Google Phases Out Windows O/S Over Security Concerns

Google Goes Mac or Linux Only

[incrediBILL]

Google says no more Windows, Mac or Linux only... [ft.com]

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.”

However, if you read between the lines it's also a company-wide effort to force everyone to eat their own dog food and make sure everything runs on Chrome OS.

When one of the world's largest companies goes completely open source successfully and others follow it could spell seriously bad news for future Microsoft profits.

But many employees were relieved they could still use Macs and Linux. “It would have made more people upset if they banned Macs rather than Windows,”

When Chrome OS is officially shipping, and the Android vs iPhone wars heat up to a fever pitch, I'll bet Macs will be the next OS banned just so they don't contribute to Apple's coffers as a matter of principle.

[hutcheson]

>When one of the world's largest companies goes completely open source successfully and others follow it could spell seriously bad news for future Microsoft profits.

I'm not sure Google is the first ... didn't IBM (or some national division thereof) do this, maybe a year ago? Or maybe that was just Office? (But look what happened to the retail price of the latest version of MS-Office.)

But certainly, when the companies that both are really, and are recognized as, high-tech start jumping ship, companies that want to keep up with the technology will begin to follow. There are a whole bag of dirty tricks that can be used to slow the exodus (IBM, historically speaking, knows most of them!) but this will cost the Redmond gang, even more than it saves for Google.

[tangor]

All of above possible. Just don't see it happening during this down turn (nor do I see MS getting any benefit). Just know that I am not going google, regardless of os I'm running. Trust the "do no evil" company less than MS. No disrespect to Linix (recently set up a box and have been having fun), but waiting for good tools ala Office...

Just means we live in interesting times.

[J_RaD]

of course you don't feel good about MS, you want to take them down.
I hardley think google will migrate to Chrome OS and expect anyone to be productive using it.

I'm sure they have some in house version of ubuntu.

I for one am sick of googles press releases and drum beating. Its old guys, you are a 1 trick pony, that starts fights you shouldn't have started.

[albo]

Would there be so much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth if GOOG dropped MacOSX or Linux? I think not... No rest for the wicked.

In Business Insider this morning, Frank Shaw compared it to GOOG banning Bing. Security reason? Maybe wrong premise.

[httpwebwitch]

I just hope they keep a few around for testing their apps. A dusty Thinkpad in the corner that people check once in a while to make sure Google Earth still works on a Lenovo with Windows Vista.

[incrediBILL]

Would there be so much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth if GOOG dropped MacOSX or Linux?

The Google employees claimed Mac banning would've made a bigger upset.

Weaning ourselves off virus ridden software is a good thing.

However, Google is, much like everyone else, just shifting into a false sense of security through obscurity.

When/if the OS demographics change significantly the hackers will start targeting Mac and Linux more than they do now and anyone that thinks Linux is safe is just waiting for a rude wake up call.

The OS usually isn't the point of entry, it's typically other apps installed on the computer like a browser, or in the case of a web server something like a vulnerable CMS.

[tangor]

'Nuff said. Been there with warnings too many times, for my MAC clients. (sigh)

Oh! Wait! I get bucks for clearing out the "few" virii that managed to hit them from PCs (yeah right!) but that's okay. Bucks in my pocket.

[CrustyAdmin]

When/if the OS demographics change significantly the hackers will start targeting Mac and Linux more than they do now and anyone that thinks Linux is safe is just waiting for a rude wake up call.

Don't you think Linux might be at least trivially harder to infect than Windows. I agree Mac and Linux are not attacked as much and that is sure part of the reason their users suffer less today, but I believe they are little more difficult to attack, certainly not impenetrable

The OS usually isn't the point of entry, it's typically other apps installed on the computer like a browser, or in the case of a web server something like a vulnerable CMS.

True. Acrobat and other cross platform apps have moved to the forefront.

[tangor]

The difference between linix and osx are trivial, and equally prone to hackers. Just not the "big market" at the moment. Just waiting to see what the interactive (ha ha) iPad introduces to the mix. EVERY OS is open to hackers... they just go for the max in service first, and when those pickings get slim will go for the rest. DO NOT DELUDE oneself...

[tangor]

However, Google isn’t forcing its staff over to a Chrome-only environment yet and some told the newspaper that they were relieved to still be able to run Mac and Linux operating systems at the company.

Another Microsoft rival - IBM - made a similar shift from Redmondian software in June 2008 when it advised its 20,000-strong techies to ditch MS Office and use open standards software such as its own Lotus Symphony instead.

So it’s hardly surprising to see Google walk away from its competition’s operating system. In fact, some might wonder what took the company so long to turn its back on Microsoft.

More info from The Register: [theregister.co.uk...]

[Hugene]

Good call, and it will save them tons and tons of money. I wonder why no one ever mentions that, Linux is free and M$ you must pay for. A company of techies should be able to maintain its Linux networks without problems and too much IT cost.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Smart move, Microsoft might do well to stop running their products like a monopoly with locked code when there are very strong open source alternatives that have a better security history. When an army of open source coders are available to very quickly make required changes a company like Microsoft will be more and more hard pressed to respond as quickly. Allowing people to turn your product into what THEY want it to be is a smart business decision too.

