Google ditching Windows for Linux and Mac

Google is currently phasing out Windows-based PCs, and switching over to Mac and Linux operating systems, according to the Financial Times.  Since the Google China attacks back in January, shortly after Google said it would end censorship in China, Google is removing Windows from its computers.

Google is no longer offering new hires the option to run Windows-based PCs, without the approval of a CIO, and instead offering employees Mac computers or PCs running Linux operating system.  Google was still allowing new hires to install Windows on their laptops, back in January, but not on their desktops.

“We're not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort,” said an employee at Google.  “Linux is open source and we feel good about it,” said the employee. “Microsoft we don't feel so good about.”

Long-term employees who wanted to remain using Windows on their machines required approval from “quite senior levels,” an employee at Google said.

Employees at Google have also mentioned that Google is in the process of switching employees to run their own products, including Google Chrome OS, Google Chrome browser and a variety of other essential products. 

Google was attacked back in January, using a remote code execution (RCE) security flaw found in Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP.  The exploit could be used to run unauthorized software on a compromised computer by tricking the user into visiting a webpage with maliciously code on it.

Google would not comment on its policies.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

China's supercomputer power grows

Next Story

Apple comments on Foxconn suicides; rumours of wage subsidies

104 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Here we go again with people claiming that unix or macos are bulletproof. Let me see, how would i produce more chaos? how will i steal more personal information? 80% of the market? or 20%? what to chose what to chose...
We need to open up an ebay account and pay a lot of money in it. That will be the reward for the hacker who creates new viruses on those two platforms every day for a month. Say dev contractor £600 a day?

No one has either a right to tell Google how to run their business, or should lose sleep over it if they ditch Windows in the workplace. That's a corporate decision, and you can bet they have good reasons to have made that decision. Nothing happens on that level without a lot of debate.
I run XP Pro for work, Vista Home Premium dual booting with PCBSD at home, and travel with a netbook running Ubuntu. If you're a guest at my house, your only choice if you need to use the internet is my Mac, running OSX 10.4. Every other computer is passworded, and I don't give anyone my passwords.
Have I gotten viruses on a Windows PC? Yes. I've never had one using Vista, but have in all previous versions from 95-XP.
Have I gotten viruses on a Linux machine? No, but I run an antivirus program on my machines - just to be safe.
A virus on my Mac? No. I do run an antivirus program on it, but it's never proven useful.
What do I do for a living? I work on, and sell computers. The biggest problem really is stupid users on a Windows PC, not Windows itself.
Pros for Windows: Almost everyone knows how to use it.
Cons for Windows: There are (literally) millions of viruses, and spyware programs out there that run in the Windows environment.
Pros for OSX: It's faster than Windows, and there are relatively few viruses and spyware programs that will run in the Mac OS.
Cons for OSX: The average user has never used it, and refuses to learn how to run a new OS.
Copy the pros and cons from OSX for Linux.
It's all a matter of choice what type of computer you use, and what OS you use at home. Work is another story. My work machine is Windows 7 ready, and when the time comes, I'll move to Win7 Pro (I already have the software & drivers ready). I can't do that before the company is ready to make the change.
Google making the swap to an OS that requires an actual admin to make changes is nothing more than good business. It may cut down time, and Windows can be run in VM on either Linux or OSX, so there should be no problem testing their applications.

They won't be doing this 100%, how else will they develop and test their applications on Windows? Virtual Machines or dual boots i guess...

Linux and Mac share the same Unix archetecture... its more secure than every version of windows except possibly Windows 7. Its designed to be secure. Now vunerabilities are in every piece of software created. Its easier for developers to work with. Its also cheaper to use, at least linux. MacOS must be for work terminals.

Ruciz said,
Its also cheaper to use, at least linux.

Except the salary differences between a *nix admin and a windows admin amount to the cost of the OS licensing, thus invalidating the claim.

