Google Shuts Its "windows" blames windows OS for security breaches.....

[The Simpleton 2]

This was a little interesting news. Google is blaming the recent security breaches in China on the Windows operating system. Now they're suggesting that employees switch to either Linux or Mac OS X for better security. That's a really sensible decision on Google's part, although this hasn't been confirmed officially yet. The employee who revealed this news preferred to remain unnamed. Apparently, now the CIO's permission is required to get a new Windows system!

Were not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort, said one Google employee.
Many people have been moved away from [Windows] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS, following the China hacking attacks, said another.

New hires are now given the option of using Apples Mac computers or PCs running the Linux operating system. Linux is open source and we feel good about it, said one employee. Microsoft we dont feel so good about.

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

Full article at: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

I think this is a great way to promote Linux - if the world's top company feels Linux is better than Windows, the ordinary folks should think about using it too

[magnafrost 0]

I'm sure google did not decide Linux for the sake of promotion . In any case, I'm not so sure about how secure linux could be either. There's gotta be security flaws in it and considering that the code is open it'll be easier to spot. My guess is google should pool in some resources for modifying the OS source code itself and have a custom linux OS with a little more security. Though, RHEL and the type might already be highly secure.

[rvalkass 5]

This was a little interesting news. Google is blaming the recent security breaches in China on the Windows operating system. Now they're suggesting that employees switch to either Linux or Mac OS X for better security. That's a really sensible decision on Google's part, although this hasn't been confirmed officially yet. The employee who revealed this news preferred to remain unnamed. Apparently, now the CIO's permission is required to get a new Windows system!

I remember reading about this quite a while ago, though at the time I can't remember how official the rumours were. Still, if it's true, it's nice to see that large companies are waking up to the fact that Windows is not secure and is unreliable.

I'm sure google did not decide Linux for the sake of promotion . In any case, I'm not so sure about how secure linux could be either. There's gotta be security flaws in it and considering that the code is open it'll be easier to spot. My guess is google should pool in some resources for modifying the OS source code itself and have a custom linux OS with a little more security. Though, RHEL and the type might already be highly secure.

There are security flaws in pretty much all code. The difference with Linux (and open source code generally) is that you have thousands of people looking at the code who can say "Hang on, that doesn't look right..." or "I think this could be a security hole..." and then trying to fix it. Problems are found quicker and fixed quicker. Also, the huge public effort in reviewing code before it enters release versions of software ensures a large number of security problems (and general bugs) are fixed before the code reaches a release version.

[The Simpleton 2]

I'm sure google did not decide Linux for the sake of promotion . In any case, I'm not so sure about how secure linux could be either. There's gotta be security flaws in it and considering that the code is open it'll be easier to spot. My guess is google should pool in some resources for modifying the OS source code itself and have a custom linux OS with a little more security. Though, RHEL and the type might already be highly secure.

Lol the crackers can't just inject malicious code on a Linux machine just because they can modify the original source code. Cracking a Linux machine takes much more skill than it does for Windows. Have you used Linux before? If so you might have noticed that visiting malicious websites from inside Linux doesn't affect your system at all, and you can try executing Windows' worms and get away with it Plus it's super-fast and many popular Windows applications run comfortably inside Linux. So there are many good reasons to use Linux over Windows. In some aspects Mac OS X is much better, but Linux is free while you need to pay a premium for a licensed OS X.

@rob: It's excellent that of all companies, Google decided to take this step, because it's the biggest one out there and this might encourage smaller companies to follow their lead. Ultimately this could mean a large increase in the user-base of both Linux and OS X.

[magnafrost 0]

Lol the crackers can't just inject malicious code on a Linux machine just because they can modify the original source code. Cracking a Linux machine takes much more skill than it does for Windows. Have you used Linux before? If so you might have noticed that visiting malicious websites from inside Linux doesn't affect your system at all, and you can try executing Windows' worms and get away with it Plus it's super-fast and many popular Windows applications run comfortably inside Linux. So there are many good reasons to use Linux over Windows. In some aspects Mac OS X is much better, but Linux is free while you need to pay a premium for a licensed OS X.
@rob: It's excellent that of all companies, Google decided to take this step, because it's the biggest one out there and this might encourage smaller companies to follow their lead. Ultimately this could mean a large increase in the user-base of both Linux and OS X.

My point is that knowing the source code makes it easier for the attacker to explore and figure out the loopholes. It might have just 0.1% of the number of loopholes that windows has, but its also that much easier. Like rvalkass said the whole power of open source is that there are a lot of people looking at the code and saying "hey there's an issue here". While most of the people who see that will try to fix it, someone could try to exploit it. Thats why I am saying a combination of open source and closed source is better. Use a linux base which has been waded through by the community, but put in some closed source effort from your end too!

[rpgsearcherz 5]

My point is that knowing the source code makes it easier for the attacker to explore and figure out the loopholes. It might have just 0.1% of the number of loopholes that windows has, but its also that much easier. Like rvalkass said the whole power of open source is that there are a lot of people looking at the code and saying "hey there's an issue here". While most of the people who see that will try to fix it, someone could try to exploit it. Thats why I am saying a combination of open source and closed source is better. Use a linux base which has been waded through by the community, but put in some closed source effort from your end too!

