Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Behind the Scenes At Google

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the they-should-document-the-cafeteria dept.

Google 196

An anonymous reader writes "University of Wahington TV Presents "behind the Scenes With Google." From the site: 'Search is one of the most important applications used on the internet and poses some of the most interesting challenges in computer science. Providing high-quality search requires understanding across a wide range of computer science disciplines. In this program, Jeff Dean of Google describes some of these challenges, discusses applications Google has developed, and highlights systems they've built, including GFS, a large-scale distributed file system, and MapReduce, a library for automatic parallelization and distribution of large-scale computation. He also shares some interesting observations derived from Google's web data.' "

cancel ×

196 comments

Google's dirty secret revealed (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126270)

Google is actually a giant super computer which has become self-aware. Every person it "hires" is actually one more person it saps knowledge from. In the not too distant future, it hopes to be able to network every human completely so that it can collect the remaining knowledge on Earth more easily.

Re:Google's dirty secret revealed (2, Funny)

ardor (673957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126292)

Yes! It is skynet! Prepare for Armageddon, folks... And beware the T-800 with the strange austrian accent. Must be an error in the firmware.

Re:Google's dirty secret revealed (3, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126405)

Real men would have identified this as Colossus.

Re:Google's dirty secret revealed (2)

pcnetworx1 (873075) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126971)

"Ladies and Gentlemen, The Battle of the Titans" Google pingbombs Yahoo, Yahoo plants a supervirus in the Google cluster, and it goes haywire, the ol'trusty core router at Equinix falls in Ashburn causing a resonance cascade. Hubble falls from the sky in an uncontrolled descent, it hits a nuclear silo in Kansas, a missle launches; teh faulty russian silos fire, the silos around the world fire, then I wake up and yell at the top of my lungs "Dude, I can save money with Geico!!!!"

*Smacks self*

Gotta stop trippin on acid... *walks away from the FreeBSD terminal

Network everybody together, eh? (5, Funny)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126339)

Can't wait for the "I'm Feeling Lucky" feature on that one!

Re:Google's dirty secret revealed (5, Funny)

geoff43230 (829540) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126406)

I think I saw this on "Star Trek" (and, also, "Futurama" - the "scooty-puff, junior" episode) one time. "Borgoogle : Resistance is results 1-10 of about 200."

Re:Google's dirty secret revealed (1)

ElvenMonkey (789317) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126775)

I for one welcome our new supercomputer overlords.

What -- I Have To Watch TV Now? (5, Funny)

CheeseburgerBlue (553720) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126276)

Man, that's *so* twentieth century. I came to /. for the bleeding edge in information acquisition technology: realtime optical scanning blocks of glyphs encoding human language.

I can't absorb information I can't copy/paste.

Fsking video format. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126278)

I fsking hate proprietary video formats. Even worse than other formats!

Re:Fsking video format. (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126342)

The reason they're worse is because there aren't really good free alternatives.

Re:Fsking video format. (1, Redundant)

Rirath.com (807148) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126381)

"The reason they're worse is because there aren't really good free alternatives."

You mean like, Quicktime Alternative [betanews.com] or Real Alternative [betanews.com] through Media Player Classic [betanews.com] ?

Re:Fsking video format. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126450)

Please explain how these programs provide patent-free, Open Source, non-crappy video codecs.

Re:Fsking video format. (1)

truedfx (802492) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126455)

None of those are free. The discussion was about proprietary formats versus free formats, not about paying money.

Re:Fsking video format. (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126854)

Ever heard of "free as in beer"? FYI, the term has been around longer than Free Software or RMS.

Re:Fsking video format. (1)

typobox43 (677545) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126954)

Ever heard of "context clues"? It should have been obvious which form of "free" was meant in a discussion about proprietary formats.

Re:Fsking video format. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126995)

But free as in freedom has been around for very close to as long as the English language has. Free as in cheap is a relatively new usage of the word that was created by marketers.

Re:Fsking video format. (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126424)

Can someone explain what the hell IBM videocharger is?

Re:Fsking video format. (2, Insightful)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126555)

Sigh, an article about google and you cannot do a simple google search [google.ca] .

http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126565)

..has never been more appropriate

Re:Fsking video format. (3, Informative)

LuckyStarr (12445) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126640)

$ man mplayer /dumpstream

Download the .asx File, look inside. This is your URL. Have fun.

Re:Fsking video format. (1)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126662)

Unless you are interested enough to spend 55 minutes watching it I wouldn't worry about the loss.

Personally, I waste enough time on Slashdot without throwing an hours' worth of vid into the bargain!

UW mirror (3, Informative)

JoshuaDFranklin (147726) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126287)

Also hosted by CS at:

http://norfolk.cs.washington.edu/htbin-post/unrest ricted/colloq/details.cgi?id=274 [washington.edu]

Jeff Dean

Abstract Search is one of the most important applications used on the internet, but it also poses some of the most interesting challenges in computer science. Providing high-quality search requires understanding across a wide range of computer science disciplines, from lower-level systems issues like computer architecture and distributed systems to applied areas like information retrieval, machine learning, data mining, and user interface design. I'll describe some of the challenges in these areas, discuss some of the applications that Google has developed over the past few years. I'll also highlight some of the systems that we've built at Google, including GFS, a large-scale distributed file system, and MapReduce, a library for automatic parallelization and distribution of large-scale computation. Along the way, I'll share some interesting observations derived from Google's web data. Jeff Dean joined Google in 1999 and is currently a Distinguished Engineer in Google's Systems Lab. While at Google he has worked on Google's crawling, indexing, query serving, and advertising systems, implemented several search quality improvements, and built various pieces of Google's distributed computing infrastructure. Prior to joining Google, he was at DEC/Compaq's Western Research Laboratory. He received a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in 1996 working with Craig Chambers on compiler optimization techniques for object-oriented languages.

Mirror post as Anonymous Coward ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126475)

... with formatting. It's generally considered 'Karma Whoring' when you post just a mirror link/mirror the text without being Anonymous Coward. Please consider not doing it.

-------------------
Link: norfolk.cs.washington.edu/htbin-post/unrestricted/ colloq/details.cgi?id=274 [washington.edu]

Google: A Behind-the-scenes Look

Jeff Dean

Abstract
Search is one of the most important applications used on the internet, but it also poses some of the most interesting challenges in computer science. Providing high-quality search requires understanding across a wide range of computer science disciplines, from lower-level systems issues like computer architecture and distributed systems to applied areas like information retrieval, machine learning, data mining, and user interface design. I'll describe some of the challenges in these areas, discuss some of the applications that Google has developed over the past few years. I'll also highlight some of the systems that we've built at Google, including GFS, a large-scale distributed file system, and MapReduce, a library for automatic parallelization and distribution of large-scale computation. Along the way, I'll share some interesting observations derived from Google's web data. Jeff Dean joined Google in 1999 and is currently a Distinguished Engineer in Google's Systems Lab. While at Google he has worked on Google's crawling, indexing, query serving, and advertising systems, implemented several search quality improvements, and built various pieces of Google's distributed computing infrastructure. Prior to joining Google, he was at DEC/Compaq's Western Research Laboratory. He received a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in 1996 working with Craig Chambers on compiler optimization techniques for object-oriented languages.

OK then where the hell is (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126288)

proximity search (with adjustable range would be extra nice).

i.e.

((gopher OR shrew OR egret) AND -(mole OR newt)) NEAR(range) ((evil OR "satan incarnate") AND (roe AND -chicken))

"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock." -- Orson Welles (1915--1985).

want real dirt? go to www.fuckedgoogle.com (0)

googisgod (855166) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126289)

If your daily allotment of Google fluff pieces on slashdot has been reached, you can always check out the OTHER side of the story.

here's a hint- it isn't all sweetness and light.

http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/ [fuckedgoogle.com]

Re:want real dirt? go to www.fuckedgoogle.com (2, Insightful)

LegionX (691099) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126451)

This page strikes me as dumb and deliberately one sided.. and surprise: nothing everyone hasn't heard before! (except for the cheesy bad humour). Everyone their taste, but show me some real dirt please.

