Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Jun 2010 09:42 UTC
Google Google employees have always had a remarkable amount of freedom when it comes to what operating system they wanted to run on company computers - Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, it was all fine. Since the China attacks, however, this has changed: Windows is no longer welcome on Google computers.
Order by: Score:
It is not only Google
by pica on Tue 1st Jun 2010 09:59 UTC
pica
Member since:
2005-07-10

also IBM works hard to get independant of Microsoft Windows.

MS Office and MS Project are already replaced.
A Lotus Notes Client exists for Linux.
...

pica


Disclaimer: I do not work at IBM

Reply Score: 8

Secure alternative
by Hiawatha on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:03 UTC
Hiawatha
Member since:
2005-08-29

Many people see MacOS X as a secure OS, while in fact it ain't that more secure than Windows. Applications like Safari and Quicktime prove that not all Apple programmers are good at secure programming.

You can look for yourself at Secunia: http://secunia.com/advisories/search/

Edited 2010-06-01 10:05 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Secure alternative
by Kroc on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:11 UTC in reply to "Secure alternative"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Agreed. What Google _really_ should be banning from their premises is Flash and Reader.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by Kroc on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Uh, what's with the modding on the comment? Flash and Reader make up 80+% of exploits. Safari+Snow Leopard is no more secure than IE8+Win7. The single, most effective way to be safe from 0day attacks on the web is to block Flash/Reader or uninstall them--that's the reality of the situation.

Google are deferring the blame from themselves whilst taking a pot shot at Microsoft. There's security flaws in old versions of Chrome too, so why is Windows the fault when Google didn't keep the software up to date on that machine. IE6. Good grief.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by looncraz on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

The single most effective way is NoScript + Flashblock.

This way I can enable only the features I need, when I need them. I don't see any flash ads ( and, with AdBlock, I see almost no ads ), but I can watch YouTube without issue.

Many times I have landed on a malicious web-site that needed javascript to launch an exploit, so disabling scripting is simply the easiest way.

Granted, you need to understand javascript and web-programming well enough to know when to enable it safely, but it still the most effective way - on any OS.

--The loon

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Secure alternative
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Secure alternative"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

....or just don't go to sites that you wouldn't trust javascript to run on in the first place. What I don't like about noscript is that the internet is effectively broken until you enable it manually, site by site.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Secure alternative
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Secure alternative"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

....or just don't go to sites that you wouldn't trust javascript to run on in the first place. What I don't like about noscript is that the internet is effectively broken until you enable it manually, site by site.

Options, options, options. All you have to do is set NoScript to "temporarily allow top-level sites by default." It's the very first checkable option and on the very first tab of the extension's options window. This will allow all sites you actually *visit* to run scripts, but no sites from other domains. You might have an occasional problem with some sites such as YouTube that require running scripts from other sites (ie. ytimg.com), but it's pretty rare. Easy and effective... I set up my mom's computer to work this way, and she has no problems; mine is fully manual, no script run without my temporary or permanent permission.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Secure alternative
by google_ninja on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Secure alternative"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

There are loads of situations where that will not work fine. And the thing is, something like noscript gives you a false sense of security anyways. There are plenty of javascript exploits, but there have been attack vectors for virtually every piece of technology on the web. There have been loads of exploits related to images executing arbitrary code, do you disable all images by default? CSS expressions are another one, maybe whitelist all styles? And browser plugins are hands down the worst culpret of them all....

Being secure on the web means making smart choices about what websites you visit, not by arbitrarily blocking technology that makes the internet what it is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by MacMan on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

Why would anyone install Adobe Reader on anything other than Windows????

OSX natively supports PDF, I use mostly Skip which is an app that hosts the native PDF control.

Similarly on Linux, I use Okular which is again a native KDE app.

Does Reader offer anything other than an insecure, alien app???

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by Neolander on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

There's three major reasons to use Acrobat Reader on non-Windows systems, including two valid ones.
1/Having a PDF reader embedded in Firefox. AFAIK, only Adobe does that on linux.
2/Having full support for new PDF features like digital signing.
3/"If I want to read a PDF, I've got to install this, like on Windows"

Edited 2010-06-01 13:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Secure alternative
by Damnshock on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Secure alternative"
Damnshock Member since:
2006-09-15

I know is not the same but... you can get embedded pdfs on konqueror ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Secure alternative
by Neolander on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Secure alternative"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I know is not the same but... you can get embedded pdfs on konqueror ;)

I know ;) But last time I checked, Konqueror was still a bit too sluggish for everyday use, and had some issues with that Flash player plugin which I happen to use on a regular fashion...

