Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who Do You Trust Least?

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the living-down-to-expectations dept.

News 216

Mister Furious points to a story on Yahoo! "about how a recent study found AOL to be the least trusted site on the net. It even got lower trust ratings then Microsoft." It would be good to see the actual survey questions and results, since they're referred to only in vague terms. Partly because of that, the story could proabably appear in the Onion without raising many eyebrows -- it seems to tacitly acknowledge that to these companies, perception is more important than reality. If you don't use AOL or MSN, one's current ISP is always a good recipient of distrust.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (1)

citizenc (60589) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212434)

I trust the news they report, but more then once, while visiting their site, some advertiser of theirs installs some sort of browsing enhancement thing on my computer. (Similar to gator.)

Grr.

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (2)

jilles (20976) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212485)

That has never happened to me and I visit the CNN site on a daily basis. I distrust CNN for another reason: they are a little to friendly with the US government and often act as a PR machine for the US military.

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (2)

citizenc (60589) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212488)

It's happened to me twice in the last two weeks. I know, I wouldn't have believed it either.

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (1)

Yottabyte84 (217942) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212589)

You ever gone to a porn site and later noticed that you hompage has been chaned? Anyone know how they manage to do that to IE without a prompt? I just want to know so I can filter it. Really. ;)

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (0, Offtopic)

shaka (13165) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212645)

You can use JavaScript to change the homepage in IE (I'm pretty sure, at least) so probably they use that. Or they conceal the prompt ("Do you wanna SEE NAKED YOUNG CHICKS bla bla bla set this page as your homepage?").

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212500)

How is it possible? That's news to me. What browser are you using that installs something without your approval?

MSIE? I wouldn't be surprised.

Netscape, Konqueror, Opera, HotJava, Lynx...? Nah!

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212522)

MSIE? I wouldn't be surprised.
Don't be more of an idiot than you have to be. IE is 100 times better at informing the user of what's going on than those other pieces of tripe you mention.

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212596)

Only if you change the default security settings .

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212598)

Nonsense. The defaults are set to not install anything without your permission.

Re:I Don't Trust CNN Anymore (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212547)

Just what the hell are you doing up this late? Go to sleep and stop first posting!

NEVER trust CNN (2, Insightful)

Menteb (161089) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212548)

Do NOT EVER trust what you see on CNN! They manipulate everything. If you want news, go BBC World!

Greetz

Menteb

Re:NEVER trust CNN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212646)

Unfortunately, the BBC gets a lot of it's content from CNN - and usually edits it down. The Code Red fiasco was a good example of this. The BBC reported word for word what CNN did, with all the same mistakes, neglecting to mention that the patch was not needed for Win 9x computers.

early bird (-1, Troll)

GiorgioG (225675) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212435)

catches the first /. post!

Re:early bird (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212444)

Doesn't look like the first post to me...

Re:early bird (-1, Offtopic)

Claude Debussy (138975) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212505)

well maybe that empty space between your ears caught a wiff of the horse manure. Piss off.

The title is wrong (1)

anpe (217106) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212445)

Eventhough least trusted site on the net sounds fine, the survey is about "Internet Companies" not about internet sites...

Do you trust slashdot ?

Re:The title is wrong (5, Funny)

juha0 (148119) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212492)

Do you trust slashdot ?

Nope. Every time I see a link that looks interesting, it leads me to site where this guy is bending over with his ass wide open!

Re:The title is wrong (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212599)

That's not slashdot, just the trolls. And the new codebase makes such things harder [goatse.cx] .

Re:The title is wrong (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212605)

Slashdot is the trolls. They're 100 times wittier and more intelligent than Taco and his motley crew of spaghetti coders. They also manage to keep a large number of sites up and running 24/7 without screaming obscenities at their Cisco support people, something that the Slashdot crew seem to have trouble with.

Re:The title is wrong (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212613)

I'd have to say its the Jews I trust the least.

