On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:33:44 +0100 Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AK> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:01:24 -0700, AK> "Dr. MacQuigg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message AK> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: AK> AK> > For the future: AK> > AK> > Wouldn't it be nice if debian.org just listed the contents of each AK> > package on a webpage. Then we could use Google for these AK> > searches. Why do so many websites have their own home-brew search AK> > engines, when Google will do the job much faster and more AK> > reliably? AK> AK> ..one reason not to, is the monoculture problem, according to google AK> search experience documented over at http://groklaw.net/ , it is AK> possible to "poison" the searches by manipulating meta tag info etc AK> to divert tons of irrelevant stuff into SCO history searches, a lot AK> of the stuff I find sorting SCO on dates on http://news.google.com AK> listed as "5 minutes ago", turns out to be 5 days, weeks or months AK> old. AK> AK> ..cure is, try _several_ search engines, and consider homebrewing. AK> ;-) Who could poison a search like "/usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so site:packages.debian.org" appart of debian.org admins (and, well, crackers)? I coincide that in many aspects google is vunerable to cheap tricks (lately its returning a lot of results pointing to crappy pseudo-searchs, and some !*#$%"&"·$ are farming pages containing "Index of Name Last modified Size Description" just to fish some clicks, and trashing the best unofficial google feature), but it this particular case, the only advatange I see on a homebrew search is having more features that those on google (note to google developers: I'm still waiting for those regexps...). Anyway, apt-file works nice, but "zgrep file Contents-i386.gz" works better! (note to apt-* developers: I'm still waiting... ;-). Thanks people. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