By being able to see the source it's also easier to protect it from flaws.

The problem with Windows is only Microsoft employees are able to see what is going on in the code. As we have seen in the past, they can't even stabilize their OS, much less fix security breaches. Linux has more people working on it and stabilized their OS's years ago; something Microsoft has still failed to manage.

It's really like forum bases. For example, VBulletin often goes through security breaches. phpBB, on the other hand, goes through them on a much lower rate, because there are soo many others working on the same system.



Some claim that Linux isn't really "harder" to hack, it's just that it isn't mainstream (there was a report a while ago about how less than 3% of all PC users are using Linux). As such, it just isn't worth the time to do so.


Either way, I feel safer with open source than proprietary. At least with open source I know what I'm getting.

[rvalkass 5]

My point is that knowing the source code makes it easier for the attacker to explore and figure out the loopholes. It might have just 0.1% of the number of loopholes that windows has, but its also that much easier. Like rvalkass said the whole power of open source is that there are a lot of people looking at the code and saying "hey there's an issue here". While most of the people who see that will try to fix it, someone could try to exploit it. Thats why I am saying a combination of open source and closed source is better. Use a linux base which has been waded through by the community, but put in some closed source effort from your end too!

The code, before being released as a software release, is studied by loads of people. If security problems are spotted, they're fixed before the code is marked as released. If, at that stage, someone malicious spots a problem with the code then the developers are also incredibly likely to spot the same problem, and fix it, so there is no risk. If problems manage to sneak through to code that gets released then they're usually spotted quickly and fixed quickly. For example, someone recently tried to release a screensaver (if I recall correctly) that contained malicious code. Within a few minutes of its release, people had spotted the problem. Then they fixed it. All in under an hour I think. Pretty impressive!

The problem with Windows is only Microsoft employees are able to see what is going on in the code.

And the Russian secret service, don't forget! https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/07/09/0042238/Microsoft-Opens-Source-Code-To-KGBs-Successor-Agency?art_pos=1
It seems they just didn't believe it was secure, and demanded to inspect the source before they would consider using it.

[web_designer 7]

well, this is not the first time i hear that google giving up windows and microsoft, but i don't think that they promote linux or any other company or product, they are only use what benefits them. and unfortunately, windows shows a lot of flaws and less security lately therefor they have the right to replace it with a better operating system like MAC or LINUX even if that's mean they are promoting for them, and showing that they are not trusted in windows anymore, after all it's all about business.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

And the Russian secret service, don't forget! https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/07/09/0042238/Microsoft-Opens-Source-Code-To-KGBs-Successor-Agency?art_pos=1It seems they just didn't believe it was secure, and demanded to inspect the source before they would consider using it.

Man, I had never seen that before -- just read over it and I find that a little ridiculous. No wonder we always get hacked -- Russia has more access to our operating system than Americans do!

[magnafrost 0]

By being able to see the source it's also easier to protect it from flaws.

 

The problem with Windows is only Microsoft employees are able to see what is going on in the code. As we have seen in the past, they can't even stabilize their OS, much less fix security breaches. Linux has more people working on it and stabilized their OS's years ago; something Microsoft has still failed to manage.

 

It's really like forum bases. For example, VBulletin often goes through security breaches. phpBB, on the other hand, goes through them on a much lower rate, because there are soo many others working on the same system.

 

 

 

Some claim that Linux isn't really "harder" to hack, it's just that it isn't mainstream (there was a report a while ago about how less than 3% of all PC users are using Linux). As such, it just isn't worth the time to do so.

 

 

Either way, I feel safer with open source than proprietary. At least with open source I know what I'm getting.

 

Yes, from what you say I gather that Linux is a lot more value for money in any case.

 

The code, before being released as a software release, is studied by loads of people. If security problems are spotted, they're fixed before the code is marked as released. If, at that stage, someone malicious spots a problem with the code then the developers are also incredibly likely to spot the same problem, and fix it, so there is no risk. If problems manage to sneak through to code that gets released then they're usually spotted quickly and fixed quickly. For example, someone recently tried to release a screensaver (if I recall correctly) that contained malicious code. Within a few minutes of its release, people had spotted the problem. Then they fixed it. All in under an hour I think. Pretty impressive!

 

 

 

And the Russian secret service, don't forget! https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/07/09/0042238/Microsoft-Opens-Source-Code-To-KGBs-Successor-Agency?art_pos=1

It seems they just didn't believe it was secure, and demanded to inspect the source before they would consider using it.

 

That makes perfect sense. I'm actually considering switching to Linux from now. Just waiting to get a new laptop for that though.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Yes, from what you say I gather that Linux is a lot more value for money in any case.


That makes perfect sense. I'm actually considering switching to Linux from now. Just waiting to get a new laptop for that though.

Well Linux is free so... More value for the nothing, .

I love Ubuntu with a passion. Once it turns 18 I'm marrying it. Seriously.

