News Google drops Windows from staff machines

So how do they continue developing windows software? Chrome, desktop search, toolbar, outlook plugins etc

 

Actually he is right.
The attacks that Google are getting are not the malware that steal credit card info and all that crap that is aimed at the general public. They are aimed specifically at Google. Therefor, the OS is irrelevant. No OS is bullet proof. I think, that staying with the latest version of Windows, and ensuring that every computer in the company are fully updated (and not do "every 6 month or so, we update all the machine or re-image them with the latest updated") than it would be much more secure than an OS (MAC OS) that doesn't fix in due time, nor mention, nor informs about any discovered security issues.

Now as for Linux, well it is open source so vulnerability could be found, and exploited before anyone else knows about it, I am not saying it isn't a secure platform. Due to the lack of popularity of Linux, it is difficult to come to conclusion whether or not Linux is the most secured platform. But, so far it seams to be doing an excellent job and updates are frequent.

 

So you don't think that the actual way the OS is built has anything to do with it? Because Unix and Linux based OSes aren't built like windows, they are inherently more secure and gaining access to data is harder on those than on windows.

 

Handy then that they're working on their own Chrome OS, innit?

 

Google sticks two fingers up to MS huh. A PR stunt it may be, but this will do some damage. But then look at how much crap has hit the fan for MS over the years. And they are still standing. Gonna take a lot more than this to matter. Windows 7 is still the best all-round OS out there.

 

this is all very true, and because of the "uniformity" of configuration makes for a lot less hassle on the guys keeping the security software updated.

the only downside is for some businesses, there are just some things you can't do on macs.


a well-administered thin-client system for windows has about the same ease of maintenance and security, and slightly more flexibility, though its been a while since I ran hard cost numbers.

 

Getting the distinct feeling I'm not on Phoronix here.
Surprised that they are mainly choosing OS X, since that would force them to buy seriously over priced hardware for everybody. Linux would seem a much cheaper transition.

 

A lot of the Mac OS X code is publicly released under the Apple Public Source License (APSL). Apple build upon a lot of BSD code and contribute patches back upstream.

Can you say the same about Windows?

 

The unnamed source later stated "This has nothing to do with Google developing their own operating system and wanting to bash Microsoft a bit to gain favour"

 

The NHS pays an annual subscription centrally (not sure how much that is). Most of the £20,-- of the Home Licence Scheme is an 'admin fee' for having the DVD sent to you, and is independent of how much the NHS pays for the licensing in the first place.

There is not much that the admin side of the NHS needs to do on a PC.

I would favour that too, but the last Thin Client systems I saw in the NHS were abominable. They were slow and restrictive because they were badly set up.

 

seems like a pretty poor idea to me .. most of Google's client base will be running windows... don't you want to test your product on a system you clients will be using? #fail

 

I'm sure that they will have thought to keep some Windows machines around in the programming labs for testing.

 

If you think about it, Google doesn't actually make any Windows-centric software, aside from Gears (which will be disappearing very soon) and Desktop (do they even support that any more?).

Their main interests are their own OS's (Android and ChromeOS), their own browser (Chromium based on Webkit) and of course Web Applications which are about as platform independent as you can get.

No doubt they'll have a variety of Windows machines running various versions of IE, but that will probably only be for testing updates to Gmail etc. You don't need the entire company using Windows just for that.

 

in related news.. Symantec doesn't agree http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20100602/tc_pcworld/windowsmacorlinuxitsnottheositstheuser
and obviously neither does Microsoft
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/...and-security-setting-the-record-straight.aspx

 

Some great articles; I think they sum things up pretty well.

 

Sorry, but no. The vast majority of the attacks on the internet are designed to target Windows machines (simply because they're the majority). While it may be true that the user is ultimately what determines the integrity of the OS, Google employees aren't exactly the irresponsible/unsavvy type.

 

Roll on hackers all over the world turning their attention to mac OSX, should be interesting to see how long it takes for it to roll over and get blown apart. All those smug mac users who don't run any sort of virus protection etc might want to start checking over their shoulder!

 

That's a pretty vague statement, there. Perhaps you've got some deeper understanding than I do, but it certainly sounds like every Google employee is going to be moving away from Windows. Just working for Google does not mean that all the fine people in human resources, payroll and accounting, legal, public relations, etc. have any anything beyond a basic understanding of how to operate a computer. Being a l33t programmer for Google also does not mean that you won't slip up from time to time. For a company as large as Google it would be foolish to assume that their employees are invulnerable to attacks and deception simply because they work in a certain field.

 

Maybe too many employees were playing games...

 

Oh no, I wasn't implying that all of Google's employees were ninja-coders. The Symantec article in question was discussing computer users across the board (not just the staff members of technology giants), this includes teenagers, casual computer users, office clowns who send mass emails etc.

My point was, as a whole, I'd hope Google (and other major tech companies) would encourage better computing practises and the average employee would simply know better than the average computer user. So, in comparison, they should be more savvy/responsible.

Several times the Symantec article references attacks originating from phishing emails as their main example of User vs. OS, but again, I just don't think that is the problem Google is trying to get away from.

I may be wrong but I get the impression it's not the random phishing emails that is beginning to worry Google. While they haven't release many details, it looks like the attacks that encouraged them to switch OS's were more focused than that, more active hacks rather than passive emails.