[Ilugc] Opening Google..
- From: rajendran@xxxxxxxxxx (rajendran)
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:27:29 +0530
Well Arvind,
I don't know why you are picking on me like this for an innocent post.
Anyway, now that you dragged me into it, some more "thoughts"...
While 'open source search engine' has a nice ring to it, it isn't
very meaningful, any more than 'open source house' is.
I don't know how you got the idea that I searched for an open source search
engine,
by typing in "open source search engine". :-(
Suppose google published what they claim to be their source code
and said its GPL'd. Now what? How do you know that its actually
what they're running? Duplicate their 100,000 machine server farm
You are talking about correctness verifiability here, I guess. That has
always been
a tough nut. But, I am not talking about that. I am talking about those
strange things
that happen... Like what happened to George Bush, the word jew, etc, and
Page couldn't
explain why it was happening. (or didn't want to).
and verify it? (yes, 100,000.) And if you're not happy with google
what do you do? How does the source code help you?
Those 1 lac only store data. I am not talking about data. I am talking about
the softbrain
that sifts through it. I don't need to replicate their server farm, to do
that.
Wake me up when hardware gets cheap enough for hobbyists to buy
enough memory to store the whole web.
Yes, I agree with you. But, didn't you read that recent post where Bill
Gates went on record
saying Hardware will soon hit Zero Cost? And, by the way, that line is
self-negating.
You can't EVER have enough memory to store the whole web, because,
semantically analyzing
your sentence, the web is nothing but what is there in a million odd boxes
around the world.
And, so how can a box ever aspire to have everything including what it has
inside itself? :-)
You say this is "decidedly non-decentralizable", yet the website
you've pointed to below says that it is concerned exclusively with
distributed efforts. I think it might be better to get some idea
of what we're talking about first.
Yes, they only talk about it though. I said it was decidedly
non-decentralizable because,
like you say, it was hardware INTENSIVE, to make any sense. Software, being
the vapour
that it is, is so easily decentralized. Look at how Nasa is down to its
knees begging for
free-cpu-cycles from homepc guys for its seti search and protein folding?
This is an issue of trust, not sofware; a social, not a technical
concern. The only way out of your problem is for everyone to
operate
their own search engine. Duh.
I beg to differ here. I don't think that is the only way out. (Correct me if
I am wrong).
I feel, once Google gets its game right, launches IPO, makes enough money
for three generations,
and sets up an exceptionally good file system and hardware-mirror-around the
world, it surely can
do a great good turn to the whole world (cyber/physical) by giving its
algorithm out! (Thereby
ensuring that no other search engine comes any nearer!!)
Don't you think so??
Rajendran.
Other related posts:
