June 15, 2010 at 9:27 am
CirquedeSQLeil (6/15/2010)
Scott Arendt (6/15/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (6/15/2010)
Scott Arendt (6/15/2010)
Something smells funny here. Why would Google employees be using IE 6 in the first place? It is two versions old and Google just happens to have their own browser.This story just doesn't add up.
I imagine it is for compatibility testing.
I assumed that too. But that doesn't fit with the whole ban on Windows machines. Are they no longer going to do compatibility testing? It just seems like a big marketing ploy.
No doubt about it. There is an agenda.
I agree with Scott. One has to question why they are blaming the OS for application errors. To use Steve's example, it's like blaming Ford because the alarm didn't go off when someone broke into your Pinto. Pinto's don't have alarms. They pre-date alarms. For Security reasons (amongst many other reasons) Ford recommends it's latest products for improved features. No one would reasonably blame Ford for this.
June 15, 2010 at 9:28 am
Andreas Jelvemark (6/15/2010)
But that was my point, there is no evidence of Google pulling a media stunt.I think it is just bad journalism that gets spread out because everyone likes to think about and debate about FUD, perceived or otherwise.
Google has not released a statement, either confirming things, or denying things. There have been numerous reports, all pointing to an IE 6 flaw. That's fine, but the timing of Google dropping Windows, and not denying a relation, seems to be suspicious. Quite a few people have been fired for talking about Google, so I'm not surprised we don't have an official confirmation from anyone. It has been reported many times that Google sees Windows as a security risk over this. However the IE 6 flaw is about poor administration of the network, or it's a testing issue, not the average employee's desktop.
This could be bad journalism, but likely I think it was FUD by Google. They might have been thinking about dropping Windows for some time, and with ChromeOS coming, that's fine. It makes sense. Linking it to security concerns is a cheap shot when you're looking at a browser that has to be 5-6 or more years old.
They could have just said Windows costs too much, or that we want to internally run our own OS.
June 15, 2010 at 10:56 am
Reminds me of a time some years ago when I spent several days on-site at MCI in Colorado Springs to do a Proof-of-Concept for a computer-telephony system my company was selling. Part of our equipment setup included a phone which had the AT&T logo on it. I came in one morning and someone had used a black marker to cross out "AT&T" and write "MCI".
Was pretty funny really and clearly showed the corporate territoriality and sensitivity to competing brands.
June 15, 2010 at 11:14 am
Microsoft developers have better things to do with our time than write computer virusus and hack networks, which is why you don't see as many attacks targeting Mac and Linux.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
June 15, 2010 at 11:54 am
I am neither a Microsoft evangelist nor do I tear them down. They are what they are, and I have made a good living by being skilled in MS products.
Mostly I feel the same way about Apple. But saying that their users can use a Unix/Linux or Mac because Windows is insecure...have they looked at the security profile of Macs? Apple is completely opaque with regard to security and when a known flaw (and there are plenty of security issues) will be patched. If Mac becomes widely deployed at Google that will raise the value of hacking a Mac substantially. If even a small portion of the malware enthusiasts out there start really targeting Macs in order to target Google, the Mac will fall and Google will be severly compromised.
So yes, I agree with the many other posts that say this is all about spin and PR. Good luck to Google if Macs make it very far out past the art and media departments.
June 15, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Scott Arendt (6/15/2010)
Something smells funny here. Why would Google employees be using IE 6 in the first place? It is two versions old and Google just happens to have their own browser.This story just doesn't add up.
Sure they have their own browser, but they also have the world's leading search engine. Can you begin to imagine the complaints if it didn't work with the competition's browsers?
There was no official announcement of this, BTW. It's all rumour.
June 16, 2010 at 8:07 am
There have been numerous quotes, quite a few in financial publications like this: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html
Google would have to put out a press release to deny this or they are manipulating stock information. It's not rumor, it's a policy change at Google.
June 16, 2010 at 8:52 am
Seeing that Google is developing it's own operating system, Chrome, I guess this move was inevitable. However, the hacking of Google's China division was a targeted attack; they can't hide behind Mac, Linux, or Chrome; they can only protect themselves with an effective firewall and internal security policies. What's also inevitable is that it's only a matter of time before Linux and Chrome end up in news headlines as entry points for another hacking attack against Google.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
June 16, 2010 at 11:43 am
I'd feel more comfortable about it if there was a press release confirming it. Absence of a press release that denies it is not conclusive, IMO.
June 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm
From the article I read hackers target IE/Windows due to the exposure it gets them compared to Firefox or anything else, it is not due to the product being more or less secure in comparison. Regardless it is funny to think of any MS product in Google - and to imagine a google guy calling Ms for product support is even funnier 🙂
June 16, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The Ford reference reminded me of this old e-mail chain.
If Microsoft Built Cars
Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car.
Occasionally your car would just die on the highway for no reason. Accept this, restart and drive on.
Occasionally, executing a maneuver would cause the car to stop and fail to restart. You'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too.
You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought "Car 95" or "Car NT". But then you'd have to buy more seats.
Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive - but it would only run on five percent of the roads.
The oil, engine, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced with a single "General Car Fault" light.
People would get excited about "new" features in Microsoft cars, forgetting completely that they had been available in other cars for years.
We'd all have to switch to Microsoft gas and auto fluids.
New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
The airbag system would say, "Are you sure?" before going off.
If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened.
Microsoft wouldn't build their own engines, but form a cartel with their engine suppliers. The engine would be a side-valve design so you could still use Model T Ford parts on it.
Microsoft cars would have a special radio/cassette player which would only be able to listen to Microsoft FM and play Microsoft cassettes.
Microsoft would do well, because even though they don't own any roads, all road manufacturers would give away Microsoft cars for free!
If you couldn't afford to buy a new car, you could borrow your friend's and copy it.
Whenever you bought a car, you would have to reorganize the ignition a few days until it worked.
You would need an upgrade to run cars on a highway next to each other.
Dan
If only I could snap my figures and have all the correct indexes apear and the buffer clean and.... Start day dream here.
Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply