Google Reportedly Ditching Windows 1003
Posted
by
kdawson
from the it's-ok-microsofties-use-bing dept.
from the it's-ok-microsofties-use-bing dept.
Reader awyeah notes a Financial Times report that Google is ditching the use of Windows internally. Some blogs have picked up the FT piece but so far there isn't any other independent reporting of the claim, which is based on comments from anonymous Googlers. One indication of possibly hasty reporting is the note that Google "employs more than 10,000 workers internationally," whereas it's easy enough to find official word that the total exceeds 20,000. "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. ... 'We're not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort,' said one Google employee. ... 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.' ... Employees wanting to stay on Windows required clearance from 'quite senior levels,' one employee said. 'Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO approval,' said another employee."
Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they feel pretty good about a closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware? This sounds rather flamebaity and very light on facts.
Unsurprising (Score:1, Insightful)
Probably the only reason Google used Windows to begin with was out of freedom of choice for their employees. Now that freedom of choice has turned into a liability, thanks to Microsoft's shoddy security record. No wonder they've finally decided to pull the plug.
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
Simon.
Dogfooding (Score:3, Insightful)
Even for testing/development, they can just run virtual machines.
neato (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MACS???!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
How could this be true? If the system is more secure, and the user is a constant, then it's no worse "when dealing with [...] targeted attacks".
Security updates are rare.
That's not an argument by itself. When's the last time you updated the walls of your house? If it ain't insecure, don't update it.
By the way, I'm no Apple fan. I just think your arguments are ridiculous.
Re:Flamebait (Score:1, Insightful)
I think they want their employees to do serious work, not goof around with a gadget all day. Remember, the only serious thing an iPad is good for is serious content consumption.
Re:I call bullshit. (Score:2, Insightful)
If that had been named in the article, I'd say it was a damn good possibility that they were removing Windows from any machines in favour of that. The fact that it exists, and that name wasn't used, pretty much confirms for me that it's not a legit story at this time.
Re:IBM is headed that way too (Score:1, Insightful)
...and Apple netbooks were an available option in some areas.
Cool!
"Getting a new Windows machine ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Employees wanting to stay on Windows required clearance from 'quite senior levels,' one employee said. 'Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO approval,' said another employee."
So what they'll do is get a new linux machine, and install Windows as a "guest" OS in a second partition. It's not that hard these days, and google is reputed to have lots of smart people.
Similarly, my wife telecommutes half time, and is required to run Windows XP at home. She talked to the nice folks at the Apple Store, who explained how to set her Mac up to run virtual OSs, and installed XP in a virtual partition. It works fine. She has since taught a few others at work to do the same, and they're all pretty happy with being able to run a real OS at home and only fire up the Windows that they all hate when they need to do some "work". She gave me her castoff Windows box, which is sitting in the corner running Debian linux and functioning as our firewall/gateway/server machine (and no doubt still listed as another sale to a satisfied Windows customer by MS's bean counters).
And all this is nothing at very new, as far as the computer industry is concerned. Back in 1980, I had a job at a company that mostly used their big IBM mainframe, while the engineers were playing around with unix on some of those funny new "minicomputers". I'd worked on both, so I had the fun of getting together with some Amdahl folks, who delivered their unix that ran on top of VM. We installed it (over a lot of dead IBMer bodies ;-), so that the engineering staff could run their stuff on the mainframe. After a while, the big 360 machine with VM was running at least 10 different OSs simultaneously, with each group using the OS that best fit their needs. Granted, there were lots of fanboys who thought their OS was the one that everyone else should be using, but we just ignored them and went about our jobs. Now it's 30 years later, and the "personal computer" part of the industry is discovering this fantastic new idea called "virtual" computing that lets you run more than one OS at the same time ...
Re:2010... (Score:5, Insightful)
The year of Linux on...
Never mind.
