Jewgle

How do we kill it?

Add about 10^32 kg hydrogen to the sun.

Proprietary software is controlled by Jews.
"Free" software is controlled by Jews.

We're stuck in the middle of a Jew sandwich.

Yes, but at least with free software you can modify it with its source code bring available; with proprietary software, you can't. That makes it much more Jewy because of that reason. Plus, you should be using a license that's as permissive as possible, like the MIT or BSD licences (they're FSF approved and GPL compatible anyway).

With free software you also give potentially bad people access to your work. I would hate to write something and then find out that it's being used for evil. Proprietary software isn't necessarily harmful and free software isn't necessarily good. Also, how is MIT and BSD compatible with GPL? I thought they weren't copylefted.

On the proprietary side you have Microsoft, Apple, and Google. On the free side you have Stallman and his zealots. There's not much in between.

>>5
Liberal free software licenses (MIT, BSD) do not conflict with the requirements of the GPL. This is what it means to be GPL compatible.

>>6
I got in a slight brainlock there, when I saw the words "liberal" and "free" being adjacent. So did you mean free or liberal?

>>7
Pick either one since It's redundant anyway.

>>4
Shalom!

>>8
And war is the same as peace, right?

STOP THE JEWS

>>11
Hitleristipastica11Cauoo+XsTV

>>5

With free software you also give potentially bad people access to your work.

That's with anything, though. Bad people can potentially use proprietary software as well; so, not really an argument there.

On the proprietary side you have Microsoft, Apple, and Google. On the free side you have Stallman and his zealots. There's not much in between.

People on the BSD side of things tend to meet somewhere in the middle. (de Raadt is kinda zealous in his own way, though, but at least he keeps it mostly to his area.)
>>9
Thomas Jefferson would have supported the idea of free software, was he a Jew too? http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/thomas-jefferson

There is DuckDuckGo, StartPage/Ixquick and Yandex.

I'm not Hitler ;-;

>>14
All of them are terrible! Fuck off, JEW.

>>13

That's with anything, though. Bad people can potentially use proprietary software as well; so, not really an argument there.

We're talking about source code here.

People on the BSD side of things tend to meet somewhere in the middle. (de Raadt is kinda zealous in his own way, though, but at least he keeps it mostly to his area.)

The point is that the GNU project has too much control over open source software. It's like the Microsoft of the open source world.

>>17
No, you're talking about source code.

>>16
I never said that they were good, just listing the alternatives (I do use Yandex Mail more often since Gmail has become more Jewy lately).
>>17

We're talking about source code here.

So? It's still a trivial matter. Evil people exist, it's a sad reality, but it's reality; the world is not always a goody two-shoes place (I do admire people who try to strive for such in this criminal degenerate world, though).

The point is that the GNU project has too much control over open source software. It's like the Microsoft of the open source world.

I agree, but that has to do with these things happening inherently in market based systems (network effects, economies of scale, barriers to entry, ect.), plus, while Stallman didn't exactly invent the idea of "free software" (as the sharing of software and code was commonplace at MIT in the 1970s), he coined the term and conceptualized it hence why GNU holds a monopoly and GPL is the most common license used. In markets, often the early bird gets the worm. I do however support people using more non-GNU based free software and non-copyleft permissive licenses, especially since the GNU/Linux world seems to be trending towards more insanity with things like systemd and such.

>>7
It's to distinguish different kinds of free software licenses. GPL style is known as a "copyleft" free software license. Liberal free software licenses are also known as "permissive" free software licenses.

It's important to distinguish between a liberal free software program and a liberal proprietary software program. Let's take OpenSSL for example which is licensed under Apache 1.0. Let's say that I fork OpenSSL into a proprietary program and then distribute my variant. My variant of OpenSSL won't stop being liberally licensed - it will remain licensed under Apache 1.0. However, you're not going to see the source code because I choose to withold it as is my perogative by the Apache 1.0 license. This is an example of a liberally licensed proprietary program.

>>17
GNU has no control over the open source world. The only thing that the GNU team control are the GNU project and new revisions of the GNU GPL. The only thing stopping you from avoiding GNU is yourself.

>>16
DDG results got better in the past few months and I fall back to Google less often than I used to last year.
I know DDG is run by a Jew, but at least it's not a Google Jew.

I was thinking about making a search engine for my next project. From a technical standpoint, it seems simple. But the mechanism used to sort results by relevance seems rather difficult.

>>21
New revision of GPL may as well transfer all copyright directly to Stallman. That follows from the text of GPL, when author agrees to also publish his work under future versions of GPL.

>>24

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

so Stallman actually own a lot more software than you think. He could be richer than Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer combined.

>>24

New revision of GPL may as well transfer all copyright directly to Stallman. That follows from the text of GPL, when author agrees to also publish his work under future versions of GPL.

You are completely wrong. There is no lawyer in the world who will seriously argue this.

>>26
Sorry, but that is the license
"To keep the license up to date, the GPL license includes an optional "any later version" clause, allowing users to choose between the original terms or the terms in new versions as updated by the FSF. Developers can omit it when licensing their software;"

so most of GPL software is actually owned by Stallman. Only a few programs skip that clause.

Although, Linux kernel and name are owned by Linus Torvalds, because he, being a smart faggot, has refused to include "any later version" clause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Trademark

>>27
Trademark and licensing are entirely separate things.

