal activities.

Maybe check out the wikipedia article on hackers some time. It has some very enlightening information on the term and should help clarify it past what the news outlets say it means.

[Sirius]

It's back... something I did made this thread disappear. Will have to paraphrase.

First thing was - definitions are set by popular usage, ultimately, and the term \"hacker\" doesn't mean what it used to to most people. Whether the media are responsible for that or not doesn't matter much.

Second thing was, I'm a software developer by profession, and nobody I work with, or have worked with, or studied with while I was in university, regularly referred to people as \"hackers\" except in either the breaking-and-entering sense, or perhaps ingenious tweaks to existing systems for instance. The meaning Krom refers to may well be out there as well, although it might partially derive from the literary \"hack\".

But, in general, considering Krom's response, I'm getting the feeling that I'm not the only one who no longer sees people using \"hacker\" as a positive term - it's possible most people who actually work in the software industry are in the same boat.

[Isaac]

But, in general, considering Krom's response, I'm getting the feeling that I'm not the only one who no longer sees people using "hacker" as a positive term - it's possible most people who actually work in the software industry are in the same boat.

Probably to those who write code for Windows, I think. Editing other's code would break a lot of licensing rules. In Linux you can fix what ever you need.

[Jeff250]

First thing was - definitions are set by popular usage, ultimately, and the term "hacker" doesn't mean what it used to to most people. Whether the media are responsible for that or not doesn't matter much.

I'll concede that it's jargon.

But, in general, considering Krom's response, I'm getting the feeling that I'm not the only one who no longer sees people using "hacker" as a positive term - it's possible most people who actually work in the software industry are in the same boat.

In lieu of there being a word that would function as an alternative, I think that that's unfortunate. Because of your DBB avatar, I'm curious: do you work at Microsoft? I suppose that a lack of a hacker culture at Redmond only serves my point that Google attracts more hackers. And, if you're Microsoft, I think that that's a problem.

[Sirius]

MULTIQUOTE!

(this is possibly going to be a really boring post, hopefully the OP has had his use from the thread already, though the derail happened a long time ago)

Probably to those who write code for Windows, I think. Editing other's code would break a lot of licensing rules. In Linux you can fix what ever you need.

That's an open-source vs. proprietary issue more than anything else - I think there are examples of both for each OS (although finding proprietary software written for Linux distributions is probably a lot harder).

In lieu of there being a word that would function as an alternative, I think that that's unfortunate. Because of your DBB avatar, I'm curious: do you work at Microsoft? I suppose that a lack of a hacker culture at Redmond only serves my point that Google attracts more hackers. And, if you're Microsoft, I think that that's a problem.

OK, a little more detail: there are still terms people use to refer to someone with prodigious skills in programming-related fields that I have heard more often, but they seem to often be more specific, e.g. I recall someone referring to someone else as a "debugging ninja" or something like that, and the word "guru" has been tossed around now and again as well, or even "xyz god" for people who are probably quite well renowned for their expertise. "Hacker" isn't something I've heard used in quite the same way.

What it has seemed to refer to, in a less bogeyman-style way (i.e. before the media had much input, in the mid-90s internet or so) is a kind of underground counter-culture that gets its kicks out of breaking software. ("Breaking" in the very loose sense; just any of a number of techniques to make it behave in ways the designer didn't expect.) You didn't really think of hackers as designing their own software, except sometimes tools they would later use to break something else.

All of the above is anecdotes based on my own experience, but it might hopefully explain why the talk about "you need hackers to be successful" seemed to me to come so far out of left field. My immediate reaction was something akin to "Huh? How are they going to help?".

That experience might be partially limited, though most of the people I've known in the IT field in past are not doing stuff (specifically at least) for Windows - I would say the majority work in Java, which is pretty much platform-agnostic. The most common other areas are things like web development, a few work with Linux, some do game development... but it's possible that deep in the Linux field (I haven't ever gotten involved in serious OSS communities for instance) the culture is radically different. I ... don't think that's a very major segment of the IT industry though, if things like Java and VB/.NET are as popular as the surveys say they are.

Now, the Microsoft question. It wasn't part of my point, but we've come this far, so why not?

Short answer is yes; though I picked this avatar chiefly because it's round and I thought something seriously uncool (the button comes from Vista I think) would be amusing, it's probably fair enough to say the idea occurred to me because of that.

Regarding the rest of your post... it's important to distinguish between having a "hacker culture" (going with what I believe you intend the term to mean here) and whether you call them "hackers". It's absolutely true that there isn't a lot of "hacker" terminology thrown around at Microsoft (as far as I can tell; it's a very big company, as I'm sure you know). I don't think that says a lot about the culture of the company though.

In fact, there really isn't one "culture" to speak of - again, Microsoft is so large that the different parts can be exceptionally diverse. There are people working on Mac software, and they may well think different (har har) from the Windows folks. There are also people who work in open-source technologies (yes, really). Then there's the web side of things, and consumer devices, and they all have to operate in different ways, they have different practices, etc etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the culture of each segment is closer to the norm for that field than the rest of the company... e.g. the open-source/web type guys might not be all that different from the people at Google.