Moreover, Firefox has its extensions, plus that nifty address bar stolen from Opera that works so well...

Edited 2010-06-01 13:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Secure alternative
by Damnshock on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Secure alternative"
Damnshock Member since:
2006-09-15

Have you given a try to reKonq? I would be using it if I could find out why all my webkit based browsers crash a lot :'(

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Secure alternative
by acobar on Tue 1st Jun 2010 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Secure alternative"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Actually, there is a new project on kde-apps that fixes the Firefox + Opera issue. It is a Kpart plugin.

http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php/KParts+Plugin?content=125066

I really see no reason to use Adobe Reader on linux. It is sluggish, ugly and I did not find any PDF I could not open with the free pdf readers. If I find one any day it probably will not be worth my time as I see pdf as a method to distribute information while preserving original layout, and all crap someone may insert to prevent it from be viewed defeats whats it is worth for me.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Secure alternative
by phoenix on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Secure alternative"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

There's three major reasons to use Acrobat Reader on non-Windows systems, including two valid ones.
1/Having a PDF reader embedded in Firefox. AFAIK, only Adobe does that on linux.


This is the first "feature" of Adobe Reader that gets disabled on all our work computers, as this causes all kinds of confusion. "I used File -> Print and only got one page", "I clicked the X to close the PDF and Firefox closed", etc.

Personally, I've never understood the desire to "embed" applications within the web browser for displaying docs. IE and Office is even worse. If I click on a document link, I expect a separate app to open to view that document.

2/Having full support for new PDF features like digital signing.


Only if those features are needed.

3/"If I want to read a PDF, I've got to install this, like on Windows"


Perfect opportunity for user education. ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Secure alternative
by Neolander on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Secure alternative"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I didn't say that I did encourage this, just that those were valid reasons for using Acrobat

"There's three major reasons to use Acrobat Reader on non-Windows systems, including two valid ones.
1/Having a PDF reader embedded in Firefox. AFAIK, only Adobe does that on linux.


This is the first "feature" of Adobe Reader that gets disabled on all our work computers, as this causes all kinds of confusion. "I used File -> Print and only got one page", "I clicked the X to close the PDF and Firefox closed", etc.

Personally, I've never understood the desire to "embed" applications within the web browser for displaying docs. IE and Office is even worse. If I click on a document link, I expect a separate app to open to view that document.
"

That's your point of view. I happen to agree with you, but most Mac users, as an example, prefer a desktop metaphor where apps seemingly do not exist, making everything a seamless browsing experience.

"After all, what is the difference between opening an image and opening a PDF ? Those are both viewable files, they should be treated the same way."

" 2/Having full support for new PDF features like digital signing.


Only if those features are needed.
"

Agree. I just hapened to use Windows recently at work because of those Acrobat features that KPDF did not provide on FreeBSD. So I can understand those who use Acrobat for compatibility reasons.

Edited 2010-06-01 16:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Secure alternative
by tyrione on Tue 1st Jun 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Secure alternative"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

There's three major reasons to use Acrobat Reader on non-Windows systems, including two valid ones.
1/Having a PDF reader embedded in Firefox. AFAIK, only Adobe does that on linux.
2/Having full support for new PDF features like digital signing.
3/"If I want to read a PDF, I've got to install this, like on Windows"


4. The documents require Acrobat 7 or newer
5. CAD Drawings are embedded
6. Javascript/SWF embedded content
7. Forms in FDF1.6 or greater, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Secure alternative
by Neolander on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 07:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Secure alternative"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"There's three major reasons to use Acrobat Reader on non-Windows systems, including two valid ones.
1/Having a PDF reader embedded in Firefox. AFAIK, only Adobe does that on linux.
2/Having full support for new PDF features like digital signing.
3/"If I want to read a PDF, I've got to install this, like on Windows"


4. The documents require Acrobat 7 or newer
5. CAD Drawings are embedded
6. Javascript/SWF embedded content
7. Forms in FDF1.6 or greater, etc.
"

You only expanded 2/... I didn't think that it needed several points, since those are all power user features that probably don't get used more than twice a year on an average computer.