That may well be part of Google's intention. Microsoft and Google have long been trying to kill each other. Tech companies seemed to have a policy of trying to scorch some earth around their market -- pre-emptive strikes against companies that might move into their competitive market in the future. So, Microsoft spent large quantities of cash to kill Netscape and AOL. Google are spending much moer than they are earning on Google Docs to try to kill Microsoft's Office market. Microsoft are spending large quantities of cash to try to kill Google's search advertising market. And more recently Google are spending lots of cash to try to kill Microsoft's Windows market. Taking the pain of moving a lot of staff from one operating system to another sounds like another effort in that regard. They hit Microsoft in PR ("see, one of the world's biggest companies doesn't use Windows at all -- it's not necessary for business"), and they particularly boost Linux's desktop user base and market reputation (they also boost Apple, but Apple needs it less). Not to mention the extra 20% time that desktop Linux projects might soon be getting...
Wrong, here's why in this case (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry if this is trollish, but Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
Why do you think this?
From an overall security standpoint, you have:
No open ports by default.
Users who do not run as admin to run any software
Now consider targeted attacks as you mentioned. You start out with a more secure base that makes it harder to infect the system beyond a simple cleaning. Now if you are really concerned about security, what do you do?
Simple, you access all email and do all browsing through Chrome.
Why do you think Google would not do this? They could say "don't use Safari or Mail,app" and then they base all the use of the computers that spearphishing could come in on, in a platform they control and that they can update every day if they like. I'm sure they use gmail internally so it's not like that's even a switch.
They key is basing that all on a subsystem more resistant to attack to add to the layers of security. And the simple reality is, that currently there just are not a million exploits in the wild showing you how to infect a Mac like there are for Windows today. That alone makes it REALISTICALLY more secure, even if the platform still has vulnerabilities (which it obviously does since all software does).
Re:MACS???!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's first gone at pwn2own competitions because it's what people want to own. Duh!
Re:I want to see the long term results of this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows, if administered right? There are new critical flaws found almost daily. Windows can be locked down pretty tight if you remove the network cable though. I don't think Windows has yet earned the security ratings that various *NIXes have. If I'm wrong, please show me.
I had a Linux machine I put up get hacked once though... I set up a machine for someone and told them explicitly, "CHANGE THE PASSWORD!" He agreed to. He didn't and it was compromised within two days. After that, though, it was all good. Linux seems trivial to lock down but perhaps it is because it is less of a target... or perhaps not. Time will tell. But the nice thing about Linux is that there are so many of them. Find a flaw in one, it may not apply to others and even if it does, it might require some tweaks to make the exploit work as needed. The point here is that even though machines could be compromised "as easily" it couldn't as easily be done using a massive wave of self-replicating exploits where compromised machines go on the attack automatically searching for more vulnerable machines to infect. The DNA of Linux has very healthy variations while Windows is a pygmy village just waiting for someone to kill them with the next "common cold."
Not Surprising, but when will MS ditch Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every OS reaches an end point, not necessarily driven by only one thing.
Apple reached the end with the Apple II, Mac OS9, and moved to UNIX.
How is Microsoft going to break the legacy trail?
They are going to throw a chair through all the Windows, maybe?
How do you get rid of entrenched dispersed foe that attacks everything you do from inside your own OS?
How many tens of millions of user hours are wasted every year on WinPCs just with the security stuff, which still is NEVER enough?
My Guess: Never. They will Bleed Windows until competitors take their market share as users make the choice to abandon Windows.
It is truly a strange situation where the dominant player is also the most attacked and yet in the last 5 years nothing in security seems to change.
Re:2010... security maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
If they locked Windows up securely, all their employees would change operating systems anyway.
You have to get pretty draconian to stop a targeted attack like the Chinese one.
I hear Googlers enjoy having a network cable connected to their computer.
Developers on ChromeOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
You can run Office on a Mac. You can run iWork on a Mac. You can run NeoOffice on a Mac. You can run OpenOffice on Linux. Gmail or Zimbra can probably do nearly everything that they'd maybe need Exchange for, but I doubt Google used Exchange in the first place. Most of their engineers will probably pick Linux, and most of their "office droids" will probably get a Mac by default. A modern Linux or MacOS X desktop is hardly an Ultra5 with Solaris 8 with nasty purple CDE pretending XEmacs is a word processor.
