# Google Bans Microsoft Windows Company-Wide



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Google Bans Microsoft Windows Company-Wide.

*Google has banned Microsoft Windows from internal use. Employees will be given the choice between Apple's Mac OS and Linux. Adding insult to injury, Google is also publicly citing Windows security problems for the decision and blaming Windows vulnerabilities for the China hacking incident.*

A very rational business-oriented decision! If only MS could have built a bridge from their outstanding research project OS, Singularity, to their application revenue stream then they might have been able to avoid this happening and the groundswell to follow. Time will tell. How will MS respond?

-- Tom


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

wow. wonder if that's a harbinger of things to come?


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Security concerns so they move to Mac OSX??? Nonsense!

I would take the Linux route, and assume Mac is a non-choice. Sad to see... I am moving more and more against Google, first the sidebar in my searches, now this...


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

And singular/ Midori is still out there... it a whole new kernal/ OS, not sure there is much that can be used in Windows... I have long believed Windows needed to be ended btw


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

read up a bit on this, apparently there will still be some windows based boxes in house, but they are aiming for 100% NON windows on roaming rigs.....sorta tossing down the gauntlet.......

still, curious to see if the chrome OS is all that and can handle the needs. Should be an interesting field study.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

loserOlimbs said:


> Security concerns so they move to Mac OSX??? Nonsense!
> 
> I would take the Linux route, and assume Mac is a non-choice. Sad to see... I am moving more and more against Google, first the sidebar in my searches, now this...


Google is giving their employees a choice of Linux _or_ Mac OS X. They aren't forced to take Mac OS X 

I'm pretty sure most employees will chose Linux, otherwise it would mean buying new computers.

By the way, this article is details it well.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/31/google-to-employees-mac-or-linux-but-no-more-windows/


----------



## thingamajig (Mar 5, 2005)

From the mouth/fingers of a Google project manager:

"Windows was a vector for the hackings that happened and so we're all being encouraged off Windows. Encourage means 'strongly expected to' for sales/business people and 'you will not use Windows' for anyone in engineering/operations. Exceptions are approved, but I have no valid exception"

While Linux is the primary choice it still has weaknesses like VPN and video chat. It also can't run some needed tools like Adobe Creative Suite.

Of course those who develop clients and API's for the windows platform will get an exception.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

thingamajig said:


> It also can't run some needed tools like Adobe Creative Suite.


In my opinion, CS doesn't have enough in it to justify the high price tag. Maybe if it was several hundred dollars less, but not at that price tag.


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Here's what can happen if you use a Windows machine:

Using Windows for a Day Cost Mac User $100,000.

-- Tom


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

lotuseclat79 said:


> Here's what can happen if you use a Windows machine:


That's what can happen if you use a*n infected* Windows machine. 

Still, that's just crazy! If I was told I had to choose between using Windows or Mac OS X as my primary work system, I have no problem using a Mac. The main UI I'm very comfortable with but the main adjustment I would have to make is to the XCode developer environment. Other than that, I think it would be a pleasant experience.

Currently, I use Windows XP as my main work OS.

Peace...


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

The only time I use Windows is for testing purposes, to make sure web code I write works in IE8. Other than that, I'll either use Snow Leopard or Ubuntu Linux. So if I worked someplace that banned Windows, I'd have no problem with that.

(off-topic: Has anyone used the latest version of Ubuntu, 10.04? I really like the new default color scheme going on)


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hi namenotfound,

Yeah, I use Ubuntu 10.04, but I do not like the new default color scheme - I substitute the attached image after I boot up the Live CD.

Uh, oh! Looks like the Manage Attachments button is borked.