From what I have direct experience with, though, I wouldn't say it's true that Microsoft doesn't value highly talented people with interests in poking around with their computers, trying to figure out how each last little bit works (to the extent that's possible of course - nobody can know everything) - actually that sort of thing is practically encouraged. It doesn't mean everyone there will have that sort of "hacker vibe" to them - but you don't have to have that to be valuable. People who like to talk to customers and understand their problems can be just as valuable as a technical expert, because they help ensure that the software said experts design is actually relevant to the customers' problems.

Of course, if "lack of a hacker culture" means "Microsoft's offices aren't like Slashdot but in real life", that's pretty much true. I don't think much of what's missing would actually be helpful, though.

The Google part of the picture is interesting. From memory they actually don't hire as many people per year, but that's because they're (for now) a smaller company, and don't need as many people. There is also the question of whether said recruits are "hackers"... assuming that means "A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular", well. There's no way to do anything other than speculate on that unless you took a poll of the developers asking "do you delight in...?". I have heard anecdotes about the relative quality of the developers, though - there have been people who have worked at both companies, ...

(spent about an hour trying to find some particular guy that was enlightening, failed... oh well)

Anyway, the general gist of what was said was something like - they are more or less equivalent, but it's quite possible the different practices and philosophies at Google make them more productive. (The practices at Microsoft are not monolithic either, I should note; it depends on the sector each division operates in.) What definitely is true is that Google is a more "sexy" place to work for new college graduates in America. That might be why Microsoft is employing so many people from overseas now (Google does this too, but not nearly in such numbers). Overall, the differences between the calibres of the programmers are not enough to set them apart. It comes down to strategy, management, marketing, that kind of thing.

Which pretty much answers the last part of the post. Microsoft does have plenty of problems to deal with, but it's not starved of people who know what they're doing. There is always room to grow most teams so they can work faster, of course, but the entire IT industry is experiencing shortages of people.

I've spent much, much too long on this post... hope it helped in some way...

[TechPro]

Now, the Microsoft question. It wasn't part of my point, but we've come this far, so why not?

Short answer is yes; though I picked this avatar chiefly because it's round and I thought something seriously uncool (the button comes from Vista I think) would be amusing, it's probably fair enough to say the idea occurred to me because of that.

Now we know.

As for the rest of what you said, others might pick it apart and disagree, but I won't and I think you said it well.

[Jeff250]

Sirius, I appreciate your response. My intent was not to walk all over anyone's employer. I think I've still somehow failed to communicate what being a \"hacker\" or \"hack value\" is, but I'm content to leave our little culture clash where it is. Hopefully we see things better from the other's perspective now.

[snoopy]

My definition of wanting to be a mini-hacker: I value elegant, compact designs. That can apply to a lot of type of design tasks other than programming.

The unfair stereotype I've got in my brain is that companies (Microsoft being the epidomy thereof) make it look good, add \"features\" galore & get it done, while hackers make it work well, and make lots of small parts- many times at the cost of it not being so user-friendly. That's why darker hackers take pleasure in exposing companies product's weaknesses... they do the same to their own, and address the problems, while a delivered product is harder to update & fix.

I have experience with that sort of thing with a modeling program that I use at work- it looks really flashy & has a ton of features, but it constantly crashes and runs like a slug.

That's unfair and a stereotype, but I think it's the general sentiment in the unix/linux world, at least with those that buy into the philosophy.

[Xamindar]

Trying not to make assumptions about a person who works for such an evil company. Oops, just kidding. Seriously, thanks for the post Sirius. It was a very good explanation on where you are coming from.

Back on topic, sort of. With the recent concern over governments and companies (yes, Google too) snooping and keeping track of searches there are alternatives popping up that apparently give you your privacy back. http://www.ixquick.com/ is one of them. Not really a search engine I think but a proxy that uses other search engines.

Google also has an ssl alternative that keeps the link at least between you and Google secure. https://www.google.com

[TechPro]

Google getting rid of Windows - Security concerns

a poke in the eye...

[Xamindar]

Google getting rid of Windows - Security concerns

a poke in the eye...

No need to talk about this here. You might want to post in the thread that is already dedicated to this subject.

[TechPro]

Ya. I hadn't seen that thread yet.

[Sirius]

snoopy - that design philosophy of making smaller, better-defined and better-working parts and \"gluing\" them together does have a lot going for it, yes. One of the biggest ones is that it usually results in fewer bugs. You just have to watch out for ... incompatibilities/dependency hell. That can be managed though, but it does need some management at all.

There's no reason commercial software vendors can't design software in the same manner - maybe many do, but there is a lot of bad design out there. I'm picking the main reasons for that are deadlines and costs. If the management is saying \"we must release by this date\", people cut corners, and that means turning out crap.

In the hobbyist/open-source world, maybe people get less done, but what they do get done is of higher quality. (Barring usability; outside of Google-sponsored projects and a few outliers like Firefox, it seems nobody can figure out how to design a decent user interface. Full credit to Ubuntu for trying, though - the only problem is that they're herding cats. )

[Pandora]

Barring usability; outside of Google-sponsored projects and a few outliers like Firefox, it seems nobody can figure out how to design a decent user interface. Full credit to Ubuntu for trying, though - the only problem is that they're herding cats. )

ditto. that's why I focussed on Mac OS X and even Windows for my work. Mind you, my last experience with unix/linux was 6 years ago, so I have no idea how it has developed.

[Exto]

www.ninja.com



Ok, so it's really just google with a facelift.
Just for kicks, I convinced a friend to use it instead of google. He's told me it works much better for him...