Google Switches to Mac, Bans Windows Over Security Flaws

[admin]

Google, who employs over 10,000 people worldwide, is gradually but systematically ditching Windows across its entire company due to security concerns. According to a few sources within the company, the decision comes after news in January that Google was hacked in an attack originating in China. Those attacks used a security vulnerability in Internet Explorer for Windows. Other employees have indicated that it appears that the majority of those moving away from Windows PCs are taking up Mac OS while new hires are given the option to run Mac OS or a Linux-based machine.

Discuss "Google Switches to Mac, Bans Windows Over Security Flaws" here. Read the article.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Not everyone thinks its a great move.....
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/06/mac-os-x-and-linux-are-no-magic-security-bullet-for-google.ars

Well at-least it should help vs casual spyware attacks angles...

 

[gliz]

if Apple had marketed themselves and allowed others to build hardware we'd all not know how Bill gates is. I work in IT and I am a windows guy, but I have to admit, Macs are much more stable

 

[sholling]

I've been in IT for 20 years or so and I have mixed feelings. Macs are more stable because the hardware is fixed. They don't have to make the Mac OS play nice with hundreds of motherboard, video card, RAID card configurations, and thousands of applications. You use the hardware that Apple supplies or perhaps one of a handful of video cards if you have an Apple workstation. And you pay twice the price of a PC for the privilege.

Back in the day Macs were notoriously hard to get to play well on a mixed network but I'm sure they've fixed that by now. So yes the Mac makes sense for a company with deep pockets to pay for hardware. However it's not inherently any more secure than Windows and hackers will not be able to resist the challenge of going after a large Mac target like Google. At best they are buying time by dumping a fortune into hardware and retraining.

LINUX is a whole different animal. The interface is way too wonky for the average employee and training and support costs way to high for any but the ultra geeks. It's a hobbyist and server OS.

 

[krzywica]

LINUX is a whole different animal. The interface is way too wonky for the average employee and training and support costs way to high for any but the ultra geeks. It's a hobbyist and server OS.

ORLY.......

 

[darien87]

Sweet. I love Macs. The only reason I have a PC is it was way cheaper.

 

[sholling]

ORLY.......

It may work in Europe but only if locked down to little more than a menu and not here. In Europe they do it for political (don't buy American) reasons. I've worked for companies that gave LINUX serious consideration only to decide that the cost of training and support was astronomical. 90% of those graduating college in the US are comfortable working in windows and MS Office. At most they just need brushing up on advanced functions or using Excel. Rarely more than a day or two of training and most of the time much less. LINUX by itself requires a couple of days of training just to teach the basics and OpenOffice requires a couple of weeks of training and months of getting employees up to speed. Most companies realize that it's far cheaper to spend $600 for an OS and office suite that employees already know than to spend $15,000-20,000 in training and lost productivity. That doesn't come close the cost of retraining the support staff. In countries with less Windows penetration it's less of a issue.

 

[JohnA]

if Apple had marketed themselves and allowed others to build hardware

They did that back in the day, late 80's - early 90's... they pulled the plug because there were too many "issues" with getting everything to play nice together.

 

[rnatalli]

It's a hobbyist and server OS.

That's what I thought Windows was as I only use it for the occasional video game

LINUX by itself requires a couple of days of training just to teach the basics and OpenOffice requires a couple of weeks of training and months of getting employees up to speed.

In an enterprise setting as you stated, you're absolutely right, but for the average user, things are different. About a year ago, I started my dad on an older Mac G3 300Mhz machine which my employer was throwing out. I installed OsX Panther if I remember as it was the last one that supported the PowerPC architecture. My wife's employer recently had a lottery for some Lenovo ThinkPads and my wife won one which she gave to my dad. For security reasons, it came completely wiped. Instead of purchasing OEM Windows XP for $79 or $99, I installed LinuxMint 9. My dad hasn't had a single issue as he really only uses it for web browsing, listening to music, and photo stuff. Keep in mind, my dad is in his seventies and that old Mac was his first experience owning a personal computing. He didn't even know how to use a mouse! A large portion of computer users are simply people who only need to see the Mozilla Firefox icon on their desktop and they're good to go. This is the market Google is after with its Chrome OS.

I personally have a MacBook which I really like. My wife uses a Netbook with XP on it, but it's starting to show signs of slowdown so XP may have to get re-installed or go altogether.

Google's decision to dump Windows is simply a stunt as every OS I've ever used has security flaws.

 

[krzywica]

It may work in Europe but only if locked down to little more than a menu and not here. In Europe they do it for political (don't buy American) reasons. I've worked for companies that gave LINUX serious consideration only to decide that the cost of training and support was astronomical. 90% of those graduating college in the US are comfortable working in windows and MS Office. At most they just need brushing up on advanced functions or using Excel. Rarely more than a day or two of training and most of the time much less. LINUX by itself requires a couple of days of training just to teach the basics and OpenOffice requires a couple of weeks of training and months of getting employees up to speed. Most companies realize that it's far cheaper to spend $600 for an OS and office suite that employees already know than to spend $15,000-20,000 in training and lost productivity. That doesn't come close the cost of retraining the support staff. In countries with less Windows penetration it's less of a issue.

I agree with you but it doesn't have to be this way.....I guarantee you if you make it a prerequisite that new employees have Linux experience you will be targeting a smarter group of people for your potential employees.

 

[Warpdrv]

Yeah yeah who cares...