-- Tom


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

namenotfound said:


> The only time I use Windows is for testing purposes, to make sure web code I write works in IE8. Other than that, I'll either use Snow Leopard or Ubuntu Linux. So if I worked someplace that banned Windows, I'd have no problem with that.
> 
> (off-topic: Has anyone used the latest version of Ubuntu, 10.04? I really like the new default color scheme going on)


I really like the look of Snow Leopard especially after spending some time with W7 (stock desktop). I'm also running Ubuntu 10.04 and despite some minor quirks, I'm digging it. :up:

Tom, I WAS able to post a screenshot a few minutes ago so I'm not sure why you're having problems.

EDIT: With regard to IE8 testing, have you found many issues with page compatibility? I used to do a LOT more IE8 testing than I do now but since I found IE8 renders the pages I work on the same as Firefox, Opera, and Chrome, I do far less testing in IE8 than I probably should.  LOL

Peace...


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

I tend to only test IE when I'm doing something majorly new (like when I switch my video content to HTML 5's element). I tested in IE8 because of "something majorly new." Sucks that IE8 doesn't support this type of video technology. And I remember screaming at my computer screen "stupid microsoft, when is IE9 coming out, you idiots!"

Oh well...

Out of all the browsers I tested, only Internet Explorer and Flock didn't support

I *hate* KDE, but I installed Kubuntu in a virtual machine just to test Konqueror, and even that browser worked! So I can't understand why a so-called "mainstream" browser like IE keeps failing to keep up with the other kids on the block?


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

namenotfound said:


> I tend to only test IE when I'm doing something majorly new (like when I switch my video content to HTML 5's element). I tested in IE8 because of "something majorly new."


Gotcha. Makes sense.



> Sucks that IE8 doesn't support this type of video technology. And I remember screaming at my computer screen "stupid microsoft, when is IE9 coming out, you idiots!"


I don't think Microsoft plans any HTML5 or CSS3 support in IE8 and I thought I read somewhere that they don't plan much support for CSS3 in IE9, in lieu of improving support of CSS2 in IE9. I could be mistaken.



> I *hate* KDE, but I installed Kubuntu in a virtual machine just to test Konqueror, and even that browser worked! So I can't understand why a so-called "mainstream" browser like IE keeps failing to keep up with the other kids on the block?


You don't need to install Kubuntu to run Konqueror. I've got Konqueror installed and running in Ubuntu just fine. The Ubuntu installer pulled the KDE libraries Konqueror needs but I still use GNOME/Metacity as my primary UI.

Peace...


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

Since I hate KDE, I didn't want to soil my Ubuntu system with any KDE packages


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

LOL, fair enough. 

Peace...


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Konquerer works in Windows too...

If I were forced to abondon Windows I would be very upset, especially considering Windows 7 has proven more secure than Linux and worlds better than OSX at Black hat conferences.... Not to mention OSX was just a KDE like disaster too 

GNOME in Linux is fine..


----------



## jbm1991 (Sep 1, 2007)

namenotfound said:


> The only time I use Windows is for testing purposes, to make sure web code I write works in IE8. Other than that, I'll either use Snow Leopard or Ubuntu Linux. So if I worked someplace that banned Windows, I'd have no problem with that.
> 
> (off-topic: Has anyone used the latest version of Ubuntu, 10.04? I really like the new default color scheme going on)


Yeah I love the new colour scheme  and I also love that it detects all of my RAM and uses considerably less of it  allowing me to use blender to my hearts content. Unlike in Windows which is crippled by Blender.


----------



## thingamajig (Mar 5, 2005)

namenotfound said:


> I *hate* KDE, but I installed Kubuntu in a virtual machine just to test Konqueror, and even that browser worked! So I can't understand why a so-called "mainstream" browser like IE keeps failing to keep up with the other kids on the block?


It's not so difficult to understand. IE is still dominate in terms of market share and they intend to keep it that way. M$ will always be in the business of deviating from standards in an effort to lock people into their platform. I know of essential web applications for some business that will only run in IE 7 or 8. This forces those businesses to run windows and it forces them to run at least XP.

