Google to drop MS Windows internally
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: FREE Hummingbird whining template FREE for John Stubbings's use
Next: Message From Socialist John Stubbings: It's time for me to come clean.
From: John Corliss on 4 Jun 2010 12:51 Craig wrote: > Ars Technica author Peter Bright editorializes on Google's reported plan > to give employees the option of using either Linux or OSX... and phasing > out MS Windows altogether. > >> The net result is that fully-patched Windows 7 machines, especially >> running 64-bit software, represent a tough nut to crack for >> attackers. Assuming Google's system administrators are competent, >> modern versions of Windows would provide decent�not impenetrable, but >> good nonetheless�protection against precisely the kind of attack that >> Google is apparently striving to guard against. So banning Windows >> for security reasons makes no sense. > > <http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/06/mac-os-x-and-linux-are-no-magic-security-bullet-for-google.ars> > > > Here's the FT report that spurred it. > >> Google is phasing out the internal use of Microsoft�s ubiquitous >> Windows operating system because of security concerns, according to >> several Google employees. >> >> 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, which employs more than >> 10,000 workers internationally. > > <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html> > > fyi, So, the forthcoming Google OS can run on...??? Maybe they're creating their own in-house OS despite this: "In the story, the FT said that new Google employees would be given the choice between systems using Mac OS X and Linux. Windows machines will only be available with CIO approval..." There was this though: "Linux doesn't have the same organized development process as Microsoft�that's just the nature of a decentralized open source development effort. It does, however, have a range of complex and powerful security capabilities, if you elect to use them. The result is that by default Linux may be a bit easier to attack than Windows; conversely, it can also be made harder to attack." and this: "Where things get a bit weird, however, is Google's alleged decision that Mac OS X is a good alternative. Though Apple likes to trumpet the security of its platform, the reality is quite different. Mac OS X is easy, even fun to exploit. Safari, too, is "easy pickings" for hackers." and then, of course, there was this: "There are certainly reasons why Google might want to do so: Microsoft is in competition with Google, and so every user that Google can get off of Windows and Office is a net win for the advertising giant." Interesting article, Craig. Thanks. -- John Corliss BS206. Because of all the Googlespam, I block all posts sent through Google Groups. I also block as many posts from anonymous remailers (like x-privat.org for eg.) as possible due to forgeries posted through them. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please. Adobe Flash sucks, DivX rules.
From: Mark Warner on 4 Jun 2010 18:24 John Corliss wrote: > Craig wrote: >> >> <http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/06/mac-os-x-and-linux-are-no-magic-security-bullet-for-google.ars> >> >> <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html> > > So, the forthcoming Google OS can run on...??? It would presumably run on standard x86 hardware. Just like Windows, Linux, and now even Mac does. > Maybe they're creating > their own in-house OS despite this: The Linux-based "Google OS" that is being speculated would probably be more of a glorified terminal app with a fancy GUI that would access the Web and "cloud" applications. > "In the story, the FT said that new Google employees would be given the > choice between systems using Mac OS X and Linux. Windows machines will > only be available with CIO approval..." > > There was this though: > > "Linux doesn't have the same organized development process as > Microsoftthat's just the nature of a decentralized open source > development effort. It does, however, have a range of complex and > powerful security capabilities, if you elect to use them. The result is > that by default Linux may be a bit easier to attack than Windows; > conversely, it can also be made harder to attack." "The result is that by default Linux may be a bit easier to attack than Windows..." Utter bullshit. -- Mark Warner MEPIS Linux Registered Linux User #415318 ...lose .inhibitions when replying
From: Craig on 4 Jun 2010 21:11 On 06/04/2010 09:51 AM, John Corliss wrote: > > Interesting article, Craig. Thanks. My pleasure. We'll prolly never know why Google did this but I'll bet, whatever the reason for doing so, they take great satisfaction in choosing it... -- -Craig
From: John Corliss on 4 Jun 2010 21:23 Mark Warner wrote: > John Corliss wrote: >> Craig wrote: >>> >>> <http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/06/mac-os-x-and-linux-are-no-magic-security-bullet-for-google.ars> >>> >>> <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html> >> >> So, the forthcoming Google OS can run on...??? Actually, I meant software. The Google OS will be a web service IIUC. > It would presumably run on standard x86 hardware. Just like Windows, > Linux, and now even Mac does. > >> Maybe they're creating their own in-house OS despite this: > > The Linux-based "Google OS" that is being speculated would probably be > more of a glorified terminal app with a fancy GUI that would access the > Web and "cloud" applications. If you want to see some serious bullshitting, check out this idiocy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QRO3gKj3qw See this for a starting point about the "OS": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_OS >> "In the story, the FT said that new Google employees would be given >> the choice between systems using Mac OS X and Linux. Windows machines >> will only be available with CIO approval..." >> >> There was this though: >> >> "Linux doesn't have the same organized development process as >> Microsoft�that's just the nature of a decentralized open source >> development effort. It does, however, have a range of complex and >> powerful security capabilities, if you elect to use them. The result >> is that by default Linux may be a bit easier to attack than Windows; >> conversely, it can also be made harder to attack." > > "The result is that by default Linux may be a bit easier to attack than > Windows..." > > Utter bullshit. I don't use Linux, so I don't know. The author did say, "By default..." meaning with Linux's default settings. If course, Linux not being as big a target as Windows makes it hard to say for sure how immune to attack it is. If it were as constantly under attack as Windows, one can only speculate how well it would do. On the other hand, you would know better than I would. -- John Corliss BS206. Because of all the Googlespam, I block all posts sent through Google Groups. I also block as many posts from anonymous remailers (like x-privat.org for eg.) as possible due to forgeries posted through them. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please. Adobe Flash sucks, DivX rules.
From: Jeffrey Needle on 5 Jun 2010 01:16
You know, reading all this, it seems that Google is taking a big risk in assuming that folks are willing to compute in the cloud almost entirely. Has cloud computing become such a popular practice that enough people will opt for cloud-only computing to make Google's investment worthwhile? I'm skeptical. But then, I'm not a zillionaire like Google is... |