Re:want real dirt? go to www.fuckedgoogle.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126486)

I've seen most of the stories on that site as well, but I haven't seen them all collected in one place- most sites about Google I've come across spend most of their time gushing about how they'd love to work at Google. :)

Re:want real dirt? go to www.fuckedgoogle.com (2, Insightful)

drsquare (530038) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126567)

This page strikes me as dumb and deliberately one sided..

Just like Slashdot then? Except this fuckedgoogle site has the opposite viewpoint. How is it OK to be biased in one direction, but not the other? Why is it that some people on this site seem to have a vested interest in quashing any criticism of their favourite giant corporation? What have you got to hide?

Re:want real dirt? go to www.fuckedgoogle.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126774)

Nice tinfoil hat. Do you make your own? I've always wanted to but could never seem to get it to the proper shape for radio wave deflection.

Dirt? That more like modelling clay (3, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126531)

Given the bias of the site if that's all the dirt they can dig up, Google must be a pretty good company, and/or the people at that site are just crap at digging up dirt.

Think about it, if someone really hated any of the Fortune 500 companies and bothered to dig up some dirt, there'd be tons more dirt.

I suppose Google is a young company. Give it a few more years and more parasites would have found their way into Google. Then you'd have a lot more dirt.

Re:Dirt? That more like modelling clay (2, Interesting)

Tibe (444675) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126845)

You think Google make their money from AdSense? AdWords? etc.?

Google has resorces and expertise beyond most companies, possibly including Redmond.

They have at their fingers the most up-to-date information, opinions, numbers, rantings of most of the world. Do they use this to make income? I bet.

Banks already analize thier data and invest accordingly, Google are bound to do the same. (A la Google news.) With their expertise it is likely to be far more advanced and therefore more profitable.

They don't need dirt. Google can react to the world market before the world knows it's reacting, and well before it understands.

OK that's enough. Time for me to put my tin-foil-nightcap on and head to bed.

Re:want real dirt? go to www.fuckedgoogle.com (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126670)


This page strikes me as dumb and deliberately one sided


That's why he called it the other side of the story - as compared to /. /. with to google is dumb & deliberately one side - just the other side.

G4/TechTV (2, Insightful)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126290)

I wish that the technology channel actually had programs on technology like this. This could also work on Modern Marvels on History Channel. It would also work nicely on Discovery or PBS. It is time for television programming to amaze me again!

Re:G4/TechTV (1)

dipdewdog (873066) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126573)

if you have cable and there is a big university in your area, chances are they run research channel programs on their tv channel. i think research channel is also available on dish network.

Re:G4/TechTV (4, Insightful)

Schwarzchild (225794) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126717)

Discovery channel is a shadow of its former self. They used to actually show science programs. Now all of their programming is merely Hotrod this or that.

5.6 Mbps? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126291)

Wow. If anything can melt a university web server surly a slashdot posting with a link to a 5.6 Mbps mpeg-2 stream on a Google talk is it.

I use Google at work (2, Interesting)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126295)

I was reading an article a year or so ago about the corporate offices of Google and how there is a projection of all the latest searches displayed in real time on the wall behind the receptionist.

Now I have some pretty important lists which I need to keep tight control over. The information really ought not be distributed outside my office. However, because of the nature of my business, I must do frequent searches using various search engines to fill in my lists.

How am I assured that my searches remain anonymous and secure with Google?

Re:I use Google at work (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126341)

Now I have some pretty important lists which I need to keep tight control over. The information really ought not be distributed outside my office. However, because of the nature of my business, I must do frequent searches using various search engines to fill in my lists.

If you want to keep something private, don't put it on the publicly accessible internet. Including searches. Duh.

How am I assured that my searches remain anonymous and secure with Google?

You aren't. Did you sign a contract to that effect? No.

And frankly, if you can find things with google, it isn't too secret.

Re:I use Google at work (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126760)

... or write your OWN search engine. If you have specific sites you want to keep on top of, it's not THAT hard.

Re:I use Google at work (4, Funny)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126361)

You happen to be only one of the millions of people searching for adult pictures online.