Edited 2010-06-02 07:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Secure alternative
by sdhays on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Secure alternative"
sdhays Member since:
2007-03-13

I've found that on some large PDFs, Acrobat Reader is more efficient and responsive than Okular. And it really is better than the open source PDF viewers available on the ancient RHEL 5.5 I have to use at work, at least in my experience.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Secure alternative
by lemur2 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Secure alternative"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I've found that on some large PDFs, Acrobat Reader is more efficient and responsive than Okular. And it really is better than the open source PDF viewers available on the ancient RHEL 5.5 I have to use at work, at least in my experience.


I've found that on 99.9% of PDFs (made-up figure, but you get the gist), Okular loads far faster and is more efficient and responsive than Acrobat Reader on Windows.

In fact, this observation holds true for most of the applications I use on Kubuntu 10.4 at home, compared to the equivalent applications I use on Windows at work.

My four-year-old modest self-assembled-from-piece-parts ordered-over-the-web desktop self-administered Linux system, costing me about $300 all up (once-only charge, hardware and full set of desktop applications included), is far faster, more capable, more responsive and more secure than the newer-and-supposedly-more-powerful-hardware difficult-to-maintain-requiring-an-IT-depratment very-expensive-software-with-ongoing-license-costs Windows system I am forced to use at work.

Go figure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

windows has alternate PDF readers with plugins too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by bert64 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Adobe reader is easy to get rid of, i haven't used that for years because there are loads of much better PDF readers out there...

Flash on the other hand is very hard to get rid of, because there are no alternative flash players out there that are usable yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Secure alternative
by Tony Swash on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:35 UTC in reply to "Secure alternative"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Many people see MacOS X as a secure OS, while in fact it ain't that more secure than Windows.


Those technical dimwits at Google have been fooled by Apple marketing again ;)

Why - in your opinion - would Google say it prefers MacOSX to Windows on security grounds if they are both equally insecure?

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by woegjiub on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Whilst they may be equally insecure, there are far less instances of developed malware for the Apple operating system.

There is a large botnet of macs though - pirated versions of adobe software with trojans built-in caused a huge number of them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by Lennie on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

1. Microsoft is really slow a lot of the times with creating fixes when problems are reported. Some say they are getting better with writing software. I'm not so sure. Every new release of windows they say, we've rewritten large parts and checked large parts of the code base. And every single time some bug is found in DCOM or whatever and it turns out they were vulnerable for that bug ever since the NT4-era all the way up to the lastest version. The only difference is, in newer versions they added a firewall or similair general purpose layer. Sometimes it's even on by default.

2. Apple on the other hand is slow with pushing security updates for things which they did not create themselfs, like Java and open source libraries. We don't know much about the rest, but it doesn't seem to be much better.

3. Their is a lot more malware out their for Windows.

4. Many malware writers were so annoyed by Vista as their primary desktop they switched to using a Mac and started writing malware for the Mac as well.

To be honest, I don't know what is better.

These companies don't seem to be interrested in pushing out updates. It's work they don't want to do, they just do enough to not get a bad image.

But if you look at what Google is doing, you have to remember, they are doing this because it fits their way of working. I wouldn't be surprised that in their environment a Unix-based Mac is much easier to secure because it's similair to Linux (I heared Ubuntu).

So it means less work for them.

Edited 2010-06-01 11:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by Tony Swash on Tue 1st Jun 2010 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

There is a large botnet of macs though - pirated versions of adobe software with trojans built-in caused a huge number of them.


.... and your evidence to support this claim is?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Secure alternative
by woegjiub on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Secure alternative"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25
RE[4]: Secure alternative
by NeoX on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Secure alternative"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


.... and your evidence to support this claim is?

I did read about the botnets and the Adobe/iWorks trojans.

http://www.crn.com/security/212902615

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/20815/

You can read about it at the above link. Bottom line is that if you legally purchase your software, you won't get these nasties... Also don't just automatically type in your administrator password when asked for it by an installer or an app. Research it first.

