×

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!

Bing Tops Google At Finding Malware

timothy posted 1 year,9 days | from the sometimes-that's-just-what-you-want-to-find dept.

Google 111

adeelarshad82 writes "According to an 18-month study from German independent testing lab AV-Test, searches on Bing returned five times more links to malicious websites than Google searches. The study looked at nearly 40 million websites provided by seven different search engines. About 10 million results came from Bing and another 10 million from Google. 13 million sites were provided by the Russian service Yandex, with the rest coming from Blekko, Faroo, Teoma and Baidu respectively. Of these 40 million sites, AV-Test found 5,000 pieces of malware—and admittedly small percentage of websites."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

111 comments

Well to be fair (5, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,9 days | (#43426631)

Microsoft has much more experience with malware than Google does.

So Google's better, right? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43426759)

I don't want my searches returning malware links.
Especially since they're incompatible with my OS.

Re:So Google's better, right? (4, Funny)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,9 days | (#43428175)

So Google's better, right?

No, Bing is better. At finding malicious sites.

I always knew it must be good for something...

Re:So Google's better, right? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428249)

No, Bing is better. At finding malicious sites.

And if you're running Windows, Bing and Desktop Search show the same results.

Re:So Google's better, right? (1)

dj245 (732906) | 1 year,8 days | (#43431569)

So Google's better, right?

No, Bing is better. At finding malicious sites. I always knew it must be good for something...

I have found Bing maps to be far superior to Google maps in many locations. The airplane views especially are usually better, and Bing allows for multiple angles and rotating the view for the airplane photos. In many cases, the satellite photos are higher resolution also.

Re:Well to be fair (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427107)

5,000 across all 4 tested search engines vs. 10,000,000 pages searched with just Bing. The real story here is that search engines generally don't return malware pages at all anymore, but lets put that line at the end and make it another corp-war story instead.

Re:Well to be fair (1)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427321)

5,000 across all 4 tested search engines vs. 10,000,000 pages searched with just Bing. The real story here is that search engines generally don't return malware pages at all anymore, but lets put that line at the end and make it another corp-war story instead.

How about browsers? Google Chrome will attempt to block you from going to a known malicious site.

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427367)

So does Firefox, both Chrome and Firefox use the same malware indexing database Google's search engine uses to flag them as "unsafe" in the search results.

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428845)

I thought that, even though they both use the same database, Google's protection in Chrome uses some additional features that other browsers cannot.

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43430881)

Shouldn't you be out finding a purpose for Google Glass?

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43429731)

Yes, because it tracks every site you visit.

Re:Well to be fair (5, Funny)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427111)

If I think about it logically.
If I were the type of scum sucking vermin who would produce malware, I would tend to target the less technically savvy computer users. What search engine would such a person be likely to use? Whatever one IE points to by default.
Bing.

My apologies to any scum sucking vermin who might be reading this. I am truly sorry for comparing you to malware writers.

Re:Well to be fair (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427485)

Blah blah blah, excuses excuses excuses. STFU and give credit where credit is due, or else just bend over and take it h8er!

Re:Well to be fair (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428279)

just bend over and take it h8er!

Wait, is this about Microsoft business practices or Apple customer lifestyles?

Re:Well to be fair (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427527)

Meh if you are using a browser in low rights mode with sandboxing who fricking cares. To me that is the bigger take from this, as even Google wasn't right 100% of the time, none of them are, so its better not to have the browser running with the same rights as the user so you don't have to depend on some search engine saving your ass.

Personally I use Bing simply because I've made $20 in gift cards from doing the same searches at the shop i would have done anyway. if these companies are gonna be making money off the data I generate why shouldn't I get a cut? At least with bing I do get a cut, don't get jack shit from google.

Re:Well to be fair (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | 1 year,9 days | (#43428447)

don't get jack shit from google

Yeah, those greedy bastards just take take take. I visit their website and they 'take' my search from me!!!

I should charge them for the privilage of accepting my search terms and running my e-mail client.

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43430461)

They *are* greedy bastards. What do you think an advertising company is? I hope Google is paying you well to shill for them.

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428543)

Yeah, using a browser with no rights will save your ass when you enter sensitive information into your browser...