I want one of these.... http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7H0K1k54t6A

 

[sholling]

I agree with you but it doesn't have to be this way.....I guarantee you if you make it a prerequisite that new employees have Linux experience you will be targeting a smarter group of people for your potential employees.

Well a tiny group anyway.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I've been in IT for 20 years or so and I have mixed feelings. Macs are more stable because the hardware is fixed. They don't have to make the Mac OS play nice with hundreds of motherboard, video card, RAID card configurations, and thousands of applications. You use the hardware that Apple supplies or perhaps one of a handful of video cards if you have an Apple workstation. And you pay twice the price of a PC for the privilege.

Back in the day Macs were notoriously hard to get to play well on a mixed network but I'm sure they've fixed that by now. So yes the Mac makes sense for a company with deep pockets to pay for hardware. However it's not inherently any more secure than Windows and hackers will not be able to resist the challenge of going after a large Mac target like Google. At best they are buying time by dumping a fortune into hardware and retraining.

LINUX is a whole different animal. The interface is way too wonky for the average employee and training and support costs way to high for any but the ultra geeks. It's a hobbyist and server OS.

Part of what you say is true but you incorrect on a few things. Macs are more stable but not just because of the hardware, but also because of OS X itself is more stable. Also, OS X is vastly more secure than windows and this has been proved many times; security is precisely why google is switching. Unix OS's and their variants are inherently more secure than windows.

 

[sholling]

Part of what you say is true but you incorrect on a few things. Macs are more stable but not just because of the hardware, but also because of OS X itself is more stable. Also, OS X is vastly more secure than windows and this has been proved many times; security is precisely why google is switching. Unix OS's and their variants are inherently more secure than windows.

That's an old Apple wives tale. Macs are not one wit more secure. With an installed base of maybe 5% of the worlds computers they just aren't popular enough to draw much attention from virus writers and hackers.

http://www.slate.com/id/2255917/?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Part of what you say is true but you incorrect on a few things. Macs are more stable but not just because of the hardware, but also because of OS X itself is more stable. Also, OS X is vastly more secure than windows and this has been proved many times; security is precisely why google is switching. Unix OS's and their variants are inherently more secure than windows.

Holes are found in Safari on first attempt within 5-10minutes. Security holes left unpatched over a year. "Secure" Mobile devices (iPhone/iPod) being wide open and easily manipulated by hackers community.....
If OS-X has any real security it's because its based on BSD. Any add-ons and changes Apple made are easy prey targets for hackers.

Stable ? Yes, it's more stable than 9 years old Win XP, but even that just due to closed and very tightly controlled environment.

 

[Audioholics]

OS X is vastly more secure than windows

This is definitely not true - I doubt even Apple would use those words. It's merely less-targeted.

 

[MinusTheBear]

I'm not sure if this was even a wise move by Google to announce the switch publically. This is sort of what gets hackers off. Google being a big corporation that it is and the publicity that would surround something like a security breach of their new system just adds to hackers ego. I am just waiting for a hacker in his mothers basement saying to himself I'll debunk this Apple myth. And yes, Apple computers are no less secure than PC's. Hackers can exploit both easily.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

OS X is less targeted, but it has nothing to do with market share which is a lot more than 5% at this moment in time. It is less targeted because it is much harder for hackers to write malware, spyware and viruses that can do any real harm. Hackers could give a wit about market share they only want to become famous for coming up with some destructive piece of software. Don't you think if some hacker could come up with a virus for OS X that would do the kind of damage that windows virus's have done in the past he or she would have done it for bragging rights? Not saying it can't be done but it has not happened yet.

The whole notion that hackers don't target OS X because not as many people use it is a load of dung. People always love to spout that same old line, but I don't ever remember anyone ever being able to back that up with anything more than opinion. I don't remember seeing some hacker poll on why they don't target OS X or linux. I have never seen anything that proves a market share to hacking is a direct correlation. At this moment in time there is far less spyware, malware, and viruses for OS X therefore it is certainly more secure and safe in that regard. However, that does not mean one should become complacent about it either. With that said, in all my years I have not once ever had to deal with clearing spyware or virus's from a mac. I do on windows machines all the time. So for the average home user os x is much more safe and secure.

Here is a good place to track viruses that are out. You wont find many for OS X if any.

http://www.wildlist.org/

If market share and hacking attempts, viruses and spyware were directly related then by whatever percent you think OS X has 2, 3, 5, 6 or 10 percent shouldnt there be that corresponding percentage of viruses on the Mac in these lists? Hmmmm? there is not and it is not even close.

 

[sholling]

My friend you are so stuck in the 80s. Back in the olden days when the idea was mainly to kick sand in Bill's face. Well welcome to the 21st century where writing malware is a for-profit industry and installed base equals maximum bang for the time and effort invested in writing that malware. The idea is to get password theft and zombie running applications on as many computers as possible so that you can turn those hours and hours of wring code into a profit. They target Windows for attack for the same reason bank robbers rob banks - that where the money is. I guess you could make a living putting as many hours robbing fruit sands and garage sales but you aren't going to get rich. With 85-90% of personal computers running Windows that's where you target your efforts. The only reason that you don't see a bazillion infected Macs is strictly a numbers game, comparatively there just aren't enough to bother with. You can like it or not but that's reality.

 

[Nugu]

I don't want to get into the mac/pac game but I just wanted to say that OS security only goes so far. The ultimate deciding factor is the User. It only takes one retarded user to open the "Free XXX.exe" trojen downloader.