Re:Flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprising, but when will MS ditch Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every OS reaches an end point, not necessarily driven by only one thing.
Apple reached the end with the Apple II, Mac OS9, and moved to UNIX.
How is Microsoft going to break the legacy trail?
Do you mean like when they ditched the 9x kernel and switched to the NT kernel? And I suppose there are still some legacy remnants of the original NT kernel, but Windows 7 is vastly different from Windows NT4 or even 2000.
Re:Flamebait (Score:1, Insightful)
Google can do whatever they please, if they choose Mac OS/Linux over Windows so be it.
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.' However, they feel pretty good about a closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware? This sounds rather flamebaity and very light on facts.
I think you've missed something. Read the sentence; they look at open source as a benefit and they feel good about it (Linux). That doesn't mean that the fact that Linux is open source is the only or even the biggest reason they like it. Obviously they also feel good about Mac OS X despite the fact that it's not 100% open source. Get it?
Corporations choose what makes sense to increase their bottom line. To that end, they think Linux makes sense. The fact that Linux is open source is just icing on the cake.
Re:IBM is headed that way too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the point you are trying to make but it really isn't possible to compare how Google and Sun operate. Very different companies, cultures, mindset, visions. And that's ignoring the differences in computers too.
Re:Not Surprising, but when will MS ditch Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest threat to Microsoft is currently FUD.
Just about the only thing which is likely to kill Microsoft is if they can't pry everyone off of XP which is an outdated, insecure pile of shit, which, for some reason, even people who know better seem to love. Even Vista for all its faults was better than XP, and Windows 7 is miles ahead of Vista. Things have changed quite a lot in the last 5 years, security wise and otherwise, but you're not going to see them if you don't leave an OS which is 9 years old.
Re:I want to see the long term results of this... (Score:0, Insightful)
"Windows, if administered right?" - by erroneus (253617) on Monday May 31, @09:52PM (#32413378) Homepage
Yes, such as is shown here:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA/Windows 7 (+ make it "fun-to-do" via CIS Tool Guidance & beyond):
http://forums.theplanet.com/index.php?s=a3272f47031ff9e8939bf662e3a7b7fe&showtopic=89123 [theplanet.com]
(Much of what's in it "principles-wise" & yes, tools-wise, can also be applied to LINUX (or other *NIX variants too like MacOS X + other BSD variants, Solaris, etc.) & e.g. -> There is a CIS Tool for them also, as it is a cross-platform benchmark for security analysis, and it's been highly rated over time by various sources in publications like Computer World & others also)
----
"There are new critical flaws found almost daily." - by erroneus (253617) on Monday May 31, @09:52PM (#32413378) Homepage
Per SECUNIA.COM it appears that currently the Linux kernel (not counting other distros with diff. softwares & functions + interfaces to them being diff. at usermode GUI shell levels either) seems to have more going on wrong with it than does Windows 7 for example (keeping it current version vs. current version here as to both OS'):
----
Linux 2.6x KERNEL SECURITY VULNERABILITIES CURRENTLY AS OF THIS DATE 05/31/2010:
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories [secunia.com]
Unpatched 5% (11 of 217 Secunia advisories)
(Again, that's JUST THE KERNEL/CORE OF THE OS ALONE (how much more would be added by diff. distros & their softwares/shells etc.- et al?))
----
MICROSOFT WINDOWS 7 SECURITY VULNERABILITIES CURRENTLY AS OF THIS DATE 05/31/2010:
----
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/?task=advisories [secunia.com]
Unpatched 13% (2 of 16 Secunia advisories)
----
Errors in both, but, less apparently in the current builds of Windows (7, Server 2008) than there is in Linux, and that includes Windows kernel/core AND ITS OS SHELL in this analysis... not just kernel's like Linux 2.6x shown above (there is most likely even MORE security holes in Linux, especially if you toss on GUI shells & Windows managers most likely, inclusive of diff. distros variations of both to compound that more).
(PLUS, AGAIN - This is a comparison of the "latest/greatest" cores of the OS too, mind you!)
So older versions of Windows, if brought up, would allow me to add on older versions of Linux too and their security problems too mind you (keep this in mind).