I'd rather pay (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428689)

I'd rather pay $20 than use Bing.

Re:Well to be fair (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | 1 year,8 days | (#43429585)

Meh if you are using a browser in low rights mode with sandboxing who fricking cares.

You don't have to do legit system damage to be annoying. I've had plenty of users who have gotten infections consisting of a single executable in a temp folder that managed to somehow get itself to start up often enough to make a mess of people's systems. It helps prevent PERSISTENT damage that requires post-infection tools like Combofix or gMER, but it is still enough to make users upset and think that Super Duper Antivirus 2015 Pro has found kiddiepr0ndownloader.trojan and that they need to pay $29.95 using a Greenpak card in order to get rid of it.

Re:Well to be fair (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | 1 year,8 days | (#43430447)

8 digit UID dude? Yeah been building these things since Ronnie Raygun was in the oval office so i think i know not to be going to "www.dumbass.com" and thinking if I hit the clown I can win an iPod.

But frankly the last few years, since I switched my customers over to a low rights mode browser and have sandboxing by default on the browser? They have to be REALLY fucking stupid to get infected, I mean clicking through a dozen "yes I'm an idiot" boxes to install the damned bug. If they just surf normally and don't try to force through browser blocks? Then its really not a problem anymore, in fact I'd say a good 90% of the viruses i see they KNEW it was iffy but they decided to do it anyway. They were offered a "free" game, or porn, or something where they say "I thought this might be iffy"...then WTF are you doing? Why did you run it? They wanted to see the dancing bunny dude, and no OS on the planet is gonna save you from stupid.

Re:Well to be fair (2)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,8 days | (#43429435)

More likely Google's indexing engine identifies many of the malware sites and tosses them from the index because they think users don't want to find them. Bing is probably doing the same thing, but not as well.

Re:Well to be fair (5, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427147)

Bing's servers run on Windows

Google's servers run on *Nix

Of course Bing is going to find more malware!

Re:Well to be fair (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427627)

Bing's servers run on Windows

Google's servers run on *Nix

Of course Bing is going to find more malware!

Bada Bing!

Re:Well to be fair (1)

El_Oscuro (1022477) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427933)

Bing's servers run on Windows

Not according to Netcraft. [netcraft.com]

Re:Well to be fair (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | 1 year,9 days | (#43428225)

You have to remember that Akamai is a caching service, and won't necessarily reflect the actual web servers' OS types.

Not saying for or against, but just pointing that out.

Re:Well to be fair (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | 1 year,9 days | (#43428251)

That's probably Akamai cdn that Netcraft is picking up.

I can't imagine Microsoft would run Bing on Linux, especially since they created it from scratch (and not an acquisition like Hotmail).

That would be like Richard Stallman sporting an iPad.

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43431227)

(...) Netcraft. [netcraft.com]

Aaaah! My head exploded!!

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43432619)

Wow.. Really? You thought Microsoft would run their flagship product on something other than Windows Server?

Much of Bing was running Server 2012 prior to it even going RTM.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/06/07/bing-com-runs-on-windows-server-2012.aspx

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43429639)

How much malware does slashdot's search engine return?

The title is wrong. (4, Informative)

khasim (1285) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427327)

From TFA:

Google the Safest
The study concluded that while all the search engines the lab evaluated delivered malware, Google delivered the least. It was followed by Bing, which returned a disconcerting five times as much malware as Google.

Re:The title is wrong. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427771)

That's what it says: Bing is better than Google for people who want to find malware.

Re:The title is wrong. (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | 1 year,9 days | (#43428057)

The study concluded that while all the search engines the lab evaluated delivered malware, Google delivered the least. It was followed by Bing, which returned a disconcerting five times as much malware as Google.

That's what it says: Bing is better than Google for people who want to find malware.

And what's really scary is that "followed by Bing" implies that other engines returned even more, starting from a point 5 times as high!

Re:The title is wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428079)

And what's really scary is that "followed by Bing" implies that other engines returned even more, starting from a point 5 times as high!

There are other search engines?

Re:Well to be fair (0)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427441)

Oh look, another paid MS shill got the first post crowing about how MS is better at google than something. Nice try, Florian Muller. Next you'll tell us that Google is violating MS's patents on having a monopoly.