If you need to test on multiple platforms and your host is not Vista, I recommend Sun's VirtualBox. Since I develop for windows, I run 7 as the host but run the L(U)nixes, windows server, XP, etc in a virtual environment. Saves me a lot of time.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

thingamajig said:


> If you need to test on multiple platforms and your host is not Vista, I recommend Sun's VirtualBox. Since I develop for windows, I run 7 as the host but run the L(U)nixes, windows server, XP, etc in a virtual environment. Saves me a lot of time.


Why not Vista? I have had zero issues using virtual box in Vista and Windows 7


----------



## thingamajig (Mar 5, 2005)

loserOlimbs said:


> Why not Vista? I have had zero issues using virtual box in Vista and Windows 7


I have had performance problems on Vista.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

And I have had performance issues with XP compared to Vista/ 7... I would still not tell someone "as long as its not XP" for something that is entirely functional.


----------



## thingamajig (Mar 5, 2005)

loserOlimbs said:


> And I have had performance issues with XP compared to Vista/ 7... I would still not tell someone "as long as its not XP" for something that is entirely functional.


Fair enough. I haven't even tried VirtualBox in XP.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

I was just confused on why the statement, thanks for the clarification.

For the record, after using Vista and 7, and then going back to XP... I really don't like XP


----------



## thingamajig (Mar 5, 2005)

loserOlimbs said:


> I was just confused on why the statement, thanks for the clarification.
> 
> For the record, after using Vista and 7, and then going back to XP... I really don't like XP


I agree. But I would say 7 is the first MS OS that I don't mind having to use.


----------



## catlover2 (Sep 29, 2009)

namenotfound said:


> (off-topic: Has anyone used the latest version of Ubuntu, 10.04? I really like the new default color scheme going on)


yes...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

loserOlimbs said:


> Konquerer works in Windows too...


But you still have to drag the KDE "baggage" namenotfound hates with you. 



> If I were forced to abondon Windows I would be very upset, especially considering Windows 7 has proven more secure than Linux and worlds better than OSX at Black hat conferences....


Got a link?



> Not to mention OSX was just a KDE like disaster too


What are you talking about? OS X is nothing like KDE. KDE is wanting and trying to be like Windows far more than any other desktop environment I've seen on *nix/Linux.

Peace...


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

tomdkat said:


> Got a link?
> 
> Peace...


that was my initial reaction as well. Then I got thinking.......never a good idea.

Windows, with all it's flavors, sorta dominates the OS industry, and has for quite some time. Simply by being the biggest kid on the block they have painted a pretty good sized target on their back. And I've wondered for quite some time if Apple's OS was the predominant OS from 95-05 if the bug coders wouldn't have focused more on their OS.

After all, when you ride into town to rob a bank, chances are you ain't gonna rob the small one on the outskirts, eh wot?


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

valis said:


> that was my initial reaction as well. Then I got thinking.......never a good idea.


 Well, I think it's a good idea for you to think about things. 



> Windows, with all it's flavors, sorta dominates the OS industry, and has for quite some time. Simply by being the biggest kid on the block they have painted a pretty good sized target on their back. And I've wondered for quite some time if Apple's OS was the predominant OS from 95-05 if the bug coders wouldn't have focused more on their OS.


Windows has certainly dominated the PC market but certainly not the "OS industry". I have no dispute with Windows marketshare making it a "big target" but that argument tends to ignore design issues and decisions which contribute to Windows being as prone to exploitation as it has demonstrated over the years. I recently read an interview with a former adware author who comments on writing adware for Windows and he touches on some of these things.

Remember back when IIS was being exploited left and right? Well, back then Apache was the dominant web server (and it still is) yet Apache wasn't being exploited in LARGER numbers than IIS.

Peace...


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

tomdkat said:


> Well, I think it's a good idea for you to think about things.


that muffled boom you heard was most of my cerebellum letting go. You should receive the bill shortly after I remember who I am. 



