Google drops Windows from staff machines
Google's decision to move its employees away from Windows - for security reasons - will come as a blow to Microsoft.
As reported over on The Financial Times, Google's long-held stance that its employees should be free to choose whatever operating system they feel most comfortable with on their desktops will come to a sudden, screeching halt: while you'll still have the choice of a Mac or a PC, you'll have to run Linux or Mac OS X.
According to an un-named Google employee, the move is an official decision from the higher-ups that "we're not doing any more Windows[, as] it is a security effort" and that already "many [employees] have been moved away from [Windows-based] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS, following the China hacking attacks [against Google.]"
While Mac OS appears to be the operating system of choice - possibly for its out-of-the-box, pre-configured ease of use - employees are also given the option to run a flavour of Linux. Again, an un-named employee states that "Linux is open source and we feel good about it[, but] Microsoft we don't feel so good about."
The news is something of a disaster for Microsoft: with such a large company - and one seen as a trend-setter and trailblazer for the industry as a whole - making the concious decision to avoid the use of Windows altogether for security reasons, it could start to find its traditional iron grip on the corporate desktop market starting to weaken.
Do you believe that Microsoft has anything to worry about following Google's decision to drop Windows, or is this just posturing by Google as a response to Microsoft's rival Bing search engine? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Previous Article
66 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyQuote "Linux is open source and we feel good about it[, but] Microsoft we don't feel so good about."
So, MAC is open source to??????
Don't you feel bad???
It's just an excuse, i can hack more ease a MAC or a Linux than a WIN7 OS. Trying to hack a Windows based os it's like break into a house in a bad city, bars at the windows, doors with good locks. Hacking a MAC its like break into a farm were every doors and windows is open while the family is miles way doing the daily shop in their pickup truck.
Indeed, I was under the impression that Macs hadn't fared too well in recent competitions such as Pwn2Own.
Oh, wait, hang on, actually they do.
Cry "conspiracy!" all you want, but I know for sure that if I ran the NHS I would ditch all those Windows machines right now and use Macs only. Why? Because they are easy to use by a predominantly computer-unsavvy workforce. Because they are less easy to mess up by people who don't know what they are doing and hence are easier to maintain. Because you don't have to worry about all sorts of ideosyncratic legacy configurations of Elonexes, Compacs and Dells with different specs running different versions of Windows. Because the computers initially may be more expensive, but the subsequent OS upgrades are very cheap. Because they are compact all-in-one boxes, quiet and more easy to clean --a consideration that matters in a hospital.
Then I'd ditch the Office suite and go for something like OpenOffice (or at least iWork: £60,-- vs. £300,-- for MS Office). It's a no-brainer.
1. They do get hacked
2. They publically admit that they have been.
On the flip side though, if all their employees stop using the rivals products and start using their own, they can canvass opinion internally BETTER as to how they should focus development work. That's going to be invaluable IMHO....
Any bets for tomorrow?
I see this as a publicity stunt and nothing much else.
Plus I've never actually had a virus or been hacked (etc) from a Windows vulnerability. For me it's always been getting viruses due to programs *I* have chosen to install/use.
*Shrugs*
They already did say that.
l33t haxor cant even get past win7, oh dear
(posted from my mac pro behind a £2000 hardware firewall)
;)
Trololololol.
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.
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.
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?
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.
and obviously neither does Microsoft
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/06/01/windows-and-security-setting-the-record-straight.aspx
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.
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 ;)
Microsoft don't run OS X.
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.
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)
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*.
"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.
On an unrelated note, sounds like they're giving people a choice of OS X or Linux. I think that's pretty cool.
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. :)
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...
damn... and here i was expecting he was gone... ow well.
Sorry but someone has to tell you all to STFU and stop brainfarting!
So... if you define people that don't like microsoft as "anti-microsoft fangirls", what is your definition for your... love... for microsoft?
Just wondering what your definition of an "anti-microsoft fangirl" therefore is? (Since I use/used Windows with an open mind when I form/formed an opinion)
And also out of interest, which is your favourite Windows OS, Apple OS and Linux-based OS? And which is your favourite out of them and why?
I prefer Ubuntu to Windows 7, and the former is free. Win-win.
Plus Ubuntu *is* more secure, as things stand. That's not to say it has no security issues (nothing can ever be 100% secure), but as things stand it's more secure. And quicker. And free. Win-win-win. IMO.
Pandora's box is open... quick! get the popcorn!
If a Google OS fails, they'll still have search and their apps. If a Microsoft OS fails, all of their Windows only software fails too. Lets be honest, who is using Bing?