Stop the Jews and hack the mainframe!

>>29
Give back RedCream!

I’m the immigrant fucking your daughter while you’re trying to sleep ignoring her moans calling me ‘daddy’

Moving with my afro bros to EU. Gonna steal ur job and have sex with ur wife. Enjoy being poor, white cuck.

>>32
Check 'em

>>33
Will these dubs kill Jewgle?

Probably not. Jewgling Jewgle does nothing.

>>33
Checked!

>>23
Running and maintaining a search index seems like it would be the most technical and bandwidth intensive of the entire project. Another thing to consider is if your search engine became popular enough, you'd start attracting the attention of governments and they love to be able to control another piece of the Internet if they can, and you'd get offers and capital from unscrupulous people with names that echo.

>>37
It would index only what I explicitly tell it to and wouldn't be shared. In fact, that's why I'm apprehensive about making it. Most sites that have a lot of information to search for already have a search feature designed for that site. Search engines are useful for indexing large numbers of lesser known sites. That doesn't fit into my design principle since I only use a handful of sites anyway. And things like blogs can be followed with RSS. This makes me question whether I need a search engine in the first place. The whole purpose would be to index the few sites I use that don't have a search feature. /prog/rider is one example since it doesn't have explicit searching and it's easy to lose track of memorable posts. But making a whole search engine just for those handful of sites probably isn't a good idea becuase it's trivial to write a basic script to search them. I can write a one-liner in a few seconds to find anything on here.

If I'm programming, it's a bad sign when I have to look up anything that isn't documentation. If I can't find the answer on Stackoverflow and its sister sites and have to resort to looking randomly through the web, that's desperation. We are at a point in time where the Internet is centralized and many sites are broken and malicious. They require Javascript for basic functionality and employ tools for spying on users. It's not wise to visit random sites because most of them won't be useful and will require the user to give unreasonable permissions to a site just for the sake of reading plain text.

Why do I need to enable Javascript and connect to Google Ajax, Google Fonts, and Google Analytics just to find out what some error means? Why do I need Javascript, cookies, and cross-site requests just to view a bit of text? Why do I need Javascript just to click on a link? Why do I have to spend so much time messing around with my Firefox addons when I only want to take a glace at a site that I'll probably never visit again? I don't need animations and fancy fonts. It breaks the whole site is ridiculously difficult to parse which makes things like using web crawlers much harder. If a site is so hard to use, there's probably nothing useful there anyway.

Search engines aren't so much for searching as they are for reducing the number of clicks it takes to get somewhere. Or even to use a widget to check the weather or some basic math. If I had a search engine, I would just use it as a replacement for bookmarks. Most people know where they are going, they just don't feel like typing. They don't type in "example.com", they just type in the site name and click on the first result. Of course, the first result is often a paid ad for some kind of malware, which explains why it is still so prevalent. If you use a !bang in Duckduckgo, it will redirect you to a search in another site with the query appended into the url. That's simple and useful.

Imageboards are transient and not worth searching. There's usually a JSON API and a catalog that can search thread titles. There are also archives which have a search feature. Textboards can be searched with a script.
Every wiki has a search feature. So do social media sites and online stores.
Most software can be found on code hosting sites like Github. Otherwise, there is typically an obvious homepage.
Every good programming language has its own site for searching documentation. Stackoverflow is where errors are pasted.
All the boorus have searching and tagging built in. They are search engines, except explicitly for anime pictures. There's services like Tineye for doing reverse image searching.

So making a search engine just wouldn't be that useful. It would be a better use of time to make alternatives for sites that are crudly designed. That was my inspiration for wanting to make a search engine in the first place. I wanted to see one without ads, spying, or censorship and one that demotes websites that have Google services, Captchas, and social media widgets.

>>38

Why would you want to non-ironically reinvent the wheel this much! Unless you are creating something like a Lisp program that generates a search engine without being told how to implement a search engine, then you're doing nothing new and are wasting your time.

>>38
Who needs bookmarks or a search engine when you can type a letter or two into the url bar and have it match based on history?

As far as having a local search engine, it's really only useful if you scrape a site that needs full regex IMO.

>>39
Because I can do better. If something can be improved then it can be replaced. I like the feeling of replacing something bad and having the power to make changes. When I'm using my own site and see something I don't like, I just change it. Otherwise I have to rely on another admin. As I get better at programming, I even replace my own projects.

>>40
That's useful but not perfect. Bookmarks are still better in some ways. It's easier to remember a bookmark over a URL when you don't visit a site often. It's easier to open multiple bookmarks at the same time. Bookmarks are created by the user instead of being tied to everything the user visits. Bookmarks are not susceptible to the problem of misspelling a URL or having multiple URLs with similar letters. Bookmarks can be edited and shared across computers more easily than history. Bookmarks can be hidden for the sake of privacy while history matching isn't easy to disable.

>>38
Ever heard of the "site:" prefix in Google? Instead of competing with that, why not put up a searchable archive of dis.4Chan?

>>43
That doesn't really work as sufficiently as /prog/scrape, which is why Xarn ended up making that. It's still better than nothing, though.

>>43
I can't remember the last year I used Google. If I remember correctly, that syntax never worked for me and I forgot about it. Why hasn't anyone else done that? I know there's been a lot of interest. I never cared to do it myself.