You are about as anonymous as it gets.

Re:I use Google at work (2, Funny)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126459)

The receptionist signs an NDA promising to never turn around ... :P

Re:I use Google at work (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126460)

That must be one embaressed receptionist. And lots of embaressed visitors.

Re:I use Google at work (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126523)

I'm guessing that they filter out profanity and 'adult' searches before putting them on the screen.

Re:I use Google at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126897)

No shit... When I am bored I usually search Google Images with queries like "Dear Google, I have already seen every kind of pornography known to man. Could you please show me something new and exciting?". On the second thought, I guess that my ordinary searches for "enormous labia minora and puffy torpedo nipples" etc. are no less interesting... I have no life.

Re:I use Google at work (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126473)

a) Don't use Google.
b) Use a different anonymizing proxy for _each_ single search, preferably using SSL.
c) Assume your searches AND non-encrypted web requests aren't anonymous and secure.

If I were running the NSA or some other spook agency, I'd tap the pipes leading to Google (and a few other sites too).

Same if I were a dubious org/agency.

Lots of finance institutions/orgs/ppl get the bulk of their info from just a few sources e.g. Bloomberg. So if Bloomberg gets/sends the bulk of their info down just a few pipes... ;)

Re:I use Google at work (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126533)

Re:I use Google at work (1)

RealityThreek (534082) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126883)

So like.. you read this article a year ago and you are still inputting this so-called "important" information into a public form? Why do I think this post isn't entirely backed by truth?

Re:I use Google at work (1)

Eternally optimistic (822953) | more than 9 years ago | (#12127000)

Well, you are searching public information, using a service you are not paying for. So who has a responsibility to keep that secret?

Few women in CS. (3, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126303)

So, I'm always reading about how unfair the tech world is, because there are so few women joining it. But if you watch the video, the audience is surprisingly full of them.

Re:Few women in CS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126322)

Heh. Check the video at about six minutes into it. There's a really good looking blonde with rather large breasts in a green and white google shirt. *drool*

Re:Few women in CS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126482)

Yes, I found the segment at 07:28 particularly... informative.

50% female is the goal (4, Interesting)

Flamesplash (469287) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126980)

When google was recuiting at Georiga Tech they stated that one of their founders had the 'vision' of having half of google female in the near future.

One of the thecnical female googerls mentioned how that was probably impossible, but by shooting for the impossible you acheive a lot more than you would have otherwise.

Content-based search (1)

ardor (673957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126304)

I wonder when content-based search for media will be possible. Content-based image retrieval for example.

Re:Content-based search (1)

JCOTTON (775912) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126328)

I wonder when content-based search for media will be possible. Content-based image retrieval for example.
Waddaya wanna do? Draw a stick figure in MS Paint and have it find your next dream date on Frumster? In your dreams, habibi....

Re:Content-based search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12127014)

Google's been there already...
http://video.google.com/ [google.com]

Also...
Blinx
http://www.blinkx.tv/ [blinkx.tv]

Google & Backup (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126311)

I wonder how Google backups its data -- especially the Gmail data. Does the GFS support automatic replication?

Backups are for pussies. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126321)

Real men don't do backups.

Re:Google & Backup (1)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126376)

They cache it. For example, here's a Google cache [64.233.179.104] of Google [google.com] .

Re:Google & Backup (2, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126378)

Um... the data is replicated across multiple machines in the datacenter and then again across multiple datacenters, of which they have many globally. Not really a need to backup that data. I'm sure the gmail stuff is done in a similar way.

Re:Google & Backup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126654)

I work at Google. We do backups using Yahoo mail accounts as a distributed network disk.

Re:Google & Backup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126660)

That's funny. I work at Yahoo. We do backups using Gmail accounts as a distributed network disk.

Images of clowns (2, Interesting)

saskboy (600063) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126315)

"Behind the scenes at Google" invokes images of clowns and mimes. Is it just me? Imagine all the people in the world who haven't used the Internet, they probably would get the same impression from the phrase too.