I don't trust VA linux anymore.. (1)

kfckernal (517538) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212447)

If whats being reported here [theregister.co.uk] at the register is true then hell has frozen over. According to that article VA Linux is going to add closed source subscription software to SourceForge. I'm still shell shocked from reading it. Can you imagine the backlash if this ends up being true?

Re:I don't trust VA linux anymore.. (-1, Troll)

Claude Debussy (138975) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212486)

and you think the schmucks here at /. will bother telling you about it ? Dont bet on it. Frankly I wouldn't care too much if /. shut down. Stupid site, Ignorant editors like Michael on the staff.... I mean, jeez, /. employs Michael.. this is the same guy that shut down the censorware project over politics. He's the biggest hypocrite of all the /. editors..

Timothy and Cowboyneil aint so bad but they're spelling is horrid.

read the whole story about michael here [spectacle.org]

Re:I don't trust VA linux anymore.. (1)

Pinball Wizard (161942) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212489)

I wouldn't trust them either. According to this report [yahoo.com] (real audio), VA is essentially a penny stock, with no hope of survival after 5 quarters, as they will run out of cash. Their stock is currently $1.73, down from a high of $320.


Imagine how it must feel to be in Maldas or ESRs shoes having lost a paper wealth worth millions. I know I wouldn't have enjoyed the ride down.

What's next, they'll run a w2k site? jobs.osdn.com (1)

Delirium 21 (336429) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212572)

What's next, they'll run an open source jobs site on IIS?

Ohh wait [osdn.com] . They do [netcraft.com] .

Sick of the Anti VA Linux stories (1, Offtopic)

q-soe (466472) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212606)

the end of the world as we know it

Actually the story says that VA linux is going to sell some investigate ways to make some money from their software development and thus build some applications that move in new ways - this is perfectly reasonable as their employees have mouths to feed.

I quote: (lifted without permission but maybe this wil stop the register being slashdotted)

SourceForge is the new ERP - VA Linux
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 24/08/2001 at 07:49 GMT

Barely six weeks ago VA Linux Systems was an open source hardware vendor. Now, the company is undertaking a Napoleonic retreat from the hardware business and it's doing the unthinkable: adding proprietary subscription software to its open source software flagship SourceForge.

VA swallowed charges of around $230m in the last quarter - $160 million coming under the category of "impairment of goodwill and intangible assets", and almost $70 million as a one-time charge - contributing to a net loss for the quarter of $290 million as it liquidated its PC manufacturing and sales businesses.

Costs will continue to affect the bottom line for two further quarters, said VA. Its Japanese subsidiary will continue to sell hardware, the company said, but that amounts to chump change.

The new software-only VA expects to make an operating lost of $10 to $13 million on revenue of $3 to $4 million in the forthcoming quarter. With a cash pile of $83 million, that gives the company as little as six months to ramp revenue, or else seek new investment. VA said its burn rate will continue to decline, suggesting that more layoffs are to be expected.

But CEO Larry Augustin is bullish. He says there was no competition for the distributed code management system SourceForge. Current development processes and tools haven't kept pace with geographically dispersed or ad hoc teams, according Augustin, who predicts that the impact of SourceForge could be as great as ERP or CRM.

Typically VA deals with in-house developers using a range of tools (it cites Borland, Rational and Microsoft as well as GNU tools). The company emphasises that seeks to complement rather than supplant existing tools.

VA is gunning for $600 revenue per seat per year - it claims that buyers typically see a return on investment within six months.

Augustin talks of adding "proprietary software features and functionality" to the subscription version SourceForge. That VA is looks at the software-hoarding model to save the business is an irony a few will savour, but we guess that by now badly singed VA investors will simply be hoping it flies. ®

IN OTHER WORDS

They are not 'going closed source' they have had a subscription service for some time - the code is well developed and they are looking at new areas like ERP - they have a right to do it and if they dont they may very well be down the tubes.

