Slashdot Mirror
The IT Strategy That Makes Google Work
savio13 writes "InfoWeek published an article on Google's IT Strategy, which can be summarized as: 'Use customized open source where possible, custom build where necessary , and buy if it's not related to something that will give Google a competitive advantage.' The author interviewed several senior IT folks at Google and the article is surprisingly thorough considering how closely Google guards information about their actual IT environment." From the article: "Google managers tend to be reticent on the subject of IT strategy, they're loath to talk about specific vendors or products, and they clam up when asked about their servers and data centers. But a day spent with some of the company's IT leaders reveals there's more to Google's IT operations than a search engine running on a massive server farm. Behind the seeming simplicity is a mash-up of internally developed software, made-to-order hardware, artificial intelligence, obsession with performance, and an unorthodox approach to people management."
I'll follow that helpful (!) post up with a link to the printable version with all 5 pages on one.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Yes, if only Google had some sort of project devoted to open-source development.
Sorry to spoil your paen to Google, but Google did not actually develop Google Earth. That was done by Keyhole, Inc. (in the guise of their Earth Viewer application), who Google acquired.
However, credit can be given to Google in this case for recognizing when someone else is looking at old problems in new and innovative ways, and adapting their approach.
Anyone who reads all 5 pages of that article is going to learn more than just one new valuable thing.
I thought they also paid Andrew Morton to be full-time on the linux kernel, and that one of the head Firefox developers also worked at Google. Not that I really know anything about it, but my general impression was that the FOSS community did benefit quite a bit from Google.
1. If you'll notice from the article, about all they use that's open source is Linux and some compilers.
2. I run mostly MS software at my business, but the MS software that I run is highly customized. MS offers tons and tons of API's. Many more than most proprietary software companies than I've seen, in fact. If you want to find out more, visit: http://msdn.microsoft.com/
3. And, if you'll notice... companies like Google that use custom software to gain a competitive advantage certainly don't open source it.
I agree with your point. However, just to nitpick, your concept of NIH is reversed. NIH means to *refuse* to use concepts/tools that were "not invented here." In other words, companies that take the NIH approach would prefer in-house solutions to 3rd-party ones, not the other way around. So your argument is actually in support of NIH, not against it. wiki link
Are you certain they forgot? Or perhaps you are talking about something other than
http://code.google.com/mirror/gsa.html
which is the code they use on their search appliances that they are required to release.
But, you know, that might have been an oversite on your part?
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
AFAIK, the GPL specifies that *if* they distribute a modified Linux kernel, then they must legally distribute the source of the modified kernel under the GPL as well. However, using or modifying the kernel does not require them to distribute the kernel.
The GPL only requires releasing your source if you're distributing binaries. If they're using their custom Linux kernel entirely in-house, there are under no obligation to release it.
The kernel source used in the Google Search Applicance they sell is available, but of course no one outside of Google knows if that's the same kernel running their in-house production systems.
Web consulting +