[J_RaD]

The difference between linix and osx are trivial

linux is linux

OSX is based on BSD, BSD is based on UNIX.

different animals, all together.

[J_RaD]

when there are very strong open source alternatives that have a better security history

again, better history because it has NO marketshare.
obscurity IS NOT security.

I could say BeOS has a better security history then linux and unix, does that matter? no.

[Andem]

Strange. I personally believe Linux and Mac OS X systems are typically easier to harm quicker and easier than a Windows system if you're sitting at the desktop. Both having more advanced configuration options, more powerful tools in /usr/bin and are very often left to the default configuration.

At least with Mac OS X, electronics store floor models are extremely easy to fubar, I've never owned one myself.

[graeme_p]

Linux has plenty of server market share, and a better security history there, as well as on desktops.

Furthermore, all open source vulnerabilities get disclosed, whereas a lot of problems with proprietary software get fixed quietly and no one knows that there was a vulnerability.

Linux is also not a monoculture, so infections are harder to spread. You might find a flaw in Ubuntu, but it might not affect Fedora, and it might be stopped by Mandriva's security checks.

There are huge differences in the design of Windows and Linux so I find "both are equally secure" hard to believe. The proportion of Linux to Windows problems is far lower than the proportion of Linux to Windows installs. The only security threats I need to worry about are browser ones, (almost?) entirely cross site attacks that leave my PC unaffected - and those I deal with by using multiple browsers.

@Andem: you can always harm a machine with physical access. However, if you can easily compromise a booted up Linux desktop without the root password or rebooting I will would be surprised.

[incrediBILL]

Linux has plenty of server market share, and a better security history there

Couldn't prove it to me with all the hacked Linux servers I've run across, especially those now under control of botnets attempting to attack my servers daily.

However, as I said before it's the 3rd party stuff that usually allows the server to be infiltrated but that's of little solace considering without all that 3rd party software the server is nothing more than a whirring box with a blinking light.

[J_RaD]

Linux has plenty of server market share, and a better security history there, as well as on desktops

you cannot compare a linux server OS run by an admin to a windows desktop OS that is used by an everyday user with everyday software installed.

[Edge]

Knee jerk reaction.

[J_RaD]

oh how just in time for this thread.

Antivirus company Intego today announced that it has discovered a new spyware application capable of infecting computers running Mac OS X. The spyware, known as "OSX/OpinionSpy

[macrumors.com...]

[physics]

I'm with Google on this one. Windows is the biggest security hole ever created.

[physics]

In early January, some new hires were still being allowed to install Windows on their laptops, but it was not an option for their desktop computers. Google would not comment on its current policy.

My guess is these new hires won't last long... :p

[J_RaD]

((insert marketshare leader here)) is the biggest security hole ever created

[Edge]

Google is the biggest security/privacy hole ever created.

[snag]

This is great news for us little guys. It's obviously part of Google's strategy to take down MS a peg, which makes me happy. It's pretty ridiculous that a decent PC will run you less than the cost of the OS and office. The monopoly has been used and abused for far too long.

I haven't moved a single one of my IT network clients to FOSS yet, for a number of reasons. Google's move will only improve the quality of FOSS options, and will make it far more feasible to give Microsoft the finger in the coming years. I cannot wait to do this, but the usability & reliability of the other options need to improve.

[J_RaD]

why should software be free?
Should programmers not be allowed to make money for their skill?

windows 7 home premium is $99
windows 7 pro is $139
Microsoft Office Home and Student is $139 with 3 licences putting that at $46 per computer.

these are hardly earth shattering prices for GOOD software.

goog's move is for goog, not for open source software. Don't think for 1 split second goog is the good guy here trying to save the world...its all about their bottom line and a move to hurt MS.

you are going to stand behind a company that invades your privacy and gives you their data mining trojen horse software for the oh so lovely price of FREE?

[edited by: J_RaD at 11:48 pm (utc) on Jun 7, 2010]

[walrus]

The damage from the most recent hacks from China and elsewhere may be worse than they say given all the Google weirdness lately. There move over will no doubt be frought with extreme technical difficulties. They seem to be having some with analytics, unless my clients account was hacked ?
Analytics is showing in German, Dutch or something.

[walrus]

Just noticed on the official Analytics homepage, the drop down for languages was defaulting to nederlands. Now its back to US English.

[trillianjedi]

It's pretty ridiculous that a decent PC will run you less than the cost of the OS and office.

I'm not sure I see that as ridiculous. I suspect the cost to build/produce/support/update those items is far higher than the cost now of producing commodity hardware.

So kind of seems right to me. The software is the value, not the hardware it runs on.

When one of the world's largest companies goes completely open source successfully and others follow it could spell seriously bad news for future Microsoft profits.

And everyone else in the software business. Open-Source was always a disruptive idea. It's not going away, either. Software companies have to adapt to new business models, or be an encumbent.