From someone who works in MIS and who's company has just spent AU$20 Million on SAP let me tell you that this is a field where some competitors would be good - there arent many new products that ar worth buying and three companies have it tied up - SAP, Peoplesoft and JD Edwards.

And no - no company in their right mind would ever buy a free GPL erp system - these systems are the heart and sould of a business when you implement them - they do all payroll and accounting functions etc and no one would trust a product without a company with cash and controlled development backing it up.

I have been accused in the past of defending MS - so it might seem strange for the people who can't see past the MS sucks argument to defend an open source company but im not that narrow minded.

VA Linux have not sold out the GPL - they are simply running their free software projects and at the same time trying to make enough money to survive and build a new product in the meantime.

And you can only attack them ?

Christ have you stopped to think what this means if these guys get this right - ERP's are run on Windows or Unix Platforms - what this might give the world is a stable lower cost ERP alternative that is built on linux.

The problem with free sourcing applications like this is that VA would be expected by their clients to do all the development work but by the brethern to give everyone that work for free and thus give competitors the chance to profit off their hard work when they adapt the code and havent got to pay for the development.

Open source does not have to mean free IMHO - devlopment of corporate systems costs money - but maybe VA can start the ball rolling and we might win a few of those corporate file and app servers and some corporate desktops.

So please no more meaningless VA have sold out posts - its boring and innacurate and they are only being posted here because they own Slashdot and your trying to be smart (and failing)

Shiznet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212448)

dont trust

Email address (2, Insightful)

dingo (91227) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212449)

The way I gauge how to trust is as follows

Ask for email address without apparent reason=back away slowly avoiding eye contact

Others=trust
:)

Does anybody else ever feel think twice... (3, Funny)

Adversive (159469) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212450)

...when you see on the "Always trust content from Microsoft Corporation" checkmark?

Re:Does anybody else ever feel think twice... (1)

TheRealOsiris (517536) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212458)

One can never trust anything called MicroSoft, that's way big, bloated, and hard to boot.

Re:Does anybody else ever feel think twice... (1)

odaiwai (31983) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212496)

> "Always trust content from Microsoft Corporation" checkmark?

Heh, that one always gives me a little chuckle.

I want a button on that form which says "Yeah, dream on billg."

dave

Re:Does anybody else ever feel think twice... (3, Funny)

upstairs (183031) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212498)

Yeah, and its got one of those 'No' buttons that moves elsewhere whenever you go to click it.

Re:Does anybody else ever feel think twice... (1)

eulevik (258261) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212526)

What I would like is a

"NEVER trust content from XXX Corporation"

But somehow I don't think Microsoft will provide that feature.

Re:Does anybody else ever feel think twice... (1)

phutureboy (70690) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212579)

Yeah, I always chuckle when I see that.

I have not been able to bring myself to place a checkmark in the box.

Define trust... (4, Insightful)

Nevrar (65761) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212459)

"...consumers said they were highly distrustful..." I appreciate the news article is summarising, but really, I reckon they sorta need to define trust. I mean is it in terms of privacy, is it reliability of service? I.M.H.O. it could be taken to mean any number of different things by those being surveyed. I'm not sure you can seriously look at figures like that to mean anything (of course, it could just be a jounalistic summary of a more in-depth survey).

I have great distrust (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212461)

in slashdot.

Re:I have great distrust (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212556)

> with that IP tracing in the new version

Please, proofs, not just accusations and conspiracy.

Significance? (4, Insightful)

expunged (30314) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212462)

The story mentions first 37 and 29 percent and then 15 and 17 percent, drawing HUGE differences -- Microsoft is referred to as nearly as trusted as online brokerages, while AOL is paraded as completely untrustable.

Is 2% (or even 8%) really that significant? It may seem huge, but it really depends on the survey size and how the questions are asked. Does anyone know more about how these surveys are done, their margins of error on average, etc?