I propose (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428441)

that microsoft make their homepage blue in honor of this achievement.

Re:Well to be fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43432393)

I was also thinking "Probably more users of Bing use Internet Explorer."

Deception (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43426963)

This is kind of a deceptive title, the article is about how Google results contain less malware sites, because Bing misses them when scanning.

Re:Deception (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427049)

It should be "Google censors your searches".

Re:Deception (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427555)

Bing allows you the personal liberty to ruin your pc if you so choose to do so, not like that nanny state loving google.

Re:Deception (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43430675)

Ever hear of a false positive? I see them every day, especially when using Chromium.

Yeah, I can determine what is safe and what isn't, thanks very much. I don't need my browser or search engine second guessing me.

Re:Deception (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427741)

Wrong. Bing has more links to malware, therefore Bing did not miss them while scanning.

Logic. Yuo fail it.

I just Topped Bing At Finding Malware! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,9 days | (#43426981)

My new malware detection strategy is garaunteed to detect 100% of all web based malware.
The AV solution is so fast and simple, you don't need to install anything, you don't even have to click a single link (I would reccomend you don't): In my AV system Every Page is Considered Malware!

Re:I just Topped Bing At Finding Malware! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427427)

> In my AV system Every Page is Considered Malware!

I've lost track of this conversation. Are we talking about Facebook now?

At least they are leading in something (1)

daninaustin (985354) | 1 year,9 days | (#43426991)

How soon until they join the ranks of Digital, Wang, Novell, etc.

Re:At least they are leading in something (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427203)

How soon until they join the ranks of Digital, Wang, Novell, etc.

Wait, you released a Digital Novel about my Wang?

-=.,., MODERATORS!!! ,.,.=- (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427335)

Mod Parent Up!

Re:At least they are leading in something (4, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427353)

How soon until they join the ranks of Digital, Wang, Novell, etc.

Wait, you released a Digital Novel about my Wang?

Technically it was a "short story".


Darth Vader voice: All too easy...

Re:At least they are leading in something (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427435)

does it have a happy ending, or more of a tragicomedy with the unresolved end left dangling?

Re:At least they are leading in something (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427613)

How soon until they join the ranks of Digital, Wang, Novell, etc.

Wait, you released a Digital Novel about my Wang?

Technically it was a "short story". .

Another schlortz?

Re:At least they are leading in something (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427621)

If they stay on the current course? I'm personally predicting 5 years, as it seems like everyone is looking at exit strategies. I mean you have the OEMs starting to sell Chromebooks which selling PCs without Windows would have been the kiss of death not even 5 years ago, Ballmer refuses to listen to the consumers which have made it clear their Apple ripoff strategy is a DO NOT WANT, and finally if rumors are true the X720 is gonna be torpedoed not by bad hardware but by bad management.

Just on inertia they could go another 3-5 but after that they are fucked, its obvious business alone isn't gonna be enough to keep them at their current bloated size and its even more obvious that they suck balls when it comes to consumers, so I give it 5 if Ballmer stays in charge.

Re:At least they are leading in something (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | 1 year,9 days | (#43428161)

MSFT is still worth billions. that adds 5 years by itself. Just look at Dell. Just trying to go private(smart move long term) has the investor sharks circling to get a piece of the pie, This is going to extend dell going Private by at least a year, and if they manage to stop it the sharks will bleed Dell dry.

No MSFT going down won't be quiet or quick. It will be a mob of investors trying to force all the cash and other holdings to be sold and/or given to them while things get even worse. Personally I expect Ballmer to try and save the sinking ship not realizing all the other rats have left him behind.

Re:At least they are leading in something (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | 1 year,8 days | (#43430463)

I'm waiting for the board to punt kick his ass like a 30 yard field return because frankly the ONLY person hurting MSFT IS MSFT, Ballmer is so damned clueless he thinks aping what was hot 3 years ago will work (it won't) and that he can use the old lame ass EEE strategy to sell tablets (really REALLY won't) and is just burning the fricking business.