That being said I feel the Mac is more secure because of the lack of malware and better over all security model vs XP. Vista and 7 take a bit from what OS X has had for a while and that is a step in the right direction.

Still a lot of the malware that gets installed on a system is due to plain old user error and saying YES to a dialog box that they should not have accepted. I have seen many fake A/V apps get installed this way instantly disabling the windows security center and any security app with it.

Edited 2010-06-02 02:43 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by Shkaba on Tue 1st Jun 2010 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Security through obscurity is what comes to mind when talking about Mac OS. Mac was the first victim in Vancouver's PWN2OWN, no?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

after RTFA..

Windows is known for being more vulnerable to attacks by hackers and more susceptible to computer viruses than other operating systems. The greater number of attacks on Windows has much to do with its prevalence, which has made it a bigger target for attackers.


The reasoning is based on the number of exploits and the targetting of the platform by the bad guys, not really on security.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Secure alternative
by polaris20 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Secure alternative"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

OS X, for now, is safer than Windows 7. It is NOT more secure.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Secure alternative
by Morgan on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Secure alternative"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

OS X, for now, is safer than Windows 7. It is NOT more secure.



Pardon me for being blunt, but: Prove it. Don't just blindly spout something like that without backing it up. And before you call me a fanboy, I'm posting this from Windows 7 and I'd call you out just the same if you swapped the OS names in your statement.

Sorry, but I just like a little fact with my supposition, thank you.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Secure alternative
by mrhasbean on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:52 UTC in reply to "Secure alternative"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Many people see MacOS X as a secure OS, while in fact it ain't that more secure than Windows. Applications like Safari and Quicktime prove that not all Apple programmers are good at secure programming.


So I'm certain that as soon as the Chinese hack into their Macs they'll ban OSX too.

We'll wait for the article...

Reply Score: 6

RE: Secure alternative
by Neolander on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:11 UTC in reply to "Secure alternative"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It's security by low market share : the vast majority of people still uses windows, why should one write viruses that only target less than 20% of desktop computers ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Secure alternative
by duanev on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:45 UTC in reply to "Secure alternative"
duanev Member since:
2010-06-01

Ok, using your link to Secunia:

Search = "MacOS" : Found: 43 Secunia Security Advisories
Search = "Windows" : Found: 1676 Secunia Security Advisories

Reply Score: 2

Using Chrome OS
by jibadeeha on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:15 UTC
jibadeeha
Member since:
2009-08-10

"Google is working on the Linux-based Chrome OS, so promoting internal use of Google products is high on the agenda."

Doubt this would extend to the developers though, as they would surely need access to software development tools, e.g. an IDE, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Using Chrome OS
by woegjiub on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:19 UTC in reply to "Using Chrome OS"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Google uses Ubuntu extensively; there are excellent coding tools in Ubuntu.

Of course, wanting to use google products will cause google to increase the number and power of web applications, chromeOS allows web apps to use client hardware, if I recall correctly.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Using Chrome OS
by Laurence on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Using Chrome OS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Google uses Ubuntu extensively; there are excellent coding tools in Ubuntu.


Actually no there isn't.

As of 6months ago, much of Android development required a version of Eclipse that's more recent than the latest copy in Ubuntu's software repositories.

This meant that Ubuntu users had to manually download and install Eclipse - ie configure their coding tools from sources outside of Canonical's distros.

Aside that, Ubuntu isn't really that much different from most other Linux distros in terms of development tools.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Using Chrome OS
by Windows Sucks on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Using Chrome OS"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

"Google uses Ubuntu extensively; there are excellent coding tools in Ubuntu.


Actually no there isn't.

As of 6months ago, much of Android development required a version of Eclipse that's more recent than the latest copy in Ubuntu's software repositories.

This meant that Ubuntu users had to manually download and install Eclipse - ie configure their coding tools from sources outside of Canonical's distros.
"

Wow, Ubuntu users having to do what all other people on all other OS's have to do. Install apps manually. Man Ubuntu sucks. LOL!

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Using Chrome OS
by Laurence on Tue 1st Jun 2010 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Using Chrome OS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26



Wow, Ubuntu users having to do what all other people on all other OS's have to do. Install apps manually. Man Ubuntu sucks. LOL!