Re:Images of clowns (2, Funny)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126354)


"Behind the scenes at Google" invokes images of clowns and mimes. Is it just me?


Yup - it's only you.

GFS (3, Insightful)

woah (781250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126318)

I've never realised that GFS was developed by Google. I've come to know about it because I was building an OpenMosix cluster. At the time OpenMosix had their own distributed filesystem called MFS. But it's proved inadequate, which is why they are switching to GFS

It's quite nice to see a large corporation make a contribution to Open Source, especially in such a "R&D-esque" field as supercomputing.

Who said that Open Source only rehashes existing technologies and never does anything new?

Re:GFS (1)

woah (781250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126363)

Oh and for those who don't it, OpenMosix [sourceforge.net] is a clustering software that allows for a network of linux boxes to act as a single computer. So, you'd use a linux machine as you normally would, but the processes are actually being migrated around the network.

It's quite a bit of fun to play with.

Re:GFS (1, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126392)

I've never realised that GFS was developed by Google

So what did you think the G stood for? :P

Re:GFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126430)

>So what did you think the G stood for?

gnu? godzilla? but then again, alls i know is that C is for cookie and that's good enough for me.

Re:GFS (2, Informative)

warkda rrior (23694) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126501)

RedHat has something called GFS -- the Global File System [redhat.com] .

Re:GFS (3, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126431)

At the time OpenMosix had their own distributed filesystem called MFS. But it's proved inadequate, which is why they are switching to GFS

I'm sorry, did I miss the point at which Google made an open source implementation of GFS? Last I knew, the only docs for GFS were the papers that Google published on the concept. And those papers (unfortunately) seemed to lack a few of the finer details of implementation.

Re:GFS (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126508)

Ok, I looked it up. You're confusing Sistina's (now Red Hat) Global File System with the Google File System. The two ARE NOT THE SAME.

Here's Red Hat:

http://www.redhat.com/software/rha/gfs/ [redhat.com]

Here's Google:

http://www.cs.rochester.edu/sosp2003/papers/p125-g hemawat.pdf [rochester.edu] (PDF)
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:m0TMQYgIlIoJ: www.cs.rochester.edu/sosp2003/papers/p125-ghemawat .pdf+Google+File+System&hl=en&client=safari [64.233.161.104] (HTML)

Re:GFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126563)

Yeah, I just realised this myself too. I was just going for a quick +1 informative, 'cause my carma sucked for months and months. But initially, I really did think they were the same. I mean, they are both distributed filesystems with the same name. What are the odds? ;)

Re:GFS (3, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126600)

I mean, they are both distributed filesystems with the same name. What are the odds? ;)

Considering that it's in vogue to name file systems with one letter in front of "FS"? About 1 in 26. The odds are even better if you discount commonly used file systems such as XFS, UFS, FFS, NFS, and JFS.

Re:GFS (1)

woah (781250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126768)

Yes, it's true, I had a brainfart.

As other people pointed out, and rightly so, I was wrong. I was, of course, taliking about the Global Filesystem (GFS), which has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with Red Hat.

But, I knew that, and was just keepin' y'all on yer toes. Just doin' mah job Mam, by helping the /. stay sane and alert.

Re:GFS (1)

woah (781250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126817)

* /. community

mediocre or no Linux support! (0, Flamebait)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126325)

Mediocre or no Linux support is what I find on the video link provided by the story. Why? I hear Google relies on Linux a lot. If this is true, why is Linux support very disappointing? The same applies to GMail, and oh, even Yahoo!

Re:mediocre or no Linux support! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126343)

Yahoo! use FreeBSD.

:-p

Re:mediocre or no Linux support! (2, Informative)

Servo (9177) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126370)

Like any tech company, they went with the biggest platform first. Gmail works on non-Windows browsers now. It just took them a while.

Re:mediocre or no Linux support! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126414)

Why? I hear Google relies on Linux a lot. If this is true, why is Linux support very disappointing?

You are kind of naive...

Re:mediocre or no Linux support! (2, Insightful)

drsquare (530038) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126586)

Why would using Linux within your own company have anything to do with providing support for people using Linux for a video link in a story? You'd have a point if the story was aimed at people within their company who were using Linux, but it's not, so your point is completely irrelevent.

