Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google ditches Windows on security concerns

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 158 posts

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#61

Post by sp332 »

pavs wrote: post #45
ori_b wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a myth. There are some parts like libc and the command line apps that were ported from BSD, the the kernel is a mach-that-isn't-anymore hybrid oddity, and the user interface is an Apple-only system. So, to a good approximation, you can say that the command line is based on BSD, and the rest came from NeXT and Apple, with a bit of GNU mixed in. The BSD heritage is rather insignificant when it comes to security,…

Mac OS X Leopard receives UNIX 03 certification: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-r...

That's like saying Windows is UNIX-based because it conforms to POSIX.1.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#62

Post by sp332 »

pavs wrote: post #56
ori_b wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that just means it provides the correct library calls, has the right shell utilities, and so on. It says nothing about the pedigree, or the amount of security. It's undoubtedly a good thing, but it's not important in this context.

Where do you draw the line when a BSD based OS has been customized to the extend that it can't be considered a BSD based OS?

That only describes the interface, not the implementation. It says (almost) nothing about the kernel, or security.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#63

Post by sp332 »

blantonl wrote: post #18
melling wrote: post #7

Lots of new Mac and Linux users. Hopefully, some of the people will be dedicating some of their 20% time to improving the Mac and Linux platforms.

I can assure you that the only users at Google that are affected by this decision are sales and marketing.

Good, Linux could use some sales & marketing help.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#64

Post by amalcon »

dejb wrote: post #37

The danger here is that they will lose touch with the 80% of their user base that uses windows. If they don't have enough people who intimately understand the computing experience of their users then their products could suffer.

They will almost certainly still have some windows machines around, if only for testing against IE. Some Google employees almost certainly use Windows at home. I really don't think they're going to lose anything major in terms of familiarity.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#65

Post by budu3 »

dejb wrote: post #37

The danger here is that they will lose touch with the 80% of their user base that uses windows. If they don't have enough people who intimately understand the computing experience of their users then their products could suffer.

True. A very strange decision. How to you develop products for the majority of people when you don't use their OS and can't relate to their 'pain'.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#66

Post by pavs »

sp332 wrote: post #62
pavs wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you draw the line when a BSD based OS has been customized to the extend that it can't be considered a BSD based OS?

That only describes the interface, not the implementation. It says (almost) nothing about the kernel, or security.

You are right. I just double checked my facts and OSX kernel is actually a hybrid kernel and not a direct descendant of BSD flavor (which was my impression).

My mistake.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#67

Post by johngunderman »

dejb wrote: post #37

The danger here is that they will lose touch with the 80% of their user base that uses windows. If they don't have enough people who intimately understand the computing experience of their users then their products could suffer.

they are not saying that they are getting rid of all windows machines full stop, they are saying that none of their employers can use windows machines as their dev machine / work machines. They don't want to expose any private data to the windows machines. They certainly will keep around some windows boxen for testing purposes.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#68

Post by jimbokun »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #48
melling wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market share: Windows 90%, Mac 9%, Linux 1%. Where are virus writers going to put most of their effort? Windows being as secure as Mac wouldn't help make it safer because a lot more implemented exploits are going to exist in the wild.

While this move may prevent infection by FR33_PR0N.wmv.exe, I don't see how it will prevent being hacked by China (the major concern).

I believe the Chinese government has Windows source code, and Google does not. The Darwin and BSD layers of Mac OS X are open source, so Google can at least study the code to understand the security implications of using OS X.

In other words, with open source Google is on a more level playing field against potential attackers.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#69

Post by chancho »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #58
megaman821 wrote: post #14

Is there any evidence that Windows 7 is less secured than Snow Leopard? Windows employs more advanced security techniques. IE has outlasted Safari in Pwn2Own since IE8. Windows releases security fixes much faster. If they favor OS X over Windows that is completely fine, but I think they are implying something that isn't true in regards to security. If someone exploits OS X on them, is everyone moving to Linux next?

Mac OSX is inferior from a security standpoint, but enjoys herd immunity so the actual risk of infection is lower.

Herd immunity? That's a pretty bad metaphor. There is not "safety in numbers" on the Mac. Safety comes from their lack of numbers. Unless you meant to imply that Macs are like the kids at school whose dipshit parents don't vaccinate them.

Re: Google ditches Windows on security concerns

#70

Post by manvsmachine »

chancho wrote: post #69
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mac OSX is inferior from a security standpoint, but enjoys herd immunity so the actual risk of infection is lower.

Herd immunity? That's a pretty bad metaphor. There is not "safety in numbers" on the Mac. Safety comes from their lack of numbers. Unless you meant to imply that Macs are like the kids at school whose dipshit parents don't vaccinate them.

Actually, that's not what herd immunity means. Herd immunity is based on the concept that, if a large enough subset of the population is protected from infection, then others in the population are inherently more protected due to lower transmission rates.

For herd immunity to apply in this case, we'd be assuming that OS X users are more likely to take proper measures to ensure that their system is not compromised (which may or may not be the case).

Post reply on HN