So, sure: There are "other older flavors" of Windows, such as what VISTA &/or Windows 7 + Windows Server 2008 are based upon, in Windows Server 2003 (& it shows some "holes" but, they're not that bad - for instance, there isn't any I can't really handle here via ACL's or either cutting services or usage of some features (not that I use many that have security vulnerabilities in them anyhow) but, once more - We're keeping this comparison CURRENT VERSION vs. CURRENT VERSION here only).
Both OS' turn up new vulnerabilities all the time, & thank goodness they tend to patch them quickly nowadays (within a month's time, USUALLY, from Microsoft but sometimes they have ones that take longer, but they typically seem better/faster @ patching, than say, Apple is... Linux has a fast patch time also!)
----
"Windows can be locked down pretty tight if you remove the network cable though." - by erroneus (253617) on Monday May 31, @09:52PM (#32413378) Homepage
Others from using the guide of mine in the URL have seen differently. Here are some of their testimonials quoted in fact
Re:I'd love to see.... (Score:4, Insightful)
While I have no doubt it's accomplish-able, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some pains in a department or another.
Re:MACS???!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
This old myth has never been true.
Apache is more popular than the Windows web server, yet gets hacked less, which completely debunks the idea that being a market leader is the only reason Microsoft products are so shockingly vulnerable to attacks.
OS X is a GUI shell on a BSD layer on a Mach engine. Like any flavor of *nix, it was designed from the ground up to live safely in networked, multi-user environments.
It's an order of magnitude harder to hack than a Windows box, because of superior design. This has been demonstrated over and over for nearly a decade now, yet the MS fanboys continue with the silly drumbeat that Macs are only enjoying security via obscurity.
Financials (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder what Google uses for an accounting package?
Very hard to find accounting programs that do not require Windows OS.
Re:Unsurprising (Score:4, Insightful)
"turned into a liability"
Windows has always been a shoddy liability. Unfortunately MS has an incredibly good marketing team, that can literally sell fridges to Eskimos.
Re:something wrong with TFA (Score:2, Insightful)
"Remember, the system that was compromised at Google was an XP system running IE6 and logged in as administrator. IOW, they made no serious attempt to secure it."
As a developer, the only way to use is XP is as a full admin. Otherwise you cannot do anything. This is due to the primitive security model of the OS.
You can run as a normal user on *nix and mac and use sudo to perform "dangerous" operations. Windows XP has no such thing, and UAC on Vista is worthless.
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure they're apple mod douche bags.
Re:something wrong with TFA (Score:2, Insightful)
This is very wrong. You can run XP as a normal user just fine and browse the internet, run regular programs that behave well, etc. In fact, due to the many programs being fixed to run without annoying prompts in Vista/7, XP is now easier than ever to run as a regular user.
Re:Rather late reponse.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That explains why they have no clue about whats going on.
Re:Flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:1, Insightful)
the only serious thing an iPad is good for is ...... err..... um, damn, I am sure there was one thing.....what was it, errr, phone calls?..... oh no sorry it can't do that, err, multitasking? nope sorry wrong again, I know video calls? sorry no camera......Oh dear running your favourite apps? No sorry again only Apple approved stuff. Damn an blast there must be something its good for........E Books? nope sorry.....battery life too short..........storage for pictures for my camera? Bzzzzt wrong again, no SD card slot, well at least it does not need someone to have a full computer........sorry wrong yet again, everything done via iTunes so you do need a full computer. OKI give up what use is an iPad really?
Re:Um . . . OK . . . we all care because . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you've got it backwards. It is Microsoft who are on a jihad against all things non-MS.
Embrace, extend, extinguish... remember?
Re:Flamebait (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:MACS???!?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IBM is headed that way too (Score:3, Insightful)
Everying f***ing time I hear somebody say "But I HAVE to keep Windows, for Visio!", I thank my lucky stars that I never learned that damn thing. OpenOffice Draw isn't quite as slick, but for 99% of the shit people don't think OODraw can do, the reality is that they're just to willfully ignorant to learn how OODraw can do it. And, bonus, I don't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of justifying keeping a $200 OS for the sole purpose of running one app of dubious uniqueness.
