Google outlaws Windows, but what if Microsoft outlaws Google...?

I think there's both truth and untruth in this story.

For one, we don't know who or how far up the source is. We all know that as computer users, many of us are polarized between Linux, OSX and Windows and so, whoever this source is could simply have their own take on whatever is REALLY going on at Google. I wouldn't call this a 'public' "decry" at all as Google has been moving toward Linux for years, probably because they knew that at a certain point they'd put their own OS out there.

This could be some truth, which I find logical - like, Google moving toward ChromeOS because it only makes sense to use your own product as a company...intertwined with lies like moving FROM Windows because of the China hacking issue. I think Google has more 'sense' than that. If OSX is 'safer' than Windows 7 it's because it's not as ubiquitous, not because it's inherently more secure.

So I say wait or ask for an official Google response before jumping ahead on this.

I'll just pipe in and agree that this article didn't make a lot of sense.

A company deciding what computers they want to use is not equal to web-censoring.

It's also ironic that the biggest insecurity on Apple machines is the fact that they come pre-loaded with Flash... Of course, if they use Chrome, then the Flash is instanced, so it's less of a security issue. Or just use Flash-Block add-on.

This is a purely political move. It has absolutely zero to do with security and Google knows it.

Google's decision--and even publicizing it--does not meet a reasonable person's definition of libel. They're basically saying, "We don't like Windows' standard of security as implemented [never mind that they're still on that old dinosaur IE6], and we're not going to use it anymore."

You can say you don't like something to the entire world and it's still not libel. The world would suck if it were. Libel is a nonfactual or inaccurate statement in print or other nonspoken media (when spoken, it's slander; learned that from the 2002 "Spider-Man" film, I did) with the express purpose of damaging the person or organization of which one speaks. For instance, if Google had accused Microsoft specifically of negligence without evidence, Microsoft could conceivably take Google to court for libel. Expressing an opinion, while said opinion can take the form of an inaccurate or nonfactual statement, however, is not by definition libel or slander. In other words, you can say you don't like something, even for inaccurate reasons, and unless a plaintiff can find a lie or purposeful inaccuracy within your statement and prove it, you're in the clear.

All that said, Google are a bunch of morons for still allowing IE6 on their campus, in my opinion.

so your statement that "this is libel"... did you get legal to have a look that before publishing?

Just a thought but, if you are throwing around allegations of this kind I would advise you to consult a lawyer first, just to see what your potential exposure is.

I am not a lawyer. But I would be concerned if you could not prove your allegation.

I would also maybe look up the definition of slander and any potential penalties.

Just saying.

I have a feeling this has way less to do with security and much more to do with Google developing it's alternatives to Windows services. After all OS X is a *nix style operating system and my understanding is that the tools that work in Linux also work on OSX, though I could be wrong, where on Windows you can get *nix tools running under Cygwin I'm not sure that they run as well. I see Google offering employees OSX as a half hearted effort to pull away from the mainstream OS offerings and placate the Apple fans and Linux haters in their employ.

The GDF are frothing at this post. Google Defense Force UNITE!!!

Why was google using IE6 to begin with. Are they Sys Admins retarded?
Get back to me GDF.

I would go Mac if Microsoft will turn the table in a such way. Right now, I am really sick and tired of Windows.

If one OS has a lot of malware written to target it and another OS doesn't, if all things are equal, isn't the logical move Game theory wise to move to the least targeted platform?

Hint:
Thats a large part of why I move from Windows to Ubuntu :-)

Viruses? Oh yes I remember them aren't they a windows thing? You know like rebooting and the BSOD?

LOL

This article is almost pointless. This is simply the case of a corporate office dictating to its employees what is and is not permitted software to be used on the company's computers and network.

I don't agree with the author's assertion that -
This is yet another example of Microsoft unduly paying the price for old installations of Windows and Internet Explorer 6 -- something the CIO at Google should be held accountable for, not Microsoft.

Is Microsoft not ultimately responsible for the legions of corporations and their CIOs who are still running WinXP, Office 2003, and IE6/7? Why do so many not take the latest and greatest in security that MS has to offer?

Could it be that along with the latest and greatest in security, you also agree to the latest and greatest of incompatibility and productivity bugs?

Warm and wooly in OSX,
Paul

"And finally, what if Microsoft turned the tables on Google and simply banned you from searching it on Windows computers? What if 'google.com' was redirected to 'bing.com'? Microsoft certainly has grounds for such an act: after all, top Google results often contain spyware or malicious malware."

First Google banned Windows - from its own company. Microsoft could block all google services for all it employees (but you write correctly - Its balls have been trampled). But they don't have the rights to ban Google for every Window user.

banning windows only further isolates googles employees from the real world, as if they weren't waved far enough from the world to start with. their recruiting was ridiculously weighted to begin with to get folk who don't know what other people in the world are using to work, stay connected and to have fun.

in other words, in practicality, almost all teams inside google have a real world need for a windows box, if not for else then for testing and knowing
whats available.


wave, picasa, chrome, google search, gmail, g reader, google books..... everything of these is still mostly used from windows machines people do reallife work with. trying to emulate that experience with wine doesn't work, trying to use universal toolkits to get the result of not having to test, to "get" what sucks about your product on certain platform, doesn't work either.

but i guess it hurts if your employees even don't use your collaboration tools since they have better native tools in their disposal.

The author only displays their prejudice and ignorance by trying to suggest an equal response to Google's internal policy against executives using Windows would be for Microsoft to ban Google searches on all Windows installations worldwide.
This is ludicrous, ridiculous and this article and author cannot be taken seriously. A simple guess as to the authors motives are their own wounded pride in Windows.
A more equal "retaliation" would be if Microsoft banned Google searches to their own employees, but that suggestion would not be so headline grabbing.
Even the original article citing Google banning Windows company-wide cannot be accurate unless Google is also immediately dropping all it's Windows products - I doubt it very much. Developers will still have to develop and test on Windows to produce those products.

All inaccurate hype and hysteria and no real content.