First of all Oh pleaasee! Google can't face Microsoft in clean "match" for the OS market and they are trying to hurt them by playing dirty. The other thing is after all this time they decided now they should stop buying a competitors software? My third point is apparently their profits are so high they will license new software/hardware and by the looks of it their staff will need a lot more training. Why isn't this the great chrome os btw? Lastly, ALL software can be hacked. What's easier to hack? the software for which you have the source code maybe? Security breaches are no longer measured in number of security defects but support response time. Anyway you see it M$ is ontop of both.
My last concern is how will google software (cloud or desktop) be that efficient on the windows platform if Google doesnt believe in that platform at all?

Riva said,
My last concern is how will google software (cloud or desktop) be that efficient on the windows platform if Google doesnt believe in that platform at all?

Even though Google isn't using Windows internally any more, 80 some odd % of the rest of the consumer world still run it on their PC. Producing a substandard product would reduce consumer uptake (At least those of you who use Windows) and therefore affect revenues from the majority market share holder.

P.S. I'm not a Google employee, Linux user by choice, .

Edited by Gerowen, Jun 2 2010, 4:55am : Clarification

I disagree with this. I am a MAC man now, but they really could just upgrade to Win7 and be good to go. The flaw discussed was Windows XP + IE6? It would be quite silly to assume Google employees were using that configuration, IMO; but hey - what do I know.

This just makes Google look stupid. They had Windows XP with IE6 hacked. Yeah so a 10 year old OS and browser were hacked. I bet those machines were not patched, and the users were full Admin's on the box.

Who was in charge of security? Are they still working there? So instead of say upgrading the browser to IE8, which is more secure than Chrome, they decide to ditch all Microsoft products?

Windows 7 comes with IE8.

Lame.

http://arstechnica.com/microso...-ie8-is-the-most-secure.ars

rrode74 said,
This just makes Google look stupid. They had Windows XP with IE6 hacked. Yeah so a 10 year old OS and browser were hacked. I bet those machines were not patched, and the users were full Admin's on the box.

Who was in charge of security? Are they still working there? So instead of say upgrading the browser to IE8, which is more secure than Chrome, they decide to ditch all Microsoft products?

Windows 7 comes with IE8.

Lame.

http://arstechnica.com/microso...-ie8-is-the-most-secure.ars

actually, welcome to online development. as long as you support a particular platform,you should be running it also. the hack in question would have only taken one vulnerable computer. being a company that until recently has fully supported all the major os and browsers, how is it shocking in any way that they had at least one with xp and ie6 on it.

Considering how little Windows-only computers were used at Google (the vast majority of Google's computers run a specialized version of Ubuntu called Goobuntu and their web services run in Linux servers), I'm surprised this hadn't happened already. Hell, the only reasons they need Macs are for iDevice app development. They can run their Windows and Windows Phone development environments in a VM.

If Google is still using XP, they are ****ing idiots and shouldnt be using computers period. And if anything thinks this is going to hurt MS....think again.

This is all about Ego in my opinion. Google prides itself on being a trailblazer and now they have the opportunity to show the world they don't need MS. Google is not perfect and they have shown not all of their ideas work (Google Wave anyone?).

nubs said,
This is all about Ego in my opinion. Google prides itself on being a trailblazer and now they have the opportunity to show the world they don't need MS. Google is not perfect and they have shown not all of their ideas work (Google Wave anyone?).

Google wave works? You might not have a use for it but it is a very nice tool for online classes.

Google bad bad idea. They only got viruses since they were using XP (A 9 year old OS!!!) and IE 6!! They should stay with windows at least. It is a widely used OS along with OS X. So keep Windows 7 and OS X.

Google are just being like people who refuse to update their software so go for something completely different.

Good for them I guess, but their repeated referral to XP and IE6 is garbage. Using an outdated OS and browser (with free update) was their fault, not windows. Just seems like PR spew. Same thing will happen if they use an outdated browser on pretty much any platform.

I`m sure it wouldn`t have really mattered what OS was being used, if the attacker had the resources they could/would have found a way

Maybe this has more to do with the upcoming Google OS...!

