"Google Ditches Windows"

[FanIn80]

Google ditches Windows on security concerns

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.

“We’re not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort,” said one Google employee.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6...44feab49a.html

[Rathji]

Thats crazy.

Never would have seen that coming in a million years.

[FanIn80]

Yeah no kidding. This came completely out of left field.

Should be interesting with Ballmer speaking at tonight's D8 conference.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

And in what I suspect is a completely unrelated note, Chinese hackers announce they have ditched Windows as well.

[Mike F]

Article in PCMag discussing this:

Something feels exaggerated in the story to me. First, from all indications we have in published reports, the system compromised at Google wasn't just a Windows system, but a Windows XP system running Internet Explorer 6 and logged in as Administrator. In other words, it was a system on which no serious effort at security was made. Banning all Windows systems because of this is surely an irrational overreaction.

Google is a savvy enough company to know this, and also to know that Macs aren't, as the FT story claims, less vulnerable to hackers. In a targeted attack such as that which compromised Google, the Mac is at least as vulnerable. Google would secure themselves much more effectively and cheaply by using Windows 7 in a managed environment.

[Bill Bumface]

Doesn't Google have plans for their own OS kicking around? Maybe they get "hacked" while running Windows and then "hacked" running OSX, and then suddenly have no problems on new GoogleOS?

[Flaming Choy]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Doesn't Google have plans for their own OS kicking around? Maybe they get "hacked" while running Windows and then "hacked" running OSX, and then suddenly have no problems on new GoogleOS?

Yeah, i heard they had internal versions of GoogleOS for a while. Just seems like a good excuse to push the usage of their internal OS.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Doesn't Google have plans for their own OS kicking around? Maybe they get "hacked" while running Windows and then "hacked" running OSX, and then suddenly have no problems on new GoogleOS?

Yeah, that's what's been running through my mind this morning. I can see this turning out to just be an elaborate publicity stunt.

Windows isn't secure, we're switching to Macs!
Macs aren't secure, we have no choice but to use our own in-house OS!
PS: Our in-house OS just happens to also be available for free download, as long as you don't mind seeing some ads now and then.

[Azure]

Too many Google threads in the tech forum. Start a Google sub-forum.

Oh, it would be pretty funny if Google began using Apple products.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Article in PCMag discussing this:

Any article suggesting that OS X is "at least as vulnerable" as the XP system they described is highly dubious.

It would take a lot of work to make it that insecure.

But...

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.”

From original article.

Microsoft is closed, so they don't feel good about it. But OS X is better!
Sure...

Most web oriented developers are moving to OS X anyways (if not Linux) unless they work on the Microsoft stack. It's just easier to develop LAMP applications on *NIX.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by llama64

Any article suggesting that OS X is "at least as vulnerable" as the XP system they described is highly dubious.

No, I read their point as being that a typical windows system (i.e. not XP with IE6) is no more vulnerable to a sophisticated, targeted attack than OSX or Linux.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Mike F

No, I read their point as being that a typical windows system (i.e. not XP with IE6) is no more vulnerable to a sophisticated, targeted attack than OSX or Linux.

True enough. I misread the quotation.

The security reason is likely just noise - the switch is probably due to a lack of need or desire to pay Microsoft's licensing fees anymore.

[Hack&Lube]

It's not a Windows to Mac switch although employees have the option of using Macs.

They are mostly using Linux now.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's not a Windows to Mac switch although employees have the option of using Macs.

They are mostly using Linux now.

What are you basing that on?

From the linked article:

"Many people have been moved away from [Windows] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS."
“Particularly since the China scare, a lot of people here are using Macs for security.”
“It would have made more people upset if they banned Macs rather than Windows.”

Sounds to me like the majority of people there were already using Macs over Windows, with the Windows users now switching to Macs more than Linux.

I get the feeling I'm just picking up some deliberately laid-out bait here, but to just flat-out state that Google "mostly uses Linux" is a bit much. I'm interested in seeing what kind of recent documentation you can produce to back up your claim.

Edit: This isn't a Mac thing, so please don't respond in kind. I don't care which OS is being used. I'm just curious about whether or not you have actual documentation to back up your statement. I know Chrome is based on Linux, so I can very well see most of them using that... but I have never read anything that specifically states "Google mostly uses Linux" in any form that can be construed as factual.

[Hack&Lube]

that's what I've read from articles and interviews over the years, and I recalled sergey brin, the co-founder of google saying so also that linux dominated in house server and desktop platforms for employees. The entire infrastructure runs on a huge linux cluster. Remember that the Android OS is a modified Linux kernel as well.

I suspect the Macs are used more for the creativity departments

I can look into this more but this entire thread seems like bait too as most of your threads are ("hey look, here's android not playing flash properly")

[FanIn80]

Right. That's what I thought.

Moving on...

Google issued a semi-formal statement today to address this. They didn't confirm or deny it, but did leave a bit of a question mark in the air I suppose.

"We're always working to improve the efficiency of our business, but we do not comment on specific operational matters."

This whole thing smells fishy to me. Something isn't adding up somewhere. If all this is supposedly about security, then why are they commenting specifically about efficiency now?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Right. That's what I thought.

Moving on...

Google issued a semi-formal statement today to address this. They didn't confirm or deny it, but did leave a bit of a question mark in the air I suppose.



This whole thing smells fishy to me. Something isn't adding up somewhere.

I don't see what's fishy here. What's happening here is probably PR covering for them because an outright statement that they are dropping windows because they don't trust it's security is a libel issue that could harm business relationships or just be a legal headache given their position in the market.

If you read between the lines you can probably guess that they've been moving their own platforms for years anyway and this is just the latest step in weaning people away from Microsoft anyway. It's sort of like Steve Jobs saying this and that about Flash when he really just wants to wean people away from it also for the benefit of his own business as well.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by llama64

True enough. I misread the quotation.

The security reason is likely just noise - the switch is probably due to a lack of need or desire to pay Microsoft's licensing fees anymore.

While user client licenses can get pretty pricey it really isn't that much in the big scheme of things. Also, you need to consider the fact that they probably have purchased enough licenses for the company, so the savings would be negligent until Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7 would need to be upgraded.

I do think that they might be building toward creating an image of having a secure OS to offer businesses, so much more secure than Windows that they started using it internally before it was even finished.

[FanIn80]

Yeah, I'm really starting to think this is all just a marketing ploy.

Well... a marketing ploy sprung from a very opportunistic and public hack-job in China.

Edit: I read earlier today that Google uses something like 20,000 Windows licenses. That's a lot of bread.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Rathji

While user client licenses can get pretty pricey it really isn't that much in the big scheme of things. Also, you need to consider the fact that they probably have purchased enough licenses for the company, so the savings would be negligent until Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7 would need to be upgraded.

I do think that they might be building toward creating an image of having a secure OS to offer businesses, so much more secure than Windows that they started using it internally before it was even finished.

yep, they are probably working on an enterprise os or something.