> Windows has certainly dominated the PC market but certainly not the "OS industry". I have no dispute with Windows marketshare making it a "big target" but that argument tends to ignore design issues and decisions which contribute to Windows being as prone to exploitation as it has demonstrated over the years. I recently read an interview with a former adware author who comments on writing adware for Windows and he touches on some of these things.
> 
> Remember back when IIS was being exploited left and right? Well, back then Apache was the dominant web server (and it still is) yet Apache wasn't being exploited in LARGER numbers than IIS.
> 
> Peace...


good point, I reckon. My problem is with those so-called statistics; you know, '80% of all accidents occur within 20 miles of your house' type deals. Well, just how many people routinely drive more than 20 miles on their commute? I know I do, but only 13 miles of that is outside of the 20 mile limit, so to me that's a loaded stat. Sorta like pickles being fatal, in that everyone who has eaten one has died, or will die in the future.

That one worked wonders on monkeytwit, tell you what.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

valis said:


> that muffled boom you heard was most of my cerebellum letting go. You should receive the bill shortly after I remember who I am.


LOL And I thought we had another earthquake out here or something. LOL



> good point, I reckon. My problem is with those so-called statistics; you know, '80% of all accidents occur within 20 miles of your house' type deals. Well, just how many people routinely drive more than 20 miles on their commute? I know I do, but only 13 miles of that is outside of the 20 mile limit, so to me that's a loaded stat. Sorta like pickles being fatal, in that everyone who has eaten one has died, or will die in the future.


Granted the above wasn't meant to be definitive but only a real world example of how the "numbers" don't always paint the complete picture. My biggest beef with Microsoft is their decision to enable things by default instead of disabling things. As a result, there are many sites out there which describe how you can simply disable a number of services and functions that aren't needed for the system to function and increase the security level of your system. This kind of thing has nothing to do with Microsoft having dominant marketshare and everything to do with how Microsoft decided to bundle and ship Windows.

Windows being the indisputable PC desktop OS it is simply makes the ripple effects of its exploits far more significant and serious.

Peace...


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

so you don't think that by simply having the larger target on it's back it's warranted a larger amount of attacks; you feel that windows itself in inherently less secure. 

I'd have to agree, but I still say that if any other OS was the dominant force in for 95-05, I'd bet a good chunk of your change that they would be having largish security flaws exposed as well. 

Nobody wants to rob Earl B. Thudpacker's House O Weevils, but they'll spend years on how to rip off the Louvre.......


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

valis said:


> so you don't think that by simply having the larger target on it's back it's warranted a larger amount of attacks; you feel that windows itself in inherently less secure.


Yep, basically. Look at the changes in Windows with Vista and 7. Microsoft has abandoned the "everyone run as administrator" mindset in favor of requiring people to specifically authorized privileged access to perform certain functions. This is similar to the security philosophy of other operating systems that exited LONG BEFORE Windows, let alone XP. The fact that third party, "user land" *applications* are able to touch *system* areas is absolutely INSANE! On Linux, I can install apps that can trash my home environment but the rest of the system integrity is preserved. I realize that some specialized apps might need to integrate deeper with the OS but a Word processor shouldn't need to install ANYTHING in the system areas. And so on.

The "inherently less secure" aspect has changed a lot with Vista and 7 but XP is still the dominant Windows OS out there. The worst part about it is many people have become so accustomed to the way security worked in XP, they do what they can to get around some of the security measures added in Vista or 7. I believe I read somewhere disabling the UAC on Vista (and maybe on W7 too) also disables DEP in IE8. Ooops. None of these kinds of things have anything to do with Windows dominance in the marketplace. Hackers are able to exploit poor design decisions on a MASSIVE scale and empower themselves to do other, more interesting things with these armies of systems they control.

Poor programming practices will plague in computer system so I don't think *nix or Mac OS X developers are necessarily "better" than Windows developers. Programmers can write bad code on any platform and the result can be disastrous on any platform.



> I'd have to agree, but I still say that if any other OS was the dominant force in for 95-05, I'd bet a good chunk of your change that they would be having largish security flaws exposed as well.