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that scary that you believe that, what's scary is that 3 others with mod points believed that.
An Ipad with a bluetooth keyboard would be a complete pain in the arse to use every day. Not to mention the tiny screen size, risk of theft and the fact that none of our software would work properly.
There is no decent alternative to outlook. Yes outlook has a lot of functionality that many business users need, a user may only need 10% of it but each user uses a different 10%. Between all the end users in a 50 person org at least 80% of all functions are used in Word, Excel, Visio, Project and Outlook. Your experiences are not typical.
Not to mention production software, ArcGIS wouldn't run, neither will Quickbooks nor will any of the other prod software we use.
What about printing?
Ipad's cant access file shares, are you seriously suggesting that everyone keeps all their work locally?
Enterprise tools (auditing, communications and collaboration, content control).
You cant even turn one on without another PC.
Finally we still have the gorilla arm problem when using the touch screen to do basic functions like open programs and scroll. Lack of multi-tasking is another big one, most users in a call centre open at least 3 programs (call tracking, inter-office IM and knowledge base).
Really, have you thought about this at all.
You cant make assumptions about office work based on your limited Ipad experience.
Re:MACS???!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it's easier to find a exploit for a Mac then Windows, there just aren't enough Mac's in the world to make developing one worthwhile outside a competition.
Re:Not Surprising, but when will MS ditch Windows? (Score:1, Insightful)
16-bit was before the botnet.
Windows 7 runs 80% of XP viruses. The most important feature was not to run the viruses.
The problem lately is not so much terminating legacy support as just continuing to ship the same old virus-prone garbage.
The 2010 Windows should have been 64-bit only with no viruses and an XP emulator for legacy apps that is an optional install.
The fucking iPhone has gone 3 years always-on with no viruses! Are you telling me a full PC can't do that?
There's no excuse for Windows 7, or for using it.
Re:I want to see the long term results of this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody who runs Exchange bare ass to the outside world is out of their minds. Any kind of medium length joe job or dictionary attack will take it down. Exchange isn't the only one. An ISP I used to work for used IMail for Windows as its primary client mail server, and it too was susceptible to these attacks. We played around with a lot of parameters before we went to a Postfix-Exchange gateway. The irony was at the time we were running our Windows servers are state-of-the-art (for the time) Pentium IVs, and both Exchange and IMail could easily be overwhelmed by dictionary attacks, to the point where the two Windows servers would become hopelessly unresponsive. I built a Postfix server running on top of Linux on an old Pentium II with 256mb of RAM, and had it feed to Exchange and IMail, and that little bastard just couldn't be brought down. In part I suspect that it was the crappy databases that Exchange and IMail used, which could be overwhelmed by a large number of queries, but in part I really do suspect that Windows Server's TCP/IP layer just isn't as resilient as Linux's or BSD's.
At any rate, building a Postfix gateway from a fresh FreeBSD or Debian install takes about an hour or two, you can throw stuff like SpamAssassin on there, and it works great.
Re:something wrong with TFA (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact that it is written "UAC on Vista is worthless" means the poster has no practical experience with UAC, that they've likely had to respond to one or two prompts and then just shut off UAC.
Follow me for a moment.
I'm running as a Standard User in Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit as I post this. If I do something that requires elevation, I'll get a UAC prompt asking me for the password of the administrator user defined on my system. Installation of a new driver or installation of a software package will cause a UAC prompt if elevation is needed, as two such easy examples.
If I run the task and enter the password when presented with the UAC prompt, then I am logged in as Administrator for the task that will run. I fail to see how this is fundamentally different that using a Linux/Unix sudo, except for not having to drop to the command line and enter a sudo command. Of course, if I click Cancel, then the task will not run.
Now what if I didn't run the task and I suddenly see a UAC prompt? Then I know for sure it's a program that is requesting elevation since I didn't launch anything, just to be sure I can expand the details. The task trying to run without my specifically launching it could be something like the Java runtime trying to launch the autoupdate, or if it's malware then it still can't finish it's task if I don't enter the administrator user password and allow the task to continue. In any case if I fail to respond to the UAC prompt, the default response after a timeout period is Cancel, so a task that may try to run while I am away from the computer still cannot run.