My only issue with Linux at this point is the lack of gaming. I am a big MMORPG player and Windows developer, and sadly you can do neither using Linux. Even with WINE you deal with a lot of problems. So I actually went back to Ubuntu a couple weeks ago and did everything I could to get my Windows programs working on it. I got everything going but games (which lagged horribly) so I was forced to revert back to Windows.

If Linux (Ubuntu specifically) ever gets DirectX support I'm there and won't return to Windows again.

[The Simpleton 2]

And the Russian secret service, don't forget! http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/It seems they just didn't believe it was secure, and demanded to inspect the source before they would consider using it.

If only the other countries had this luxury. Hmm maybe the other countries do not care too much about security like Russia does! Now it's only a matter of time before some Russian hacker leaks the code....

That makes perfect sense. I'm actually considering switching to Linux from now. Just waiting to get a new laptop for that though.

Till then you could install Ubuntu Linux inside Windows, as a separate drive. Try it out if you want You won't regret the decision.

My only issue with Linux at this point is the lack of gaming. I am a big MMORPG player and Windows developer, and sadly you can do neither using Linux. Even with WINE you deal with a lot of problems. So I actually went back to Ubuntu a couple weeks ago and did everything I could to get my Windows programs working on it. I got everything going but games (which lagged horribly) so I was forced to revert back to Windows.
If Linux (Ubuntu specifically) ever gets DirectX support I'm there and won't return to Windows again.

We're all waiting for the day when Linux finally supports gaming on a large scale. That would certainly bring in a large chunk of Windows users over to Linux. But the game developers have to start supporting Linux as well otherwise there won't be any major shift in the gamer community.

[magnafrost 0]

If only the other countries had this luxury. Hmm maybe the other countries do not care too much about security like Russia does! Now it's only a matter of time before some Russian hacker leaks the code....



Till then you could install Ubuntu Linux inside Windows, as a separate drive. Try it out if you want You won't regret the decision.



We're all waiting for the day when Linux finally supports gaming on a large scale. That would certainly bring in a large chunk of Windows users over to Linux. But the game developers have to start supporting Linux as well otherwise there won't be any major shift in the gamer community.

I still stick to the old school when it comes to gaming. Windows windows and more windows! Pressing the windows key mid game and shouting at your friends to pause the game while you struggle to get back kind of appeals to me But seriously, get dual OS on your system. Use linux for everything, and windows for gaming. You'll be happy I promise

[mahesh2k 0]

I think this is a great way to promote Linux - if the world's top company feels Linux is better than Windows, the ordinary folks should think about using it too

It's all about making money be it linux or windows. Be it operating system company or the consumer using the product. Windows is popular not because it's easier but there is trade and better business build on it. Though many people think business can save money on linux but more business can be easily lost on linux. For example, windows support and security is business in itself, but linux hardly generates revenue on that domain. Apps being free in linux domain kills another aspect of business in the world of programming. Linux/Open source world makes people more lazy and used to free things which is one step ahead of killing economy. Once people start to procrastinate about paying for things and stuff then surely it kills economy. Be it free or paid software, there is money,time and hard work involved in it. Not paying for it makes it low value and people don't even care for those things. Open source made many programmers lazy and simple-copy paster after posting lot of code in public. I failed to see the profit in this linux side. Any platform if gets overused then likely to get abused. Few years earlier people used to claim that linux was virus free and then came script kiddies and small viruses. So saying that it's secure platform is not at all convincing. Just because google moved to linux doesn't mean it's better. It's about business and google will realize it soon when they'll recognize short funds from their search engine revenue. I hope google rethinks on their decision, instead of windows they should move to apple that will keep them on unix(mach BSD) atleast.

[magnafrost 0]

It's all about making money be it linux or windows. Be it operating system company or the consumer using the product. Windows is popular not because it's easier but there is trade and better business build on it. Though many people think business can save money on linux but more business can be easily lost on linux. For example, windows support and security is business in itself, but linux hardly generates revenue on that domain. Apps being free in linux domain kills another aspect of business in the world of programming. Linux/Open source world makes people more lazy and used to free things which is one step ahead of killing economy. Once people start to procrastinate about paying for things and stuff then surely it kills economy. Be it free or paid software, there is money,time and hard work involved in it. Not paying for it makes it low value and people don't even care for those things. Open source made many programmers lazy and simple-copy paster after posting lot of code in public. I failed to see the profit in this linux side. Any platform if gets overused then likely to get abused. Few years earlier people used to claim that linux was virus free and then came script kiddies and small viruses. So saying that it's secure platform is not at all convincing. Just because google moved to linux doesn't mean it's better. It's about business and google will realize it soon when they'll recognize short funds from their search engine revenue. I hope google rethinks on their decision, instead of windows they should move to apple that will keep them on unix(mach BSD) atleast.

Actually, I dont agree that if its free it'll kill the economy or the product. Look at it this way. When you work for a closed source product for which you get paid, I see the money as the main compensation that you get. But, when you work for a open-source product out of your free time, you get a special happiness out of it. I'd say for all the open source developers, this far outweighs the financial compensation that they would get for it and they'll put in lots of effort, probably making a product superior to its closed source counterpart in much lesser man-hours.