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."
Yeah, they can use "the Linux." I could see Google ditching Windows as a primary OS, and maybe just running it as a VM for testing purposes, but any article that doesn't give a specific distro they're moving to rates about an 8.5 on my bullshit-o-meter. Further, it'd be a staggered roll-out, I'm sure. Nothing worse for an IT department than having 20k+ employees needing everything changed. Until there's an official announcement, I won't hold my breath.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Moving to MAC and Linux that will eliminate security issues... oh wait?! MAC and Linux have security vunerabilties too? that can't be possible! hopefully i don't get banned from slashdot for suggesting that :)
personally i think it is easier to find vunerabilities in linux, as i can analyze source for bugs. but then once found it's kinda pointless, it's harder to find somebody using linux than it is to find the vunerability in the first place. maybe google will change that.
In any case now google is moving to a malware-proof secure desktop infrastructure they can lay off their security management team who didn't know how to configure Windows in an enterprise environment (despite it being clearly documented with step by step instructions on technet) including the plethora of freely available tools for auditing security configurations...
Now what happens to Google's quality control once they're unable to develop and test against their #1 target platform? (being collectively some version of IE on some version of Windows)
I believe this kind of 'THOU SHALT NOT' bullying by IT overlords tends to backfire somewhere down the line, particularly when there are techies and power users having their capabilities trimmed, particularly when those techies and power users are of the caliber that Google no doubt employs.
You have to remember, this isn't a general user that can rely on "OS is rare enough in the wild not to really be afraid of mass-reproducing viruses" which is the main reason why mac is considered "more secure" then windows.
Google's problems are with TARGETED malware, specifically tailored for them, not generic mass-reproducing stuff. For this, mac is arguably much worse choice then windows - it likely has similar total amount of critical flaws, being a large general-use PC OS, but amount of flaws that aren't patched/known to anyone but black market sellers is likely to be far higher then those on windows, as on windows, such flaws are profitable enough to exploit with large-scale infections, forcing microsoft to close them up on a regular basis as they come up. On mac OS, you can have similar flaws stay around for much longer time due to far smaller amount of general malware using these flaws. And to this date, the #1 way the flaws come out is through malware using them and getting snagged by honeypot machines on the net.
I would expect that when this rollout is complete, black market for mac OS zero-day flaws will get a whole lot more active then it is now, due to additional value of google likely having a mac machine in an important part of its infrastructure..
Therefore I find it rather strange that *strategic* choice landed of mac OS when switching from windows OS. Linux on the other hand makes much more sense, as google folks themselves can actually tailor the OS to their own needs, including simply sandboxing browsers and other software they deem "vulnerable". I can understand it as a kneejerk "anything but windows" reaction, but in the long run, it just doesn't make much sense.
Only a minority of their systems were running Windows anyway. They were half Mac and had significant Linux use also. With how Unix-based they are, I was surprised they had any Windows at all.
It is simply unprofessional to use Windows in 2010. There is no excuse. The switching costs on Mac or Linux are tiny compared to what you save in maintenance and training costs later and gain in enhanced productivity. The key is you have to let the user choose which one they want and then you can leave them be to work. A Mac is better than Windows for some users, and Linux is better for the others. Neither needs any significant training if they choose the right one. For some users, an iPad is all they need. I know a couple of business people who switched from XP to iPad and won't go back. They add WebEx and iWork and a Bluetooth keyboard and they're good to go. Ten iPad users can share a single Mac mini with 10 accounts on it for backup and OS updates.
I think we need a kind of certification that says "Windows free" so consumers can avoid companies that use Windows. If you give your personal data to a company that uses Windows you have basically given it to a botnet. Even in the Fortune 500 who have I-T staff and security add-ons they all have botnet infestations. They shouldn't be waiting until they get a class action lawsuit to switch to professional technology.
Obama?
Yeah I call bullshit. OSX is as evil as Microsoft if you're talking about openness.
Hell the cost of operations at Google would go up. They would have to replace their PC's with Macs (Expensive Apple Approved PCs) just to run OSX.
Run Windows 7. Its a hell of a lot better. MS finally got something right.
Its not perfect, but its far better than XP and Vista.
I think MS is headed in the right direction once again.
RTFM, they are not moving from Windows to Macs, they are offering Mac and Linux as options but totally phasing out Windows. And Windows still has security flaws and leaks memory like an old, wooden boat leaks water.
Exchange is $40K just in licenses for our employees. That doesn't count the enterprise license or the server to put it on. It doesn't count the AV license for it, or the managed service to prevent others from overwhelming it. It's not inexpensive.
We have remained on an old version of Enterprise because of this very reason... the CAL's are not upgradeable, you have to buy them all over again every time a new version comes out.
And no, software assurance is not the solution. All you're doing is spreading the cost over multiple years, you still have the enormous cost to pay.