Bring in someone which has common sense and they can not only stop the downward spiral they could actually grow the company. Problem is Ballmer just reads the stupid tech press and tries to be hip and trendy and they forget these are the SAME PRESS that said we'd be buying everything from catfood to caskets online during the dotbomb, remember? Think Jobs gave a rat's ass what the press said? they told him an iPhone was stupid, remember? they ALL said that...who is laughing now?

Quit giving a shit what the press says, listen to the customers, build what they want...how fricking hard is that?

Re:At least they are leading in something (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | 1 year,9 days | (#43428483)

they suck balls when it comes to consumers

Not yet, but don't lose all hope. Ballmer will try just about anything.

Doesn't matter. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427001)

Thanks to all the Microsoft FUD going around, people are going to think that Google is telling their neighbors that they've been looking at furry videos.

VirusTotal, a subsidiary of Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427091)

"Bing Tops Google At Finding Malware"

IMO this is a bullshit article. Why?

Because...

https://www.virustotal.com/en/about/ [virustotal.com]

"What is VirusTotal

VirusTotal, a subsidiary of Google, is a free online service that analyzes files and URLs enabling the identification of viruses, worms, trojans and other kinds of malicious content detected by antivirus engines and website scanners. At the same time, it may be used as a means to detect false positives, i.e. innocuous resources detected as malicious by one or more scanners."

I assume VT discovers more Malware.

Fuck you, Bing, and Fuck your Bing Commercials.

Re:VirusTotal, a subsidiary of Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427833)

"Bing Tops Google At Finding Malware"

IMO this is a bullshit article. Why?

It's actually a bullshit headline. It's a case of "Finding" malware in your search results means they actually missed the malware and therefor found less malware than Google.

Microsoft marketing responds (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427097)

We're number one!!! We're number one!!!

Misleading Title (5, Insightful)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427201)

This isn't about successfully searching for malware, this is about failing to filter compromised or hostile websites out of your search results. It's about Google topping Bing at that filtering.

Also:

...and admittedly small percentage of websites."

editing plz?

Re:Misleading Title (3, Interesting)

ancientt (569920) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427333)

I was irritated by that too, but it is a direct quote from the article. I'm not sure if it is fair, but it immediately made me doubt the reliability of the information in the article.

Re:Misleading Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427633)

In that case, it probably should have a [sic]. It's pretty bad.

Re:Misleading Title (1)

kwerle (39371) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427497)

No editing for you!
(you must be new here)

Re:Misleading Title (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427859)

(you must be new here)

Says the UID that came approximately 41 million signups after mine...you need to be here longer before you can use that statement. Honestly, you must be new here =D

Re:Misleading Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428863)

I got the joke in the title as soon as I saw it (OK, it wasn't hilarious), but apparently nobody else did. Yet another lesson to Slashdot's editors that even modest attempts at humor will be lost on this Spock-like crowd.

Google, the good guys, lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427237)

If loss of personal information and privacy concerns you, then Google is the biggest malware of them all.

Re:Google, the good guys, lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428773)

Actually no.

Microsoft's online services (Hotmail/Live/Outlook.com, MSDN, Bing etc) retain and share more of your information than Google's equivalents. Historically, Microsoft has also been more likely to share that data with law enforcement agencies, even in countries with poor human rights records.

In addition, Windows and Windows Phone collect considerable information about users, and preserve to opportunity to remotely capture every keystroke if authorized by Microsoft.

Re:Google, the good guys, lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43430479)

Oh look ! A google employee !

Easy to achieve (4, Interesting)

robmv (855035) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427359)

Easy to achieve, I have found a lot of website malware that only manifest if your user agent is Internet Explorer, those infected sites have code that try to hide injected HTML/JS code to Google Bot. Unless Google start violating the robots.txt convention and crawl the net as Internet Explorer, those sites will be never detected by them.

I have not found an infected site that include code to hide from Bing, so this could help MS, and MS could be using information obtained by the users that browse with Internet Explorer and use their Antivirus Software

Re:Easy to achieve (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427459)

LOL, way to not even read the summary, Bing returned 500% more results containing links to infected sites, quite the opposite of what you are saying.