Well, my assertion is Windows is the indisputable dominant OS in the PC marketplace. In the server arena, we've got a ton of Unix, Linux, and mainframe operating systems in place as well as a Windows presence. Windows is the not dominant OS in the server space yet the server space is where most of the really valuable information is stored. Database of credit info, and so on. So, given the "bigger target" rationale, I would expect the hackers to focus on the clear "honeypots" and target the most widely deployed server OS and hack the hell out of it. Yes, there have been instances of major sites being compromised but nowhere on the level of Windows desktops/workstations being exploited. To be fair, we also don't hear a lot about Windows servers being exploited either. I can access my bank account info from any web browser but I haven't heard of my banks servers being hacked or compromised.

Here's another example of my point: remember the DNS cache poisoning exploit that plagued many DNS servers around the world? The DNS cache written by Dan Bernstein was immune to the exploit. Why? Not because of its marketshare but because of a design decision Mr Bernstein made while developing his DNS cache.



> Nobody wants to rob Earl B. Thudpacker's House O Weevils, but they'll spend years on how to rip off the Louvre.......


Very true and if the Louvre implements a great security policy, it will take years for anyone to figure out how to rip off the Louvre and they probably won't have much success at all.

Peace...


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

nice post, tom.....ain't going to parse and quote that thing, I'll be here until next Tuesday......

One key point stands out, though......


> On Linux, I can install apps that can trash my home environment but the rest of the system integrity is preserved. I realize that some specialized apps might need to integrate deeper with the OS but a Word processor shouldn't need to install ANYTHING in the system areas.


I think that's the crux of the entire thing. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you are totally correct. I can do just about anything to my linux rig, and it's always fine. Whereas with windows, you can have something go screwy with a third party app and bring the entire system down. Good point.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

thingamajig said:


> I recommend Sun's VirtualBox.


It's Oracle now 



valis said:


> that was my initial reaction as well. Then I got thinking.......never a good idea.
> 
> Windows, with all it's flavors, sorta dominates the OS industry, and has for quite some time. Simply by being the biggest kid on the block they have painted a pretty good sized target on their back. And I've wondered for quite some time if Apple's OS was the predominant OS from 95-05 if the bug coders wouldn't have focused more on their OS.
> 
> After all, when you ride into town to rob a bank, chances are you ain't gonna rob the small one on the outskirts, eh wot?


Everyone that makes that claim fails to recognize that OS 9 had *many* viruses for it, despite having an even smaller market share than OS X. The reason OS X doesn't have viruses is NOT because it has a smaller market share than Windows, it is because OS X is based on UNIX.


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

no no no....... 

Yer missing the point. What I was saying was that MS had been the dominant pc for the internet for many years of the formative internet, say from 95-05, and as a result, they had a larger target on their back than other did.


----------



## thingamajig (Mar 5, 2005)

valis said:


> no no no.......
> 
> Yer missing the point. What I was saying was that MS had been the dominant pc for the internet for many years of the formative internet, say from 95-05, and as a result, they had a larger target on their back than other did.


I'm going to side with tomdkat and namenotfound on this one. A Unix/Linux OS is inherently safer because of the way it is designed. While it is true that there would be more hacks if Linux were used more by consumers, much of this will be due to the quality of the average user. Another factor to consider is that Linux users are generally more knowledgeable than a windows user - and not as easy to trick.

The hack that drove Google away from windows happened on employee laptops. They weren't part of any domain. The latest information I have is that it was an exploit of Adobe running on windows but I don't have the details yet as they are being tight-lipped about it.

Unix/Linux was the dominant server during the formative years of the internet. This did not lead to a greater proportion of server exploits than with windows servers.


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

i agree, as i stated before. My only comment was to the effect that the problem with MS's security is inherent in the build; the explosion of the internet sort of caught them off-guard. That said, MS has made some pretty good strides in their OS security, and W7 is lightyears beyond XP in security.


----------

