Slashdot Mirror
Google Reportedly Ditching Windows
Reader awyeah notes a Financial Times report that Google is ditching the use of Windows internally. Some blogs have picked up the FT piece but so far there isn't any other independent reporting of the claim, which is based on comments from anonymous Googlers. One indication of possibly hasty reporting is the note that Google "employs more than 10,000 workers internationally," whereas it's easy enough to find official word that the total exceeds 20,000. "The directive to move to other operating systems began in earnest in January, after Google's Chinese operations were hacked, and could effectively end the use of Windows at Google. ... 'We're not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort,' said one Google employee. ... New hires are now given the option of using Apple's Mac computers or PCs running the Linux operating system. 'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.' ... Employees wanting to stay on Windows required clearance from 'quite senior levels,' one employee said. 'Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO approval,' said another employee."
'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.'
However, they feel pretty good about a closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware? This sounds rather flamebaity and very light on facts.
The year of Linux on...
Never mind.
That may well be part of Google's intention. Microsoft and Google have long been trying to kill each other. Tech companies seemed to have a policy of trying to scorch some earth around their market -- pre-emptive strikes against companies that might move into their competitive market in the future. So, Microsoft spent large quantities of cash to kill Netscape and AOL. Google are spending much moer than they are earning on Google Docs to try to kill Microsoft's Office market. Microsoft are spending large quantities of cash to try to kill Google's search advertising market. And more recently Google are spending lots of cash to try to kill Microsoft's Windows market. Taking the pain of moving a lot of staff from one operating system to another sounds like another effort in that regard. They hit Microsoft in PR ("see, one of the world's biggest companies doesn't use Windows at all -- it's not necessary for business"), and they particularly boost Linux's desktop user base and market reputation (they also boost Apple, but Apple needs it less). Not to mention the extra 20% time that desktop Linux projects might soon be getting...
Windows, if administered right? There are new critical flaws found almost daily. Windows can be locked down pretty tight if you remove the network cable though. I don't think Windows has yet earned the security ratings that various *NIXes have. If I'm wrong, please show me.
I had a Linux machine I put up get hacked once though... I set up a machine for someone and told them explicitly, "CHANGE THE PASSWORD!" He agreed to. He didn't and it was compromised within two days. After that, though, it was all good. Linux seems trivial to lock down but perhaps it is because it is less of a target... or perhaps not. Time will tell. But the nice thing about Linux is that there are so many of them. Find a flaw in one, it may not apply to others and even if it does, it might require some tweaks to make the exploit work as needed. The point here is that even though machines could be compromised "as easily" it couldn't as easily be done using a massive wave of self-replicating exploits where compromised machines go on the attack automatically searching for more vulnerable machines to infect. The DNA of Linux has very healthy variations while Windows is a pygmy village just waiting for someone to kill them with the next "common cold."
Tell me... what IDE runs on ChromeOS? Where's the Emacs for Android? When I see that, we'll talk. Until then, I don't think that Google's going to be able to migrate it's most vital employees (engineers) to "eat their own dogfood." Might be interesting to migrate support staff, but that's not where the heart of Google is.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
This old myth has never been true.
Apache is more popular than the Windows web server, yet gets hacked less, which completely debunks the idea that being a market leader is the only reason Microsoft products are so shockingly vulnerable to attacks.
OS X is a GUI shell on a BSD layer on a Mach engine. Like any flavor of *nix, it was designed from the ground up to live safely in networked, multi-user environments.
It's an order of magnitude harder to hack than a Windows box, because of superior design. This has been demonstrated over and over for nearly a decade now, yet the MS fanboys continue with the silly drumbeat that Macs are only enjoying security via obscurity.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Actually, since all platforms are hacked at the conference, it shows that the Mac is the biggest prize.
More to the point, the weakness exploited was in Safari (in all but one case) and required user intervention in all cases. For Windows, systems were compromised in ways requiring no user interaction.
So it does actually show that a Mac is harder to "pwn". It's not like the time of pwn2own means anything--the hackers have all prepared their exploits and practiced them for months in advance.