Re:Easy to achieve (1)

robmv (855035) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427565)

haha you got me there, but my experience is true, If Google was allowed to cheat the User Agent when crawling, those websites could be hidden to the users. Those infected sites I found were not listed as malware on Google. So if if you are a malware website author, hide from all Search engine bots and you have more change to not be listed by them

Re:Easy to achieve (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427909)

If Google was allowed to cheat the User Agent when crawling, those websites could be hidden to the users. Those infected sites I found were not listed as malware on Google.

Soooo, you're saying that Google was unable to find malware because their indexing agent didn't advertise itself as IE. By that logic, Google would be missing more malware on it's scan, and therefore would be serving MORE malware infested sites as top/high results to search queries? But the article is saying that Bing is serving more malware, and by definition finding and filtering out less of it than Google.

Logic fail or reading fail? Either way, read and try again...

Google has a lot of experience.. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43427381)

Google's been in the search game for a while now. They're quite used to being scammed, SEOd, manipulated, and probably have whole departments and armies of programmers/scientists just devoted to keeping their search results malware and scam free (As much as possible at least)

Google often goes out of their way to point out that their main purpose is to simply categorize and index the information available on the internet.

Re:Google has a lot of experience.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428607)

Apparently they suck at it. What you say? I shouldn't have to go to page 40 to find what I'm looking for with a mere 1 valid article per 20. What? You mean Nextag and Alibaba can't sell me a spaceship that will get me to the moon. According to the search results they do. Google is a has been that's why the sudden onslaught of BS tech over the last 10 years to woo the masses. Fuck Google. Anyone who says differently is fanboy or too young to understand. The whole situation is corrupted. In their attempt to fix it by their "armies" it has all become who pays more than the other guy. None of them care.

Re:Google has a lot of experience.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43428767)

hahaha wow you really are an idiot, aren't you

MS should get into the malware game (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | 1 year,9 days | (#43427865)

I'd like to see Microsoft create virus and malware programs. With their track record, they could make one really great version and then the next release will be total shit. They can then shut down this department and malware will be dead forever. I suggest they create this new malware division with people from the following past projects: Windows 8, Vista, ME, Clippy, Bob, and a few others. Of course they'd probably get in trouble for some antitrust issues if they did this..

Re:MS should get into the malware game (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | 1 year,8 days | (#43430053)

I'm afraid the Internet will beat them in the end.

Take web browsers. We had this piece of shit called Netscape, that was innovating the hell out of everybody else, and taking over the whole Internet. MS saw that happening, realised it was just wrong, and came with the excellent solution called Internet Explorer. It took them a while to get it right, but by the time they reached version 6 they did it. They had created the one all, end all of browsers, the ultimate web browsing solution, and Netscape was nowhere to be found again. And then as a final measure to save the Internet they all but shut down the Internet Explorer department, and they saw it was good.

However they missed the Internet vigilantes, the insurgents, who won't take no for an answer. Secretly in a dark, evil corner of the Internet, hidden from the almighty eye of Microsoft, they resurrected the stinking corpse of Netscape and created Mozilla, a beast that had Internet Explorer for lunch.

The same will happen to malware. MS may temporarily dominate the internet with their ultimate malware, like they did with their ultimate browser (IE6), it won't last. Someone will come up with another piece of malware, and take back what was lost, returning innovation to the world in the process.

With friends like that... (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,9 days | (#43428521)

The title is wrong. A more useful one would be "Bing shoves 5x as many malware links at you at the top of your searches, without realizing it."

Match made in heaven (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#43429393)

Microsoft and Malware... nuff said.

Title is misleading (1)

H0bb3z (17803) | 1 year,8 days | (#43431279)

Bing finds LESS malware than Google because it offers up 5 times MORE malware to users than an equivalent Google search. The title may lead one to believe that Microsoft is BETTER at finding malware, but in fact, they suck MORE at it...

If you read the article, the mpm (Malware per Million) is quite low in any case, but because there are billions of searches a day, that makes the odds much more likely to occur than, say winning the Lottery...

Pretty obvious (1)

ProfessorKaos64 (1772382) | 1 year,8 days | (#43432357)

I mean we all hope for this, despite the extra work: recite the I.T. Mantra "Mo Problems, Mo Money." Job security bro. Microsoft has it right. Sadly.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...