Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Facebook Plunges Again
Microsoft responds to Google's internal condemnation of Windows; puzzled looks abound
The Microsoft Windows team has just responded to the recent news that Google has banned Windows from its corporate offices. The response vocalizes what many IT specialists already know: Windows 7, combined with IE8 or another modern browser, is more secure than anything Mac brings to the table.Brandon LeBlanc, the Windows Communication Manager, goes on to mention an InfoWorld article detailing the recent spate of malware attacks on Mac OS X. He also cites the Mashable story about Yale University canceling its migration to Gmail and Google Apps due to security and privacy concerns.
Even infamous hacker Marc Maiffret applauded Microsoft's security earlier this year, while at the same time denouncing Apple's feeble offerings. The Windows Blog post goes on to mention a bunch of reasons why Windows 7 is a secure platform -- read it, if you're interested!
Basically, everyone -- except the Apple zealots, of course, because they always knew that Google would one day see the LIGHT -- is a bit miffed by Google's new internal IT policy. Why Google decided to change platforms rather than merely upgrade to Windows 7 and Chrome is beyond me. It doesn't sound like Google made the switch because Mac is more secure: rather, it simply played with antiquated Windows installations and got burnt.
How that is a secure, sensible policy, I have no idea. My money is still on some kind of political, aggressive opening salvo aimed at Microsoft: they are opening a vein in Redmond with the eventual aim of bleeding Microsoft dry.
Comments
32
Subscribe to commentsJacob NJun 2nd 2010 9:32AM
Everyone seems to be discounting the possibility of Linux in Google's offices, which IS more secure. It seems to me that they're trying to up their security without the huge costs associated with an upgrade to Microsoft's latest. I'd assume that most will either be geeky enough to tackle a command line or their jobs will require little enough know-how that the OS doesn't matter too much. Certainly, banning Windows altogether seems extreme though.
If my reasoning is correct (not to say that it is), though, it seems that a better option would be to suggest Linux as the "A" option and offer an upgrade to Win7 for those less comfortable. At least that wouldn't require exorbitant costs for inflexible hardware.
Sebastian AnthonyJun 2nd 2010 9:35AM
I don't think anyone has come out and said Linux is more secure -- I mean, Mac OS X is basically a BSD core, which would make it comparable to a Linux offering.
It's all security through obscurity. It prevents a random Googler from executing a malware EXE, but does nothing to stop targeted attacks.
Jacob NJun 2nd 2010 9:39AM
I meant more secure than an old Windows installation. Linux security is quite good, speaking as a current user, but my main point is that it's free.
DeoWulfJun 2nd 2010 9:54AM
I'd imagine the cheapness of Linux is mitigated at least partially by the expensiveness of Apple.
Jacob NJun 2nd 2010 10:04AM
Partially, but if you consider the cost of deploying an update across a company with tens of thousands of employees worldwide, it's got to be huge. I'd be interested to see how this shakes out, financially. It's a strange decision overall, especially because they can't specify what hardware they want. Still, I doubt this is really a political move, it seems more a combination of knee-jerk reaction and (possibly) sound business sense. After all, striking against Microsoft at the expense of security would be profoundly stupid, something of which I wouldn't readily accuse Google.
SilverWaveJun 2nd 2010 9:42AM
Have a look at someone who knows what there are talking about:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/16232/good_bye_windows_hello_linux_mac_says_google
http://www.itworld.com/security/75601/why-windows-security-awful
@Sebastian Anthony
>I don't think anyone has come out and said Linux is more secure -- I mean, Mac OS X is basically a BSD core, which would make it comparable to a Linux offering.
Wow! You really need to do some research and stop embarrassing yourself.
Linux is a completely separate OS, Your ignorance id amazing, and shocking in a tech blog.
Jacob NJun 2nd 2010 9:58AM
No, he has a point. Linux and OSX are both UNIX-based, and the fact that their user bases are so small are among the main reasons both have fewer well-publicized exploits than Windows.
SilverWaveJun 2nd 2010 10:26AM
@Jacob N
I think this quote from Oshu is more accurate:
First, Linux is not a variant of UNIX in any sense. Variants of UNIX all grew out of the UNIX code base. The Linux kernel was a ground up, clean implementation of the UNIX api, with plenty of rethinking and redesign along the way. The Linux userland is primarily GNU. GNU = Gnu’s Not UNIX (meaning is doesn’t use any of the UNIX codebase). While Linux is very UNIX-like, it is not UNIX.