I think they are jumping to conclusions on this one, unless they know more than they are telling. It almost seems like they are jumping on a "let's hate AOL" bandwagon. (Not that that's necessarily completely unfounded)

-nicole

Re:Significance? (1)

Captain Bonzo (472184) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212543)

I think they are jumping to conclusions on this one, unless they know more than they are telling. It almost seems like they are jumping on a "let's hate AOL" bandwagon.

Yahoo on the '"let's hate AOL" bandwagon'? Now why could that be...?

Survey Error? (1)

keflex (451680) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212464)

If the study conducted was about the most/least trusted internet companies, why was Microsoft included in the survey?

Re:Survey Error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212491)

They're the '.Net' in www.microsoft.net.

slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212467)

Their history of falling for blatant hoaxes; their attitude of contempt for their readers; the barrel of dirty tricks they've used to censor through moderation; their editorial bias; their outright lies; their support of intellectual property theft; Jon Katz's intellectual property violations (the hellmouth book).

Re:slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212573)

Why is this marked as a troll? It makes a bunch of entirely valid points. Let me repeat it:
SLASHDOT

Their history of falling for blatant hoaxes; their attitude of contempt for their readers; the barrel of dirty tricks they've used to censor through moderation; their editorial bias; their outright lies; their support of intellectual property theft; Jon Katz's intellectual property violations (the hellmouth book).

fast post ! (-1, Troll)

Claude Debussy (138975) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212469)

this is undeniably the fastest post you've ever seen in your fucken life !

Re:fast post ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212471)

I wonder if Jon Katz has ever "experimented" with gay sex...

Re:fast post ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212561)

I wonder if Jon Katz has ever "experimented" with gay sex...

All Linux [slashdot.org] zeelots have.

Pr0n? (5, Interesting)

Dr_Cheeks (110261) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212472)

Frankly, I think that our friends the pr0nographers are way more untrustworthy than AOL. At least AOL doesn't pop-up and pop-under new windows at every given opportunity, including when you close the current browser window (man, I hate that). And they don't attempt to plant suspicious (and occasionally incriminating) cookies on your HD, or do any of those other wonderful tricks that help your boss/parents/significant other argue that you're not doing anything productive on the net. And I'd sure feel better about giving my CC# to AOL than to pr0n sites (we're just using it to check your age, no really....)

AOL are no saints, but they do seem to have developed some scruples as a sort of reponse to potentially bad publicity.

Re:Pr0n? (1)

moz25 (262020) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212479)

Well, if you have a problem with popup windows on the sites you mentioned or even on other types of sites, a smart idea may be to turn your javascript settings off prior to engaging in the activity.

Moz.

Re:Pr0n? (2)

Dr_Cheeks (110261) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212508)

Yeah, but Javascript does have it's uses - I prefer people to use it to spice up their pages a bit rather than sticking a Flash animation on there for example (OK, not the greatest example, but it can be quite cool).

I object to having to cripple my browser just to ensure that people don't abuse it. And, I'll admit, I'm kinda lazy too.

Re:Pr0n? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212669)

Use Konqueror from kde2.2, you can disable javascript pop-ups (or a dialog asking for confirmation first, though I wish it would remember my prefs, like it does with cookies).

D.

Re:Pr0n? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212517)

You say you're hesitant to give your credit card to a porn site (rather, you would feel better giving it to AOL than a porn site) but you obviously have no idea how much most adult sites DON'T WANT TO FRAUD you.

It's SO HARD to get a merchant account and it's way to easy to lose one. Add in the threat of the FTC busting down your doors if they start to get consumer complaints. Well it can really ruin your day.

I agree that there are some adult sites that only want to fraud you and your CC#, but I would estimate that number to be very low. I don't have any data to back this up, but I have friends in the industry and they don't even joke about messing with credit cards.

There is way to much liability riding on the site owners' shoulders.