Re:MACS???!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
People managed to check email, schedule tasks and appointments, manage contacts and keep notes before Outlook came on the scene. There may no good one-stop alternative, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. Outlook is a bloated monster that, if running on its own, uses a horrible flat file database, and if running on a network, uses Exchange, which, when it works is great, but as anyone who has to debug it when it goes nuts knows, can be an absolute nightmare.
Sure. People used to communicate before email and mobile phones as well - that doesn't mean they did it as efficiently.
Outlook-Exchange is absurdly expensive [...]
If you seriously think Outlook+Exchange is "absurdly expensive", then you've little experience out in the real world.
Exchange might cost a piddling $100-$200 per user over 3 years. There's no shortage of professional software packages that cost over $10,000 *per user*, to say nothing of things like Oracle that cost ca. $40k per CPU socket. Heck, smoking breaks probably cost the typical employer more per year than their Exchange environment.
In context, Exchange (or, indeed, pretty much all Microsoft software) is not expensive.
For us its pure economics. With limited budgets and the need to expand, we're between a rock and a hard place, and if it means moving to a somewhat less convenient web-based mail/scheduling system, well, that's just the way it will be.
If your employer can't afford Exchange CALs, you've got much, much bigger things to be worried about.
Re:Skepticism warranted? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows has little use on the desktop. (Score:4, Insightful)
As a network/systems administrator, Windows has little to no use left on the desktop any longer.
Compared to alternatives (and there are many!) common Windows machines on the desktops are costly and relatively expensive to maintain (in terms of manpower and infrastructure): you've got complex SUS arrangements (due to in-house app compatibility, usually), AD (same reasons, as well as work flow) and malware contentions - just for starters. Compare that to pointing all workstations at (say) a local Ubuntu LTS repository cache or updating from Apple. A lot can be said about Windows ACLs and its other underpinnings, but keeping things secure while allowing users to work is not one of them.
Additionally, the time and (domain) knowledge required to roll a minimalist Linux distro vs. a minimalist, locked-down Windows install (ie a 'thinclient image') is significantly different. With one, you've got a maintainable minimalist system that uses negligible resources to update; the other is pretty much a custom hack which will require significant efforts to update. I'll let you figure which is which.
The average user uses no more than 3 or 4 applications in a large environment, from what I've seen. There aren't many people who multi-role: they've got their own world and aside from a web browser, might touch one or two apps on a given day. For these apps, you've got things like Citrix Presentation Server or Windows Server 2008 remote applications. Centralize the common stuff when you can, so it's easier to maintain, update, etc.
As for Google, my experience has been (with the technical crowd) that those actually developing for Open Source type environments, having your development environment be similar to your production environment is a wee bit helpful. Aside form things like Picasa, I can't see much of a need for Windows; indeed, there's likely not even a preference for Windows at Google, short of the occasional mathematician. The yuppie post-graduate degreed geek seems to prefer Apple.
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
> Remember, the only serious thing an iPad is good > for is serious content consumption
Bullshit. You add an accessory Bluetooth keyboard and it turns into a PC replacement that easily replaces XP for most users.
You can't zip up and send files
You can't receive and unzip files
You can't print
You can't connect any usb devices
Useless encryption
No decent audio/video/image editing
No Flash/Silverlight
No Java Applets
You can't even activate it without a PC
The only thing that's Bullshit is your idea that the average user does not need/want to do any of the above things.
Re:Not Surprising, but when will MS ditch Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)
Kernel aside, Windows 7 still has tremendous amounts of Legacy kruft behind it. The Registry is still just about the least secure and safe idea ever. NTFS is badly in need of modernization. The hardcoded folder hierarchies that underlie how Windows 7 handles files is amazingly archaic. I remember renaming and moving folders around willy-nilly in OS7 in 92. 18 years later, renaming a folder in Windows is just begging everything to break. They're up to about 60 control panels, since they can't re-organize any of them for fear of breaking other dependencies. When sharing a folder in Windows 7 you can share as a network folder share, a Windows Media share, or specific group shares, all with separate interaction points and methods. And have you looked through the Windows->System32 folder recently? Or how shortcuts are STILL handled?
