Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Lizard, 2 Jun 2010.
I'd guess this move is more political than practical.
with Steam now on Mac, don't think it solves any problem by moving away from Windows.
if yo use a end point AV proxy on your network with a AV mail scanner/spam blocker like the cisco small biz device there is no need for anti virus on a linux/unix/osx network.
coupled with a propper hardware firewall/http proxy there is no point in AV scanning on clients, although we use clam AV on the internal mail server but that is just a failsafe.
its not smug, it just works, yes it is expensive compared to the cheaper windoze alternative and there are some (not many) things you cant do on a linux/unix/osx network but if you work around the security issues you can still run a biz without windoze, we have for over 2 years now, the accounts package was the biggest problem but we ended up building our own with filemaker.
dont knock it till you have tried it
There is another agenda behind this. Google is evil. I started using Bing today for the time. Reset my homepage to it.
Why don't they just run Chromium?
Microsoft don't run OS X.
Fact is that no matter what Google chooses to do, they will be slammed by commentators, bloggers, analysts and forum trolls alike.
And I'm not even going to start on about Mac OS X. From the comments on this thread, that's a fight I have got absolutely no hope of winning. Probably not even a slim chance of getting a cogent argument heard.
As if you needed any more, have some rep.
The linked article makes no sense, it sounds more like a cost cutting measure or something to reduce maintenance rather than a security issue.
Good for Google. I for one welcome a large organisation publicly ditching Windows or any Microsoft product. Almost nothing they have done since Vista has impressed me and they just seem to be constantly playing catchup - too large to move as swiftly as its potential customers. It'll be good for MS to lose marketshare - at least 50% of it. It'll force them to try harder, force them to think about whether re-packaging Vista with a couple of UI tweaks and slapping a £100-£200 price tag on it was really a good idea. Maybe reconsider the idea of having half a dozen different editions of the same OS with arbitrary limits placed on the cheaper ones.
You can say what you like about Apple, but when they decided to release a faster version of Leopard with mostly "under the hood" changes, it only cost £30 for a full-featured version. The hardware may be more expensive but now that I have one, I can safely say it has been worth it. Now that Steam has arrived on the Mac, I feel that my days using Windows at home are numbered.
As for Linux - it runs most of the big servers that matter (not to mention Google's own) and the desktop has seen a dramatic improvement over the last 2 years. It gives you a wide variety of choice for literally no cost and even if it wasn't relatively obscure, it would still be very secure given how quickly vulnerabilities are patched and that "UAC" cannot be dumbed-down like it can in Windows 7. As more and more applications make their way into the cloud, the OS underneath is going to be far less important, plus with the announced Steam client, you won't even have to live without games. To dismiss linux or the importance of linux or any unix or unix-like OS is a bit daft. (in my opinion)
straight kick to microsoft face.. no wonder why, cuz linux is more secure .. i myself on ubuntu
Ha! Google are hating Bing so much. Sounds like a backlash but there are probably a few things with getting rid of an operating system for employees that makes compatibility a bit easier.
P.s I completely agree with gavomatic57. Apple hardware is expensive, but the OS is cheap and nicer to look at. Linux certainly has come a long way too, Ubuntu has shot forwards in terms of hardware support. Also, Steam claims to be 5x more efficient on Mac compared to Windows *shocked face*.
Seems silly to me, but that's only because I can only really see myself professionally working on Windows or Linux
Ubuntu Interface and software library is growing rapidly.. more users are switching to linux and people are working on techniques to make softwares compatible to ubuntu.
Nexxo wins the thread. This is an entirely justifiable move from Google and I'm sure many of you would do the same if you shared their knowledge of the Microsoft OS and the security concerns and requirements that they must deal with.
unix based os's are the only way forward
Just Google starting a pissing contest and nothing more, the anti-microsoft fangirls here just took the bait hook, line and sinker!
"Let's encourage the world of business to move away from the No1 product and then pay extra for something that won't be as secure, just that not too many hackers bother with it!"
Yes, I'm sure the Google shareholders won't be giving it the nod of approval when the bill comes and it's proved that Google has a moon sized omelette on it's face!
And as to the Nexxo comments, spoken with the same anti-microsoft drivel as the Google PR (Why is it these people don't want to be named) employees.
There ya go.
It's like the early 90's, all over again... 50p says I can pee further up the urinal than you.
I think you're probably right. Just wonder if an OS change is actually something which would protect from a direct attack from a sophisticated hacker, like the Chinese government. At that point is there really a sizable difference between the security of one OS or another? Just looking at coverage from events like Pwn2Own it would seem that a dedicated attacker with a fair amount of resources will have his/her way regardless. I won't claim to know much about hacking, but I do know that a lot of money and a lot of determination gets you almost everywhere.
On an unrelated note, sounds like they're giving people a choice of OS X or Linux. I think that's pretty cool.
Well, I think there are a couple ways to look at it. Is the knowledge and tools for hacking Windows more prevalent? Most definitely. Would MacOS/Linux hold up better under attack using the equivalent knowledge and tools? I don't know, but I'm don't think this is a 'PR stunt' by Google (contrary to the majority of the replies in this topic).
For a company that big to go about changing so much of their IT infrastructure, which even ignoring staff training is still a momentously huge task, they must have good reason.
This whole thing reminds of a funny analogy I heard on the internet somewhere. They described the difference between Windows and MacOS security like so: Windows is a house with the best security system, bars on the windows and doors and a mean dog, but it's in a horrible neighbourhood. MacOS is a house with all the windows and doors wide open but it's in the middle of nowhere.
Make of that what you will.
Google's servers are all running linux, so far from being a pissing contest, it makes good sense to be working on the same platform that provides the bulk of their income. Their bread & butter is web applications and search - neither needs Windows and neither needs IE because they have Chrome. Thanks to Web Standards and HTML5, which IE blissfully ignores, a standards compliant browser is all you need to make sure your web apps look as they should - luckily Chrome and Safari both score 100% on ACID3. If something ends up looking wrong on IE, they simply need to flash up a message saying this browser is not supported, best switch to Chrome, Safari, Opera, Firefox etc
OSX may not be completely open source, but Darwin the UNIX system that the fancy bits of OSX run on is - to google that is a big improvement on the Windows environment. Safari runs on Webkit which is also open source.
They're still going to have a couple of Windows machines for testing apparently, but it'll be interesting to see what happens with the Picasa and Chrome binaries on Windows...
Separate names with a comma.