Good move Google. Windows for a normal consumer at home is ok, but for a big corporation, using a safer OS really makes sense. As an added bonus they get rid of that old crappy IE in one fell swoop

The original article said "New hires are now given the option of using Apple's Mac computers or PCs running the Linux operating system." One needs to read this carefully. However I think the gist was that Google wanted to move to OS X and Linux.

They used Windows XP an outdated Windows and blamed Microsoft for that? IE8 already out. Why they don't install it? Or for god sake use their own Google Chrome.

satus said,
They used Windows XP an outdated Windows and blamed Microsoft for that? IE8 already out. Why they don't install it? Or for god sake use their own Google Chrome.

The reason is probably testing - I'm a developer, and I have to run IE6 to test in - why else would you want to run it?

LumpyCustard said,

The reason is probably testing - I'm a developer, and I have to run IE6 to test in - why else would you want to run it?

Testing would be done on a sandbox machine. Google employees were actually browsing with IE6.

Meph said,
One of Windows 8's new features is confirmed: a gob-smacking amount of security.

Yes, because Google got hacked....while using IE6....in Windows XP. Yup.

they are speaking completely crap!.."Microsoft we don't feel so good about"....oh well, someyear down the lane, Google may also feel the same..

guruparan said,
they are speaking completely crap!.."Microsoft we don't feel so good about"....oh well, someyear down the lane, Google may also feel the same..

I already feel that way now. I've blocked as many of GOOG'S services at the router as I can.

Oh our Mr *not so EVIL* Google CEO, how cunning you are, how business savvy you are, how full of BS you are....
Oh all you white knights of Googleplex ......

This is so hypocritical... If they want to lick Stallman's boots, they should say so.
Ditching Windows because IE 6 is insecure, and switching to OS X for security, is...well...a bad move, to say the least.

Aethec said,
This is so hypocritical... If they want to lick Stallman's boots, they should say so.
Ditching Windows because IE 6 is insecure, and switching to OS X for security, is...well...a bad move, to say the least.

It's all PR. Plus they want to push the idea of ChromeOS more and their meh services. It's got nothing to do with security, Googles just being Google and trying to stay in the news as much as they can.

They make no attempt to distinguish 9 year old, insecure XP from modern secure Windows versions like Vista and Windows 7. The pwn2own hacking contest winner 3 years in a row, Charlie Miller, said Windows Vista (3+ years old) is more secure than the newest Mac OS X Snow Leopard. It's pretty ignorant to move from "Windows" (which doesn't mean anything in this context) to Macs, considering Charlie Miller's sentiment. Windows Vista and Windows 7 have all the same security features as Macs and Linux, so this whole thing is dumb. They should try a modern version of Windows first, but I guess they felt the need to sling mud at MS and this was a good opportunity.

J_R_G said,
They make no attempt to distinguish 9 year old, insecure XP from modern secure Windows versions like Vista and Windows 7. The pwn2own hacking contest winner 3 years in a row, Charlie Miller, said Windows Vista (3+ years old) is more secure than the newest Mac OS X Snow Leopard. It's pretty ignorant to move from "Windows" (which doesn't mean anything in this context) to Macs, considering Charlie Miller's sentiment. Windows Vista and Windows 7 have all the same security features as Macs and Linux, so this whole thing is dumb. They should try a modern version of Windows first, but I guess they felt the need to sling mud at MS and this was a good opportunity.

Exactly, this is just a PR move by Google to oppose MS while tossing mud in their eyes. It was interesting that they were using all Macs at their I/O conference yet they were dissing Apple's closed off nature nearly the entire event.

Personally speaking, Windows is battle hardened, especially in the corporate world, OS X and Linux have yet to prove themselves on that scale.

Edited by Redestium, Jun 1 2010, 1:06pm :

"security flaw found in Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP"

Well, maybe if you actually updated IE

Maybe Google someday wants there Operating System to replace Windows lol. It would be hypocritical of Google to use Windows OS then. So maybe they are starting early to move away. After all MS and Google seem to be at war now so I guess they don't want to give MS money.