You've missed the point of my post if that's all you've taken from it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Using Chrome OS
by flynn on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Using Chrome OS"
flynn Member since:
2009-03-19

"Google uses Ubuntu extensively; there are excellent coding tools in Ubuntu.

As of 6months ago, much of Android development required a version of Eclipse that's more recent than the latest copy in Ubuntu's software repositories.

This meant that Ubuntu users had to manually download and install Eclipse - ie configure their coding tools from sources outside of Canonical's distros.
"
I wonder why more people aren't using rolling-release distros, where things like this never happen.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Using Chrome OS
by Neolander on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Using Chrome OS"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I wonder why more people aren't using rolling-release distros, where things like this never happen.

Because updates only endure little stress-testing in order to ship faster, so that a single update can break everything.

As an example, I stopped using Arch Linux because one day, they pushed a major update of packman, the package manager itself, in the "stable" repo with insuficient testing, and this totally broke package management on my system. I couldn't install a single package, not even the packman bugfix release that was delivered some weeks later.

Rolling release is not good for everyone, because it forces people to think and read changelogs before installing updates. Most people don't want that, they just want to fix security holes, and new stuff will wait until they decide to try out the newest release of their distro of choice.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by Damnshock on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
Damnshock Member since:
2006-09-15

Well, it could be a "rolling release". I mean, get regular apps updates but not the core system apps, like pacman ;)

Wouldn't that be great?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Using Chrome OS
by phoenix on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Using Chrome OS"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, that would be great.

But it will never happen in linux-land until a distro comes up with the concept of "base OS" and "3rd-party apps", and packages them separately.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Using Chrome OS
by Neolander on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Using Chrome OS"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, it could be a "rolling release". I mean, get regular apps updates but not the core system apps, like pacman ;)

Wouldn't that be great?

I don't know. It could only be displacing the source of bugs : if OpenOffice crashes after an update, the average office suite user with a schedule will feel only slightly less angry as if it's the kernel that crashes...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Using Chrome OS
by MacMan on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Using Chrome OS"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

First off, before the flames start, I'd like to say that I love Linux, and use it everyday.

Software distribution is however SOOO FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED in Linux. Why do I have to wait for the distro packagers to deliver an app. Why can't I just grab a .app like OSX and JUST RUN IT?????

The .app in OSX is really a directory structure, which houses the executable, any libraries, an icon, config files, etc..., similar to a java jar.

It would be so freaking simple to have Gnome or KDE support such a system.

I've "installed" a newer version of Eclipse in Ubuntu that what came with the distro, and compared with OSX, its a nightmare. First, stick it somewhere, like /opt, get all the permissions straight, then starts the nightmare with editing .desktop entries to give me a menu item, or a desktop icon. This is crazy.

A user should be able to grap a .app from anywhere, stick it anywhere on their file system, and run it, or drag it to the desktop or toolbar to automatically create a launcher for it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by TechGeek on Tue 1st Jun 2010 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You can. Its called precompiled software. It may or may not run though. With Macs, you have a single platform target. With Linux, you have many targets. So you do one of two things. Compile everything you install from source, like Gentoo. Or you have packages. Even Windows has different packages. There are less options, but 32/64 and specific OS means Windows devs have to compile multiple apps or just not support old OS's like Win2k, 98.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by MattPie on Tue 1st Jun 2010 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

Software distribution is however SOOO FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED in Linux. Why do I have to wait for the distro packagers to deliver an app. Why can't I just grab a .app like OSX and JUST RUN IT?????

The .app in OSX is really a directory structure, which houses the executable, any libraries, an icon, config files, etc..., similar to a java jar.


Besides the technical difficulty of creating one 'package' (.app in Mac-speak) that works everywhere in Linux, how do you do updates? What happens when one of those libraries in the .app as a security bug?

Let's say a fictitious libPDF (for fun) finds out there's a bug that needs to be fixed. All the developers/vendors that use libPDF in their .app now have to update their version and deploy a new .app for people to use, plus notify their users that it's available. Then, you have to trust that the users are actually paying attention and will download the new version of the .app. Repeat for each app that uses libPDF. Plus, since the libraries are in the .app, you may end up with 20 different copies of libPDF in .apps, many likely the same version (wasted disk).