Second, to say that Linux could not stand on its own with UNIX is false. There isn’t any UNIX to remove from Linux. If your point is that Linux resembles UNIX, well, yes it does. If your point is that Linux is a derivative of UNIX, no it isn’t.
Sebastian AnthonyJun 2nd 2010 11:42AM
You need to explain how BSD is 'a completely separate OS' to Linux.
I mean, most Linux apps are compatible with BSD, and vice-versa!
bvone21Jun 2nd 2010 2:31PM
haha...that's funny, Silverwave's link to itworld.com on the second page, third paragraph says, "That's why Linux and Mac OS X, which is based on BSD Unix at its heart, are fundamentally safer. "
...funny because he just said bashed sebastian saying that's untrue and that he has no idea what he's talking about, and then gave that link to itworld completely flying right back in his own face.
...I don't even know enough about that stuff to say what's right, just found that funny as I was reading.
SilverWaveJun 2nd 2010 3:48PM
@Sebastian Anthony
Good Places to start 1st here is a Time Line
http://www.levenez.com/unix/unix.pdf
Also:
The Daemon, the GNU & the Penguin ~ by Dr. Peter Salus
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051013231901859
Wikipedia is also very good.
___
Yes Apple and Linux have similarities but they have such different histories and philosophies that I think you are doing a disservice to your readers to paint them as one for security purposes.
@bvone21
I think you are talking about a comment (not the main article) and taking it out of context.
I think if you read it again the commenter is saying that the Mac OS X is based on BSD Unix, which it is.
SilverWaveJun 2nd 2010 9:57AM
@Sebastian Anthony
>Why Google decided to change platforms rather than merely upgrade to Windows 7 and Chrome is beyond me
You know this shrill tone is odd from someone who is supposedly neutral.
What exactly makes you so fearful of an internal business decision at Google.
I mean they aren't killing kittens or anything... so why the hurt feelings? Do you have any financial interest in this? If not why are you bothered by what Google do internally?
Seriously man chill out, you will be crying and kicking your feet next.
hazardJun 2nd 2010 10:14AM
Hey SilverWave, your on a roll. Go for the trifecta!
SilverWaveJun 2nd 2010 10:39AM
http://xkcd.com/386/
Heh... Someone is WRONG on the internet.
Sebastian AnthonyJun 2nd 2010 11:45AM
(I was fully expecting a yo-momma, hazard... maybe that comes later...)
As I said yesterday, I'm just curious as to the real reason behind the switch to Mac and Linux at Google.
I apologise if that comes across as 'not neutral' -- but I really don't think I came across as 'fearful' as you suggest, or with hurt feelings. I'm simply CURIOUS.
You know, questioning our surroundings is a good thing...
SilverWaveJun 2nd 2010 4:16PM
@Sebastian Anthony
>(I was fully expecting a yo-momma, hazard... maybe that comes later...)
Well no, but just for clarity could you confirm that you have no MS ties... I just noticed that my question wasn't answered, obviously just an oversight ;-)
>Do you have any financial interest in this?
Sebastian AnthonyJun 2nd 2010 7:14PM
No, no industry ties!
NoAndThenJun 2nd 2010 10:14AM
I love that you're all on the windows security bandwagon, provided it's the latest version.
"rather, it simply played with antiquated Windows installations and got burnt."
Are you kidding me? What do you think, Google is running Windows ME?
"Oh, they're not on the very latest version, therefor it's okay that the more mature OS has great security risks, duh."
^^I think that's exactly the reason Google's running for the hills- even the end of life, mature Windows versions are still insecure or very susceptible. Come on.
Sebastian AnthonyJun 2nd 2010 11:46AM
I forget the exact circumstances, but I think the bug that was used in the 'China hack' doesn't fully work on Windows 7 or Vista.
I think it's safe to assume that Google wasn't running a fully up-to-date set of Microsoft apps -- but I could be wrong :)
toddJun 2nd 2010 10:27AM
Regardless of where you stand on which OS is "better", this article is disingenuous when it says Yale "canceling" their migration to Gmail and Google Apps. It was never canceled, but postponed and is still being reviewed. Here's a more recent link to the Yale migration than the cherry picked one by the Sebastian:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2010/04/09/committee-review-gmail/