Not sure this makes sense on Google's part, or at least not for the reasons that they state. I thought Linux was considered less secure due to it's open source nature? And Macs? Sure, they might not have as many potential viruses out there as Windows machines, but that's not to say that someone un-savvy couldn't get it compromised.
I also find it interesting that the attacks were caused by a vulnerability in IE6. Why wasn't Google telling it's employees to use Chrome? They made the browser afterall, they should be confident in it's capabilities...

Intrinsica said,
Not sure this makes sense on Google's part, or at least not for the reasons that they state. I thought Linux was considered less secure due to it's open source nature? And Macs? Sure, they might not have as many potential viruses out there as Windows machines, but that's not to say that someone un-savvy couldn't get it compromised.
I also find it interesting that the attacks were caused by a vulnerability in IE6. Why wasn't Google telling it's employees to use Chrome? They made the browser afterall, they should be confident in it's capabilities...

Well, in those hacking competitions, Mac's have been the fastest to hack, and hacking is what they are worrying about supposedly. I think this is more about PR than anything else.

llol google employees running open office and dealing with a terminal. I am sure many will hate this woth office 2010 being so good.

Deihmos said,
llol google employees running open office and dealing with a terminal. I am sure many will hate this woth office 2010 being so good.

seems your jealous

Deihmos said,
llol google employees running open office and dealing with a terminal. I am sure many will hate this woth office 2010 being so good.

It seems that he doesn't know much about computing.

Why the heck would google;
1. Run windows XP? Hello, it's 2010?
2. Run IE6? It's still 2010, both IE8, google chrome and FF is available without any hassle.
3. Their people should know what links to click and whatnot in emails, otherwise you wouldn't be at Google? I mean come on.

LiquidSolstice said,

That's China's problem, not Google's.

Except that Google has been trying to get into that market, so it is Googles problem.

Interesting, they are migrating away from Windows because of a flaw in a 9 year old browser on a platform that is two versions out of date...

Their policies, that's fine, but I get the feeling its more than "security threats".

Antaris said,
Interesting, they are migrating away from Windows because of a flaw in a 9 year old browser on a platform that is two versions out of date...

Their policies, that's fine, but I get the feeling its more than "security threats".

It would seem so

Antaris said,
Interesting, they are migrating away from Windows because of a flaw in a 9 year old browser on a platform that is two versions out of date...

Their policies, that's fine, but I get the feeling its more than "security threats".

Its the old correlation vs causation argument. Its unlikely that "the hack" is the primary reason for switching, and something this dramatic is too big just to be a knee-jerk reaction. I'd say they were planning it long before they got hacked.

Antaris said,
Interesting, they are migrating away from Windows because of a flaw in a 9 year old browser on a platform that is two versions out of date...

Their policies, that's fine, but I get the feeling its more than "security threats".

My guess would be that they wanted to upgrade people away from WinXP, which would require a lot of license fees, plus likely a lot of new hardware, so when evaluating the costs of new WinTel hardware / OS upgrades, switching to Macs with Mac OS X, or switching to Linux, and being able to keep using older hardware, which has a lower cost, or even switching to newer hardware, but without the OS license fees, the security issue was probably more of a tipping point than the sole reason for the change. It also gets better headlines than saying they are switching because Linux is cheaper for them. This is a hardware + OS upgrade, combined with some old fashioned PR and a stab or two against Microsoft.

"Google was attacked back in January, using a remote code execution (RCE) security flaw found in Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP."

What? Arn't Google the ones who are pushing people to upgrade due to phasing IE6 out of its services?

SK[ said,]"Google was attacked back in January, using a remote code execution (RCE) security flaw found in Internet Explorer 6 running on Windows XP."