Windows is a hugely bloated with old kruft that is holding it back from being as intelligent, usable, or spry as it could be. When Apple switched from OS9 to OSX, they wrote a compatibility layer that pretended to be OS9 within the new structure that they were creating. They created a little sandbox for the old stuff to play in, while they end-of-lifed it. Microsoft has traditionally added to their existing structures, so as not to break true backwards compatibility with old software. This can be fortunate... I recently had to replace a dying 386, and the software from the mid 80's ran fine on a new Vista machine. But at the same time this means fundamental properties of the operating system remain badly dated. Even small things like how the operating system handles changing icons remains the same terrible implementation that Windows 95 had.
Re:Developers on ChromeOS? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the developers/engineers are forced to "eat their own dogfood", we'll probably just end up with a ChromeOS that's just as bloated as Ubuntu or Windows...
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MACS???!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, since all platforms are hacked at the conference, it shows that the Mac is the biggest prize.
More to the point, the weakness exploited was in Safari (in all but one case) and required user intervention in all cases. For Windows, systems were compromised in ways requiring no user interaction.
So it does actually show that a Mac is harder to "pwn". It's not like the time of pwn2own means anything--the hackers have all prepared their exploits and practiced them for months in advance.
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
Aaaand ... after reading TFA, it confirms ChromeOS,
Google is a software and software services company.
They can't substantially eliminate Windows if they want to develop software for Windows, and they can't substantially replace Macs and Windows PC-s with Chrome OS if their designers want to run Photoshop and co.
Re:Flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
A friend of mine was likewise very excited about the DAW-controlling possibilities, until I pointed out that he could already buy a 19" touch screen for less than £200 and make a custom Logic environment or three. This has been an option for years, and very few people have gone for it... Maybe a lot of creatives just like to have their tools pre-configured and aggressively sold at them. Not completely unreasonable, but that's one heck of a premium. And this is the same guy I've spent hours with drawing spaghetti in Max/MSP to design new performance rigs... I can see a few advantages to the iPad (portability, ability to move more than one fader at a time,) but it's hardly a revolutionary step. It seems like yet another "this is the shiny new thing that will make your studio PERFECT!" On closer inspection the main thing that's "new" is the branding and support. Yes that is worth something. But I'll be buying a bigger touchscreen, and spending the change on another guitar or something.
Re:Flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
$100-$200 per user is super expensive compared to $0 per user. Have 200 employees, just for the exchange licesnse we are talking over $20,000 a year. Not to mention the proprietary x.500 Active Directory, Outlook seats, Windows licenses, Anti-Virus, Intrustion Detection, Spyware detection, etc... Not to mention the other long term costs of being locked into a proprietary Microsoft environment. Vendor lock-in will cost you dearly in the end.
So, yes that is "super expensive".
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
You add an accessory Bluetooth keyboard and it turns into a PC replacement that easily replaces XP for most users.
Uhh.. Considering the very first thing you must do with an ipad before you can do *anything* with it is PLUG IT INTO A REAL COMPUTER, your entire premise is full of fail.
It can't be a "PC replacement" if you need to plug it into a PC in order to use it.
Re:Windows has little use on the desktop. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet Windows is not "cheap" or "easy" in the grander scheme of things. Windows is very, very costly in terms of maintenance and licensing (for starters).
As far as 'average users'... we're not talking about your downloaded Ubuntu CD, or whatever it was you tried and failed. We're talking about a themed desktop with a couple shortcuts to applications which work identically on Windows as they do Linux (whether it's native OpenOffice.org or Citrix Presentation MS Word). Even so-called 'sophisticated' users won't know the difference (except for the lack of a couple sysadmin agitations).
The average user, if you were to tell them that their KDE4 was an upgrade to Windows XP, would believe you. I've seen such assumptions made without provocation. The average user is a dolt when it comes to computers.