Re:Pr0n? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212660)


"Frankly, I think that our friends the pr0nographers are way more untrustworthy than AOL"

Personally, I find it's the people who make sweeping generalizations that are the least trustworthy 8^}

"And I'd sure feel better about giving my CC# to AOL than to pr0n sites (we're just using it to check your age, no really....) "

This makes no sense, as you are indemnified for all but $50.00 with the typical credit card, and your easily a $50.00 a pop pervert. Besides, there is a hell of a lot more money to be made selling pr0nography legitimately than in committing the fraud, I'm sure.

I think my trust of Yahoo! just (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212473)

went down a notch. I dont think I could trust any news service who did a report on a report without providing SOME sort of link or reference information(other than NASDAQ I mean) to back it up.
It reads like something out of a checkout-stand rag.

"Sources say they dont trust the other rags."
-- END STORY

Possible reason why no reference provided (2)

Dr_Cheeks (110261) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212513)

Perhaps Yahoo! weren't too far behind AOL and M$FT in the ratings.

I sure don't trust... (3, Funny)

andi75 (84413) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212476)

I sure don't trust slashdot for the correct spelling (english is not my mother tongue).

trust... hah (2, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212480)

i dont trust any place whose domain ends in .mil or .gov

And this is a surprise... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212484)

because people are generally known to implicitly trust huge corporations in general?

i think ... (1)

jlemmerer (242376) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212490)

...Chello [chello.at] , an Austrian ISP is the worst of all.... Instead of providing me bandwith he is charging enormous amounts for a malfunctioning connection , spam and (although swearing not to do so) filtering my mail

What site do I trust least? (4, Funny)

rjh (40933) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212506)

... anything ending in .gov.

Re:What site do I trust least? (1)

lposeidon (455264) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212515)

trust no one. it s all a fucking conspiracy. they will know no matter what steps u take to guard yourself and your data.

Re:What site do I trust least? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212549)

Hey, at least if you have that attitude you'll never get screwed by anyone.

Re:What site do I trust least? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212601)

go fuck yourself

Re:What site do I trust least? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212553)

Wrong. You can trust Linus.

He's a Finn and too honest for his own good.

Who do I trust the least? (2, Funny)

Hektor_Troy (262592) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212521)

That would have to be my mother-in-law.

Oh - on the net. Still my mother-in-law.

Anything to do with Unix (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212529)

I trust anything to do with Unix least. Given that their entire security is based around the flawed and wide-open SSH, any of your data stored on a Unix/Linux machine is essentially open for the world to read. At least it is possible for a competent admin to secure a Windows box with IIS - you can't even say that much for a Unix machine.

Microsoft most trusted? (3, Insightful)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212530)

Hmmm... must have been them dead people [slashdot.org] answering them surveys. How else can you explain it?

Anti-trust (1)

Traicovn (226034) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212532)

Of course the average user is going to distrust AOL. One has to think, out of all of the users on the Internet, how many are probably AOL users? AOL is in their eyes 'the authority figure over all the internet' because it is what they use to get on the internet.
So is this distrust misplaced? No. I think that one could safely say that AOL TIME-Warner, just like we have noted with Microsoft, is one of the 'big companies' that we should have to keep our eyes on. Think about it, AOL/Time-Warner controls so much of the media and multi-media world and so many people's access to the internet with Road Runner and AOL it's almost scary when you think about it. If AOL/Time-Warner wanted to push an agenda or put a company out of business, they could do it easily.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that there is always going to be distrust, and by scruptiously looking at companies as they 'come into power' as controllers of the information and providers of it to the population, being at least a little distrusting is definitely in order. But does that mean that we should start necessarily start believing everything that is in a less-legitimate or large scale newspaper, perhaps the National Enquirer?
No....

CNet news.com could be a contender (3, Insightful)

Ryu2 (89645) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212533)

Fluffy articles with little to no technical content, error-prone reporting (especially of anything not MS or Intel), superficial quotes from "analysts", for example: "shutting down Napster will cause problems for their users" or "The slowdown will cause a decline in tech spending among companies" -- they get paid for this???