Re:mediocre or no Linux support! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126826)

What about in addition to mentioning Windows this or Windows that...or even Apple quicktime this or that, a link was added for Kaffeine, MPlayer, Totem or any other Linux video player? Is that hard to understand/see? Heck...

WTFV? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126331)

Whoa, whoa.. it's hard enough for us to RTFA but now we've got to WTFV (an hour long one too)?

The average slashdotter has an attention span of 5 secon.. ooh look a birdie!

Re:WTFV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126599)

any chance that there is a torrent of this? i want to be able to save the video and watch it later. also i am on linux and dont want to try installing quicktime (tried once with very much anger and keyboard beating energy lost)

If I see another article about Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126371)

I think I'm going to hurl. Enough already. They're wicked smart and have an extremely overvalued stock. Great! Let's move on.

Re:If I see another article about Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126457)

I'm with my fellow Anonymous Coward here,
I propose that Slashdot be renamed Googledot [googledot.org] or at least have a Google section so we could filter this stuff out.

[conspiracy theory]
However, I think that a minority of Slashdot users (those with mod points) enjoy Google articles. I mean if I were to post something such as..

GOOGLE SUCKS

I would get modded down immediately.
[/conspiracy theory]

jeez, more goog fluff? (1, Funny)

t_parker16 (154804) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126417)

one word: short any rally.

here is a transcript of the first 12 minutes (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126464)

Here are the first 12 minutes typed out. i'm sorry i can't do the rest, but open the video and skip forward to 12:00 and go from there. i hope that these 12 minutes of my life typing this will save at least 2 other people 12 minutes of theirs.

(speech from this point...)
lots of people use google but i want to give you a flavour for what happens and what we are working on for our new systems and products. i'll focus on what are the interesting problems that crop up when you organize large amounts of information, like we do, and what you can do with lots of data and computational resources. i'll also talk about our engeneering organization.

google ha a mission statement that i like - to organize the worlds information and make it universally accessible and useful. we've moved from web searching to mail and news and searching books by scanning/ocr'ing them. this mission statment covers everything and means we won't run out of work!

a lot of our issues are to do with scale. we have 4B webpages with average 10kb/page, and lots and lots of searches per sections. it's a big problem but you solve it with lots of computers and disks and network them well.

dealing with scale comes about in a number of areas. hardware/network; what do you use. distributed systems; dealing with unreliable things. algorithims/structures; processing efficiently and in interesting ways. machine learning/info retrevial; improving quality of results by analyzing lots of data. user interfaces; we haven't done much on this yet but it would be interesting to provide new and interesting ways to naviage and refine the query by doing better things than just typing in new query words - i'd expect to see more developments in this area.

one thing we've made a decision about is that we tend to build on low cost commodity PCs. example setup: ibm eserver xseries 440, 8 2-ghz xexon, 64GB ram 8TB disk = 758,000. we use this: 88 machines that total, 172 2-ghz xeons, 176 GB ram, ~7TB = 278,000. this is 1/3x price, more cpu.

google was founded in 97 by two people at stanford working on interesting ways to use the search, but needed new hardware to do this. they'd go to the loading dock and offer to setup machine for other reasearch projects - but keep them for a while themselves to get work done. over time google was formed in 1999, and we've learned a lot since then - such as how to scale better and have good datacenter practices.

hosting centers were charging for the square foot, which is strange since their costs come from things like cooling and electricity so we got good at putting a lot of servers in one place. we know are very good at setting up large clusters quickly, such as our gigantic 2001 datacenter move configured in 3 days.

if you have that many machines you have to worry about failure. one machine might fail every thousand days, but thousands of machines mean at least a failure a day. you have to deal with this in software with replication and redundancy. one nice property of dealing with this problem is that having six copies for capacity reasons also means we now have six copies available for distributed application and load balancing. a lot of the applications we deal with are read-only, which helps handling so many querys easy.

the director... (3, Funny)

Stalyn (662) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126467)

can anyone confirm that Leni Riefenstahl [wikipedia.org] was behind this film?