The repository system isn't perfect by any means, but .app isn't either. Apple chose compatibility over disk space and ease of updates. It's a design decision.

There are groups that have done similar things for Linux, I believe, just none of them have caught on with a major distro.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Using Chrome OS
by apoclypse on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Using Chrome OS"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

most Mac apps handle this by asking you to update them when you start them up. it would be nicer to update them in one go but he whole lib thing is not really an issue on OSX. They rather just have you download the app the full updated app bundle than deal with just updating one lib in the package. It sucks but its the way it is. That's why mac application updates are so damn huge sometimes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Using Chrome OS
by nt_jerkface on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Using Chrome OS"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


The repository system isn't perfect by any means, but .app isn't either. Apple chose compatibility over disk space and ease of updates. It's a design decision.


The repository system was designed when hard drive and memory space were at a premium. It's better described as a legacy system.

Compared to the system in OSX it's completely retarded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Using Chrome OS
by jtfolden on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Using Chrome OS"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

The repository system was designed when hard drive and memory space were at a premium. It's better described as a legacy system.

Compared to the system in OSX it's completely retarded.


I completely agree. This has always been an issue and is one of the major reasons why the "year of desktop linux" will never come... until it's fixed, of course.

The average user, trying to get real work done, is not going to resort to obscure commands or upgrade their entire distro every time an application update comes out that they need.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Using Chrome OS
by karl on Tue 1st Jun 2010 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Using Chrome OS"
karl Member since:
2005-07-06

OS X simply does not have any package management. Stating that repositories is retarded in contrast to the utter lack of package management in OS X is itself a "retarded" statement.

Now one may argue about the relative ease of installation/uninstallation of apps in OS X, and there is much to be said for how OS X does this.

The reason why Linux does not offer something like what OS X does is really simple. In fact there have been umpteen failed attempts to implement something similar for Linux. That reason is: Linux, at least in terms of desktops/servers(not so much for the embedded space/and tablets/smartphones etc.), is simply not possible without package management(apologies to the LFS guys/gals). Package management is a fundamental necessity due to the incredibly large number of diverse libraries and the resultant dependencies.

Linux is not like OS X or windows for that matter. For every one kind of library that exists for OS X there are 10 different ones for Linux. And then of course there are many, many concurrent versions of said libraries.

Now one could argue that there should not be so many different libraries or that there should only be one current version in use of any library. But that would not be Linux.

Personally I find having to hunt all over the web for an application and download it from some random website and install it is a horrible way of installing software. There are so many security issues involved with this method that no one who is remotely security conscious could truthfully advocate such a system.

Simply put repositories and package management systems are the solution to managing the inherit complexity in application distribution in Linux. And frankly when I use OS X I miss having access to the repositories that I take for granted, having been a Linux user for the last 15 years.

For all the apparent advantages to the relative simplicity of of app install/uninstall on OS X, the fact that each app is an island unto itself and that there is no "system" is markedly deficient and lacking in my eyes.

The homogeneity of the Mac software ecosystem(all the way down to the IPad) obviates much of the need for such mature solutions like repositories and package management. But this is due to the relative lack of libraries and functionality provided within that software ecosystem, which on the whole, is far, far less mature than what is offered under Linux.

Maybe one day, when OS X grows up, we will see package management on OS X too ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Using Chrome OS
by bert64 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Using Chrome OS"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23


Compared to the system in OSX it's completely retarded.


Why then, has Apple chosen a (somewhat more restrictive) repository type system for the iphone and ipad?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by Hiawatha on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
Hiawatha Member since:
2005-08-29

Because all MacOS X developers create a package for MacOS X, while only a few Linux developers create a package for each distribution (because that's a lot of sucky work). They just publish the source code, so you can compile (and package) it for your distribution yourself.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by siride on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

You can always download RPMs and DEBs from any website and install the software just like you would in Windows (albeit without an installer asking you thirty questions about where and how to install). You can also subscribe the repositories that have more up-to-date versions of software or beta/testing versions. And those will/can be auto-updated, so you don't have to hunt around to each non-distro-release piece of software that you have (unlike Windows and Mac OS X where every 3rd party program has its own wacko updater).