Also, most of their articles touting new products, etc are really thinly-veiled adverts for MS, Intel, etc. and never seem to badmouth anything too badly. Their "videos" are also little more than mouthpieces for company spokespeople to get their point across.

Slashdot could be a contender (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212566)

Fluffy articles with little to no technical content, error-prone reporting (especially of anything MS or Intel), superficial quotes from "journalists", for example: "shutting down Napster will be a blow against your rights" or "The slowdown has had no effect on VA Linux" -- they get paid for this???

Also, most of their articles touting new products, etc are really thinly-veiled adverts for Unix, RMS, etc. and never seem to badmouth anything too badly. Their "Geeks in Space videos" are also little more than mouthpieces for company spokespeople to get their point across.

Lock-In Breeds Distrust? (2)

krmt (91422) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212538)

Does anyone else find it interesting that the two companies who are prime examples of consumer lock-in (AIM/Windows & Office) are the most distrusted companies on the 'net? Both have the "walled garden" approach, and while all the suits seem to be talking up how great the idea is, this speaks differently.

Perhaps this study just goes to show that, while they may be complacent, people aren't completely blind to what these companies are potentially denying them.

Freedom and empowerment is more important than a friendly "You've got mail". The problem is that in order to be empowered in the sense of having access to the net, many people are willing to go the easy route (i.e. AOL) and it puts them at someone else's mercy. Same idea applies to many of Microsoft's customers.

People sacrifice complete freedom and empowerment for the ease and extra free time gained by using AOL and Microsoft's products. And while many are quite satisfied with the choice (as the AOL rep stated in the article) it doesn't take away distrust of what may potentially happen or be happening to them. That's still fertile ground I think.

Re:Lock-In Breeds Distrust? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212584)

People sacrifice complete freedom and empowerment for the ease and extra free time gained by using AOL and Microsoft's products

BAAAAD ANALOGY FOR OPEN SOURCE

Use Microsoft if you want an easy to use and quick to learn OS and not linux ? Do you guys even see why your'e not winning the desktop war.

people want fast and easy to learn OS's - not everyone is an uber hacker (actually less than 10% of pc users are IMHO)

Re:Lock-In Breeds Distrust? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212602)

Less than 1% of PC users have any interest whatsoever in how it does what it does. Look at any big corporation - everyone has a PC on their desk, but unless there's been horrendous bloat in the company, almost none of the staff are IT people.

Add in all the home users (every single user of AOL for starters - how many millions is that? Is it more or less than the number of Linux users?) and you'll see that in order to become even slightly relevant, Linux has to cut off all the annoying "1337" idiots who think that just because they can type "ls" that they're somehow better than someone who'd just like to see a list of their documents and be able to click on each one to open it.

I trust them to do as expected... (1)

Craefter (71540) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212544)

I mean, what do you expect from AOL? A serious internet provider? Don't make me laugh. It reminds me of my newly invented SPAM filter. It's quite short. Basically it comes down to this: If from:==*@aol.com,*@msn.com,*@hotmail.com then | SPAM. Personally I do not have "friends" who in their right state of mind have an AOL account. And anybody which has is not serious enough to spend my time on. Their problem.
But it's quite interesting that a gigantic provider like AOL can be labeled as "not serious". That brings up another question: Are there any "serious" or "trustworthy" providers? Some elite ISPs which do profile checks on their customers if they are good enough to have services from them?

Forgive my ramblings, I'm but a worm. I just wanted to make some noise like the rest of you dweeps. ;)

slash trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212551)

I trust /. the least for many good reasons.
Am I wrong to doubt the open forum?

Ok, Ok,,, sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory but give it a thought. Target threads, pre story posts, gov tech recruitment...

Who knows how your post will be used?

ask slashdot: JENNICAM (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212554)

does anyone else like to watch all the buttsex on jennicam? notice how that's the only slashbox available with buttsex?

Join us now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212558)

and share the software.

lalala

Hey, Microsoft is trustworthy! (1)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212564)

Microsoft is totally trustworthy. I mean, I trust that they're going to spread fud about competitors' products; I trust that they're going to try to usurp protocols and make them proprietary; I trust that they're going to create crappy software; I trust that they're going to continue their constant quest to render technologies obsolete and replace them with their own...

Hey, they're relentless and consistent. Evil, maybe, but hardly untrustworthy.

Linux is trustworthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212576)

I can trust it to remain irrelevant.

Oh, get serious! (2, Flamebait)

jcr (53032) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212565)

AOL may suck, but they're hardly the least trustworthy site on the net.

What about www.scientology.org, or www.worldnetdaily.net, to name two?

-jcr

VALinux.com (-1, Offtopic)

stinkgeek.com (450152) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212571)

Clearly VALinux.com [valinux.com] is the most untrustworthy site now they are going to proprietarize [theregister.co.uk] SourceForge and going back on everything they told the free software geeks.

Next week you have to sign in to Passport to post on /. and pay Malda's cronies $10 per month to "get compliant".

I hereby award Larry Augustin with the Neville Chamberlain [byu.edu] Award for turning 180 degrees on an earlier viewpoint.

Who do i trust least (2)

q-soe (466472) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212582)

It might suprise some people but microsoft are very low on my list on this one - i can trust them totally as they keep doing business the same way - they are predicatble.

The site i trust least is c/net - might sound strange but think about it this way - think of all the beat up stories you have seen - Optus@home looking at peoples downloads, code red, etc and look at the stories they run - and dont even talk about product reviews or releases - they are almost entirely re written PR blurbs - you cannot rely on them at all for 'news' without bias.

Companies i trust least - Compaq - Another one some wont agree with but i have reasons - they still persist in proprietary systems, their support (speaking from a corporate point of view) is mosty abysmal, their website is confusing, slow and badly thought out (try finding the drivers you want - i dare you) their products are prone to failure (Armada notebooks, prolinea desktops to name 2 i have had major problems with)

Now you may not agree - thats cool - but they are the ones i dont trust

Re:Who do i trust least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212593)

Compaq - their website is confusing, slow and badly thought out (try finding the drivers you want - i dare you)
1) Go to http://www.compaq.com
2) Click on "Software & Drivers" under "Support"
3) Choose your machine and OS
4) Choose the driver you want from the list and click to download.

It's hardly rocket science, is it? I mean, you really couldn't do away with a single one of the steps mentioned above and they're in the only order they could be in. I rebuild my Compaq laptop frequently and get the drivers off their site every time because it's easier than trying to keep hold of a local copy. I think that if you have problems with this, you should seek a career outside IT as you are probably not up to it. Ask at your local McDonald's - I'm sure they need someone to clean the toilets.

Re:Who do i trust least (2)

q-soe (466472) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212611)

Ok look for dirvers for a prosignia 1650 or any thing older than 12 months or so - or better yet ring their support.

You have one laptop ?

How nice i have 394 of them (mainly dell but about 50 are compaq of various ages and types) and yet every time you upgrade one you can never find the right drivers only to ring up and find that no that product is more than 18months old so we dont support it with drivers for newer OSes

Try it on the hard side sometime - i resent the mc donalds crack as well but im not going to flame you as i want to show maturity and i like my karma the way it is - thanks for your post in reply to mine

Re:Who do i trust least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212620)

The fact that Compaq don't do drivers for old hardware + new operating systems is hardly a problem with their website, is it?

my least trusted site (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212586)

I don't trust goatse.cx

who do *i* trust lest?... everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212591)

Let's face it folks, unless you have the ability tonconjure up some omnicient trust model, you have no clue what's going on in people's noggins (sometimes includeing your own, as in the case of skitzoids...)

So much for my thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212592)

Just thinking how refreshing it has been the last couple of days not to see a story which is a blatant anti MS attack on /.

New it was too good to last.

I predict by toomorrow AM there are 300+ posts in this topic and 75-805 will say MS.