Re:the director... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126489)

no... but I heard that she is working on a film called Triumph of das Google.

Pfffft. (3, Funny)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126498)

Thats no secret, it's pigeons.

Finally... (1)

DeathAndTaxes (752424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126517)

A /. article where we shouldn't hear a whole bunch of "RTFA" posts. ;-) WTFM? Dunno if that's as catchy.

Wahington? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126583)

it should be _Washington_

Behind the scenes? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126595)

Disclaimer: my opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Google, Inc.

That having been said, as a long time insider I have a pretty good idea about what really happens "behind the scenes" and let me tell you, both conspiracy theories crackpots and our slashdot fanboys are quite amusing, but the boring fact is that we are neither trying to take over the world, nor are we the best thing since the second coming of Jesus.

We used to be a very successful startup, yes, and now we are a fairly successful corporation. Yes, there are a lot of smart people working here, but don't fool yourself, "the most interesting challenges in computer science" are happening in academia, not in corporations. (Besides, anyone who knows Jeff is perfectly aware that he often tends to grossly exaggerate our importance, but to be honest that is a part of his job which he is doing really great.)

All in all, I love to work here, I thing there are a lot of very smart people here, but if you think that we are the only place on the planet where geniuses cluster lately, you are just not being reasonable. If you want to find real discoveries you have to look in places where people don't have shareholders telling them what to do. The point is that we haven't done anything new per se, only the scale of our implementations is unprecedented.

For example, in my 20% time (Google allows us to spend 20% of paid work time on personal projects) I am working with KeyKOS right now and let me tell you, this is what I call innovation. It was done in the '70s and no mainstream OS has implemented its ideas to this day so far. I'm sure that when after a decade or two a Big Corporation (be it Google, Microsoft, Apple, or IBM) reimplements KeyKOS, the Slashdot crowd will wet their pants screaming "wow, what an innovation!" completely forgetting that it was an innovation back in the '70s of the 20th century when Norm Hurdy et al. were working on it quitely with no buzz and fanfares. Please remember that "The Next Big Thing" is always an old idea but this time backed with $$$ and marketing. Please never forget it, or otherwise the people who are worth their salt will only consider you uneducated.

Re:Behind the scenes? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126787)

You, sir, are a condescending fuckstick.

Re:Behind the scenes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126849)

Pffft! Genuises? Hahah, give me a fucking break. You do search, buy out picture companies and take a year to add features to your crap email that I could have done in a couple of weeks, on my own.

Oh yer, and your search results suck.

Re:Behind the scenes? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126965)

Hey Phil, care for a beet tonight?

Mike

University Recruiting Talks (3, Interesting)

stevemm81 (203868) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126669)

Google is constantly giving talks like this at universities. I saw one at Harvard back in the fall.
They aren't really news worth reporting on slashdot, since they all contain the same content.

Equal Time (4, Informative)

DanielMarkham (765899) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126785)

Hey -- I love Google. Use it every day, and I think they're doing some really neat stuff. But this was an hour-long commercial for Google - -to me it looked designed to recruit from college campuses. While I think it's great that Google does this (it sure sounds like a great way to get cheap qualified labor) is it really new or interesting? Or even geeky? So we have redundant clustering, LISP-like patterns, and issues of dealing with BIG stuff. Hasn't the industry already done all of this, like dozens of times? You can't tell me VISA international doesn't handle this size data, or that General Motors doesn't have some of the same scaling issues. I read somewhere that Wal-Mart has one of the biggest computer systems in the world. To me the signal-to-noise ratio was out of whack to make it worth an hour of my time. Just my opinion folks.

the video is slashed someone post a bittorrent (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12126853)

i want to see it

"high-quality search requires" (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 9 years ago | (#12126920)

poses some of the most interesting challenges in computer science and information theory and application, database theory and application and some more. It is quite a nice wide area of possible R&D with great prospects for everyone, be them starters or veterans. And please don't say C.S. includes all that (especially since bashing if I.T. degrees on /. is so fashionable these days), it doesn't.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...