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Using Chrome OS
by nt_jerkface on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Using Chrome OS"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You can always download RPMs and DEBs from any website and install the software just like you would in Windows (albeit without an installer asking you thirty questions about where and how to install).


No it doesn't ask you any questions, it will just go ahead and break a dependency without your permission.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Using Chrome OS
by siride on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Using Chrome OS"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Not these days. Usually, the installer uses Yum or apt as a backend, not the more primitive rpm or dpkg. So it will install the package, along with any dependencies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by acobar on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Besides good reasons people repeat again and again, and all talking about diversity on libraries and file system structure on Linux world (options for them also), I will list some to you:

* Sharing libraries - it makes a program starts faster if some libraries are already loaded and make the app uses less memory on this case - in macs most developers target the base system libraries and dump whatever they may need inside the app;

* Libraries updates means that an app may benefit from fixes without being recompiled/reinstalled, i.e., they have a wide effect (on security also);

* Optimization for your architecture.

It is possible to create a static app for linux (you will find some), but most people do not care that much as they may lose what was cited.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Using Chrome OS
by nt_jerkface on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Using Chrome OS"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


* Sharing libraries - it makes a program starts faster if some libraries are already loaded and make the app uses less memory on this case - in macs most developers target the base system libraries and dump whatever they may need inside the app;


Funny how people complain about Firefox and OpenOffice loading slow in Linux compared to Windows. Saving memory and hd space isn't an issue with the typical laptop comes with a 320gig hard drive an 2+ gigs of ram.


* Libraries updates means that an app may benefit from fixes without being recompiled/reinstalled, i.e., they have a wide effect (on security also);

Or that update might break the app. Repositories have their own security problem which is that updates of programs are often delayed until dependency issues have been resolved.


* Optimization for your architecture.

Funny how Firefox in Wine loads faster than the native version. Same for OpenOffice.


It is possible to create a static app for linux (you will find some), but most people do not care that much as they may lose what was cited.

Distros do not have software management systems designed around static apps and you get to deal with all kinds of incompatibility issues which are normally ameliorated by releasing the source and lettings hundreds of package maintainers handle the rest. That brings up another issue which is that the repository system is a giant waste of labor.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Using Chrome OS
by siride on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Using Chrome OS"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Firefox and OO are not good examples because they are both bloated, inefficient piles of crap. Even on Windows, Firefox is slower to start than IE or Chrome. Watching strace I/O for Firefox makes me want to cry. It's just plain inefficient at startup. Has nothing to do with shared libraries. Other programs load plenty fast on Linux. They also use considerably less memory than on Windows. The cost of shared libraries these days is pretty much nil. It's been measured. It's fast. Deal with.

Oh, and OS X does use shared libraries for all system stuff, which is probably the bulk of library-age for any given program.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Using Chrome OS
by acobar on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Using Chrome OS"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

"
* Sharing libraries - it makes a program starts faster if some libraries are already loaded and make the app uses less memory on this case - in macs most developers target the base system libraries and dump whatever they may need inside the app;

Funny how people complain about Firefox and OpenOffice loading slow in Linux compared to Windows. Saving memory and hd space isn't an issue with the typical laptop comes with a 320gig hard drive an 2+ gigs of ram.
"
It has more to do with the layer they put around to isolate the host system and the effort dispensed on optimizations for a specific platform than anything else. It can argued that developers of the named programs put a lot more effort on making them run faster on Windows.

"
* Libraries updates means that an app may benefit from fixes without being recompiled/reinstalled, i.e., they have a wide effect (on security also);

Or that update might break the app. Repositories have their own security problem which is that updates of programs are often delayed until dependency issues have been resolved.
"
First, that is why repositories exist, to test before assemble and ship. Second, on cases where an update is not possible because of dependency issues, if something is a security risk or has other issues it usually get patched and then released. If you follow the bug reports you will find this a common pattern.

"
* Optimization for your architecture.

Funny how Firefox in Wine loads faster than the native version. Same for OpenOffice.
"
Do you think that Wine does something magic about it? Perhaps, you may know if some REAL Windows libraries are need to run them or just what comes with Wine is enough. Anyway, already answered.

"
It is possible to create a static app for linux (you will find some), but most people do not care that much as they may lose what was cited.