What? Arn't Google the ones who are pushing people to upgrade due to phasing IE6 out of its services?

thats all about business and $$
+ they are trying to make people get rid of IE and go for chrome

Edited by Varemenos, Jun 1 2010, 6:57am :

google, I stop using gmail. After "mistakely" collected the wi-fi data in Germany I cannot trust you. It is a security effort. I feel good about MS. Google I don't feel so good about

cpu said,
google, I stop using gmail. After "mistakely" collected the wi-fi data in Germany I cannot trust you. It is a security effort. I feel good about MS. Google I don't feel so good about

ahaha nicely said xD

cpu said,
google, I stop using gmail. After "mistakely" collected the wi-fi data in Germany I cannot trust you. It is a security effort. I feel good about MS. Google I don't feel so good about

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Google, I stopped using Chrome. Firefox I feel good about. Google I don't. Security effort

nifke said,
Now we will see an increase in Linux-Mac exploits and hacks because google is the target now

nevermind

Edited by 3rd impact, Jun 1 2010, 6:29am :

Kinda sucks for us Windows users. Guess it really does take 1 idiot to ruin things for other people. Stupid hackers.

Neopimp said,
Kinda sucks for us Windows users. Guess it really does take 1 idiot to ruin things for other people. Stupid hackers.

I'm guessing that you are a google employee who just can't stop using Windows, cause otherwise I fail to recognize how does the "switch over", affect directly to anyone outside google.

Meconio said,

cause otherwise I fail to recognize how does the "switch over", affect directly to anyone outside google.
it doesn't

Neopimp said,
Kinda sucks for us Windows users. Guess it really does take 1 idiot to ruin things for other people. Stupid hackers.

Oh yeah, just one. One... *ponders*. Fairly sure there were more.

Meconio said,

I'm guessing that you are a google employee who just can't stop using Windows, cause otherwise I fail to recognize how does the "switch over", affect directly to anyone outside google.

It is just another example of the exodus off the super expensive Microsoft proprietary stack. As more people migrate off Windows and realize massive long term savings, others will take notice. If they do not, and continue sending 100's of thousands or in most cases millions of dollars to Microsoft every year they will be at a competitive disadvantage.

Smart companies will invest that money in their products and people; not send it by the truckload to Microsoft.

Neopimp said,
Stupid hackers.
Hackers are smarter than you. You just proved we are because you use windows as your primary operating system and we don't. Google is making the right choice here. Businesses can't afford to lose data because of a virus. It would cost way to much for Google to upgrade to 7. Linux is free. Windows 7 is over fifty bucks a pop when bought in bulk. And if they've got over a million computers to upgrade, you're looking at over fifty million dollars down the drain. Plus, IE8 isn't much better than IE6 anyway, and everybody uses Firefox or Chrome regardless.


Smart move.

Edited by code_ninja, Jun 1 2010, 9:21pm :

sexypeperodri said,
no one can blame Google if they want a more secure system for their employees.

If they want a more secure system, they only need to upgrade to Windows 7.

Switching to Mac OS X or Linux won't make them more secure. Mac is just as unsecure as Windows (as demonstrated many times at the old MacHack conference, among others).

And the only reason people believe Linux is a secure OS is because not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it. It's a similar story with Mac, but nowadays, it's got a fair market share, so people actually try to hack it now.

MightyJordan said,

If they want a more secure system, they only need to upgrade to Windows 7.

Switching to Mac OS X or Linux won't make them more secure. Mac is just as unsecure as Windows (as demonstrated many times at the old MacHack conference, among others).

And the only reason people believe Linux is a secure OS is because not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it. It's a similar story with Mac, but nowadays, it's got a fair market share, so people actually try to hack it now.


+1

I'd have thought google techies would know this basic stuff. or they are playing dumb and making a point against MS by flogging the stereotype

Edited by guru, Jun 1 2010, 6:10am :

MightyJordan said,

If they want a more secure system, they only need to upgrade to Windows 7.

Switching to Mac OS X or Linux won't make them more secure. Mac is just as unsecure as Windows (as demonstrated many times at the old MacHack conference, among others).