This is a first - a troll post hiding as a story - how did this get approved ?

Slashdot. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212610)

Well, the tech news is biased enough here..there's plenty of mistakes and misunderstandings with regard to many of the articles. Not to mention valid accusations of plagiarism, and instances in which anti-Slashdot postings were mysteriously removed from comment lists.

Object, darn it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212622)

Whom do you trust

You are the one doing the trusting (or non-trusting) so who/whom is the object of the sentence.

top ten least trusted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212624)

10. Microsoft
9. AOL8. Wall Street
7. NSA
6. ZDNET reporters
5. online shops
4. the register
3. Hotmail
2. Slashdot
1. Anonymous Coward

Please (2)

Caid Raspa (304283) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212628)

one's current ISP is always a good recipient of distrust

I really do not understand this. The ISP:s are not Angels, but are they Archdaemons?

All the political/religious/environmental wacko pages, you ever visited them?

Many oppressive 3rd world governments also have their sites, you ever heard of them?

Sites mentioned in spam, (get-rich-now etc.). Or have you never received spam?

EOF (end-of-flame)

Trust No One... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212639)

...except that David Duchovny, he's so dreamy! ::sigh::

--
I found THE back-to-school item:
www.cafepress.com/skoolbag

whoM do you trust least? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212643)

Learn to speaks english

The site I trust the least .... (1)

shaunak (304231) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212661)

is http://slashdot.org
Especially stories by Timothy.
Didn't he get a new job or something? ;-p

It's not AOL, Microsoft, or anybody big (3, Interesting)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212662)

My biggest fear would be someone who is *not* under public scrutiny like larger companies. Look how many small companies constantly try to fly under the radar and install spyware onto your computer in their latest release. The whole Gator thing is a perfect example of this, they start off initially as a company who helps people autocomplete forms on websites, then they start sending rival adds to pages that you goto, then they intentionally build an app to go over the existing banner add on the page.

A company like Microsoft would *never* be able to get away with a gator like stunt, someone would be suing the heck out of them (the government would have their antitrust lawyers out like a pack of ravenous wolfs). Only people who seem to get away with doing stuff like this is the small little company that nobody seems to really care about; but that company is the first in line to screw you over in dirty little tricks.

That's right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212665)



Any survey that doesn't list Microsoft as the most untrusted must have something wrong with it!

I'm starting to lose trust (1)

chegosaurus (98703) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212672)

in all those pay sites with the 100% genuine Britney Spears lesbian action movies. I'll try maybe a couple more but I'm starting to have nagging doubts about their authenticity.

Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2212675)

Actually, it got lower ratings THAN Microsoft. What is so difficult about the difference between then and than?

Beware... (1, Offtopic)

indecision (21439) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212677)

Sites which let any random joe with a hotmail account post stories for the front page, which are rarely if ever checked.

Especially those on which the so-called-editors add a little "Here's my in-the-know take on it" blurb at the bottom to lull you into a false sense of security.

Even worse are sites where they let anybody and everybody with an axe to grind post huge informative comments which actually just serve their hidden agendas.

Worse still are those which let anybody and their dog moderate, I mean just because somebody's posted a few +5 Funny's doesnt mean they know the first thing about Satellite Phones. They, too, are going to be following their agendas.

Whoops, I work for a company selling chips that go in satellite phones, oh no I've accidentally marked all negative comments as trolls. Doh.

Just my 2p (of humour).

Icon wars (2, Informative)

cigarky (89075) | more than 13 years ago | (#2212680)

"Nevertheless, Gartner's Litan said that "the added trust that consumers have in Microsoft gives the company an important leg up in its battle with AOL for online services." Litan added: "Consumers will be more likely to try new Microsoft features embedded in Windows XP (news - web sites), such as Microsoft Messaging."

Gartner has acted as Microsoft's hatchetman before, this fits well as another MS move to counter AOL getting an icon on the desktop on Windows XP via the OEMs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?