And the only reason people believe Linux is a secure OS is because not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it. It's a similar story with Mac, but nowadays, it's got a fair market share, so people actually try to hack it now.


+1

This is just a stupid move, besides that... It won't really hurt microsoft as it's just one company who are already largely running systems with other OS then Windows and most people there are probably anti-ms anyway...

No problem, just a silly move by google. Not that osx / linux aren't good... I just don't think they made a great choice.

Edited by jporter, Jun 1 2010, 7:17am :

MightyJordan said,

If they want a more secure system, they only need to upgrade to Windows 7.

Switching to Mac OS X or Linux won't make them more secure. Mac is just as unsecure as Windows (as demonstrated many times at the old MacHack conference, among others).

And the only reason people believe Linux is a secure OS is because not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it. It's a similar story with Mac, but nowadays, it's got a fair market share, so people actually try to hack it now.

True, however, Google has some of the best programmers in the world, and they are all competent enough to maintain a Linux distribution, or even write their own. That means that if a security hole is found, then they can roll their own patch to plug the hole. They can't say the same about Windows since all they can do is wait for Microsoft to patch it for them.

The organisation I work for doesn't have the talent required to maintain their own Operating System and make it secure, so they entrust that to Microsoft, but Google certainly does have the talent, and it's probably a good business move for them.

MightyJordan said,

And the only reason people believe Linux is a secure OS is because not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it. It's a similar story with Mac, but nowadays, it's got a fair market share, so people actually try to hack it now.

I don't think you should assume that. Whilst clearly Linux-based OSs can be riddled with flaws, if you get a security based distribution which is being actively developed (maybe, in part, by Google themselves) I don't see why it can't be much more secure than Windows, and anyway, if not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it then that's all good anyway - it's not being compromised.

MightyJordan said,

If they want a more secure system, they only need to upgrade to Windows 7.

Switching to Mac OS X or Linux won't make them more secure. Mac is just as unsecure as Windows (as demonstrated many times at the old MacHack conference, among others).

And the only reason people believe Linux is a secure OS is because not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it. It's a similar story with Mac, but nowadays, it's got a fair market share, so people actually try to hack it now.

I agree. There is a reason why the military, banks and government agencies use Windows. A finely administered Windows deployment with Active Directory, group policies, Windows Update services, antivirus, etc is more secure and easier to administer than OSX or Linux. There is simply no other OS with the same experience dealing with malware and corporate environments.

Fixed this for you...

Charles Keledjian said,

I agree. There is a reason why the military, banks and government agencies are increasingly using GNU/Linux and ditching the super expensive, unreliable Microsoft Windows. A finely administered GNU/Linux deployment will 100% keep you from getting all the Windows viruses, Windows trojans, Windows insecurities, etc is more secure and easier to administer than Windows. GNU/Linux was designed from the ground up for a multi-user, connected environment, unliuke the insecure by design Windows with the Registry, Active X, etc...

There is simply no other OS which costs so much and has the same failings with security and reliability as Windows.

MightyJordan said,

If they want a more secure system, they only need to upgrade to Windows 7.

Switching to Mac OS X or Linux won't make them more secure. Mac is just as unsecure as Windows (as demonstrated many times at the old MacHack conference, among others).

And the only reason people believe Linux is a secure OS is because not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it. It's a similar story with Mac, but nowadays, it's got a fair market share, so people actually try to hack it now.

I don't agree that most people don't use linux. Probably most of the servers in the world run a linux distribution or a UNIX one. But in a domestic environment, most of the computers are probably Windows.

What should happen in the world of OS's is that there is no required proprietary software, as this then means people are free to choose their own. Some of it has to be there and should be apart of a "minimal" install, ie taskmanager, etc... This would help to block some of the wholes for people who do not use IE without the need of having to do it manually after the installation process, it should be done during it.

I also do believe that on launch of one of MACs OSs that they had to release a Service Pack within a Week because of the amount of security holes people had found in it.

Bullhead said,
Fixed this for you...

I'd love to see you eat every word in that re-edited post!.... Linux and OS X will have its share of issues.. when that happens.. i'd have a footload to unload on you! .. now.. GFUS!

sexypeperodri said,
Ouch. This will surely hurt Microsoft.

If you're so sure, why not provide evidence to substantiate your assertion.

Could it not hurt Google? Seems unwise to use OS's different than the majority of their target market. Less likely to detect problems. Not an insurmountable issue but it seems like a kind of arbitrary decision to dump Windows.

Majesticmerc said,

True, however, Google has some of the best programmers in the world, and they are all competent enough to maintain a Linux distribution, or even write their own. That means that if a security hole is found, then they can roll their own patch to plug the hole. They can't say the same about Windows since all they can do is wait for Microsoft to patch it for them.

The organisation I work for doesn't have the talent required to maintain their own Operating System and make it secure, so they entrust that to Microsoft, but Google certainly does have the talent, and it's probably a good business move for them.

I have to question that statement, given they couldn't manage to even upgrade their PCs to IE 8 or Windows 7. If you are running IE 6 and Windows XP and are supposidly one of the most technically saavy companies on the planet, then switching to Linux isn't going to fix the stupid.

Majesticmerc said,

True, however, Google has some of the best programmers in the world, and they are all competent enough to maintain a Linux distribution, or even write their own.

Maybe, but is that the best use of their time?

I know *how* to keep my building secure, take out the trash, mop floors, fix plumbing, drop cable, and farm my own food (in fact, I do many of things at home since minimum wage laws generally prevent me from finding hired help I can afford). Society benefits when I let those incapable of software development do the many non-software dev tasks I know how to do (it also results in less competition and higher wages).

It's well established that you don't need to be "the best programmer in the world" to manage a Linux distro - so if that's who you employ, why waste their time with such trivial nonsense?

Sure, people like to complain about the way MS, Mac, Linux are designed. The same people also complain about where the janitorial staff leaves the trash can after they empty it. In either case it's best to pick your battles.

sexypeperodri said,
Ouch. This will surely hurt Microsoft.

But no one can blame Google if they want a more secure system for their employees.


migrating is a bag of hurt, it will be far more painfull to google. besides as the article says, they have to start new people to manage the system

I'm glad to know that you people got all riled up because of my comment.

But the truth stands, Windows is less secure than Linux and Mac OSX.

sexypeperodri said,
I'm glad to know that you people got all riled up because of my comment.

But the truth stands, Windows is less secure than Linux and Mac OSX.


Prove it..

MightyJordan said,

If they want a more secure system, they only need to upgrade to Windows 7.

Switching to Mac OS X or Linux won't make them more secure. Mac is just as unsecure as Windows (as demonstrated many times at the old MacHack conference, among others).

And the only reason people believe Linux is a secure OS is because not enough people use it for hackers to justify putting in the time and effort required to hack it. It's a similar story with Mac, but nowadays, it's got a fair market share, so people actually try to hack it now.


+1

I think google are just using this as a good reason to market their moving away from Windows.. After all they will be working on their own OS soon so its not going to be that hard for them to port users over after they have been forced onto the OS type will it?

Windows is still going to be a main OS choice and i dont think this will affect MS at all. If the google techs spent less time trying to pull users off Windows and worked on securing windows... Things could have been aovided. But hey now there going to be using an open source OS as their WHOLE coperate network... Hackers rejoice..

Majesticmerc said,

True, however, Google has some of the best programmers in the world, and they are all competent enough to maintain a Linux distribution, or even write their own. That means that if a security hole is found, then they can roll their own patch to plug the hole. They can't say the same about Windows since all they can do is wait for Microsoft to patch it for them.

The organisation I work for doesn't have the talent required to maintain their own Operating System and make it secure, so they entrust that to Microsoft, but Google certainly does have the talent, and it's probably a good business move for them.

Very well put... Call me naive but I never really thought of it that way.