Distros do not have software management systems designed around static apps and you get to deal with all kinds of incompatibility issues which are normally ameliorated by releasing the source and lettings hundreds of package maintainers handle the rest. That brings up another issue which is that the repository system is a giant waste of labor.
"
I was talking about a very specific need, what is far from be common, i.e. the need to use an application that or is not inside the distro repository or is old and lacks some needed features. The rest of your reasoning is pure nonsense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by phoenix on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

You should give PC-BSD a try. It uses its own PBI format for app installs, which is similar in concept to MacOS X .app bundles. Plus, it's build on top of FreeBSD, so you don't have to deal with Linux. ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by woegjiub on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

That is actually very easy.

You simply download a .deb file, click on it, and it installs in the KDE or gnome desktops on a debian-based system.

Because Ubuntu is far more extensively used than any other distro, you have sites like getdeb, which allow you to do just that.

Personally, I prefer adding third party PPA repos; I then get updates as the developers make them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by bert64 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

There is nothing stopping you from downloading a binary and running it, however it is this system that is flawed... A package manager is hugely superior, and this is why most linux users would never even consider downloading and running software by hand...

How do you ensure that your manually installed apps are up to date? Do you really want each app running its own update program in the background?
How do you ensure that the site you download from is legitimate? Sounds like extra work...
Similarly, even locating the app in the first place is extra unnecessary work...

A package manager is just better, apple operate something similar with the iphone app store and users love it... The linux system has all the benefits of the app store and none of the downsides.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Using Chrome OS
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Using Chrome OS"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Similar thing happens with ruby gems, specifically rails.

ruby libs have their own package management system (basically a CPAN clone called rubygems) that does a good enough job. But debian also tracks specific libs in its repo (one of which is rails), so if you do "apt-get install rubygems", you end up with a modified version that spits out an error if you try to install a debian tracked library through gem.

The reason this is retarded is that certain packages (like rails) move WAY faster then the debian repo maintainers. That means that if you install rails on ubuntu the supported way, you end up with an obsolete version that can't be upgraded until the next release. Replacing the crippled ubuntu rubygems install with one off of rubyforge is potentially a non trivial job as well. Finally, if rubygems is an existing system that does a better job then apt for ruby libraries, and is used exclusively by every rubyist, why the hell would you bother trying to fix something that isn't broken?

I think in a general way, apt is great for app installs, but terrible for dev tools, or anything where staying remotely up to date with upstream is desirable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Using Chrome OS
by bert64 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Using Chrome OS"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

It all depends on your usage requirements...

Business and other non technical users want stability, they want one version and to know it isn't going to change significantly or break, but they do want to receive security updates and be able to install them easily. Ubuntu and RHEL are aimed at users like this.

Technical users want to be on the bleeding edge and have all the latest stuff, and are generally clued up enough to deal with compatibility problems that the latest untested software might bring. Gentoo and Arch are aimed at users like this...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by google_ninja on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

It all depends on your usage requirements...

Business and other non technical users want stability, they want one version and to know it isn't going to change significantly or break, but they do want to receive security updates and be able to install them easily. Ubuntu and RHEL are aimed at users like this.


It doesn't depend at all on usage requirements. It has to do with pulling stuff out of a package system that is used by everyone into your own, not doing as good a job, and actively preventing people from using the one that is used by everyone. Not only that, but developers are, by their definition, technical users, so dev tools should not be treated the same as other stuff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Using Chrome OS
by jibadeeha on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Using Chrome OS"
jibadeeha Member since:
2009-08-10

Google uses Ubuntu extensively; there are excellent coding tools in Ubuntu.

Of course, wanting to use google products will cause google to increase the number and power of web applications, chromeOS allows web apps to use client hardware, if I recall correctly.


I was referring to the last paragraph in the article, and thinking more along the lines that if Google were to make it's employers eat their own dog food (e.g. using Chrome OS), then this might be somewhat difficult for their developers and probably not a necessary move.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Using Chrome OS
by Windows Sucks on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:49 UTC in reply to "Using Chrome OS"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Doubt this would extend to the developers though, as they would surely need access to software development tools, e.g. an IDE, etc.


? Eclipse on Linux is just fine esp if they are coding for Java and Linux. I am sure some people will still be using Windows tools for coding on Windows. Then again maybe they can port to Windows without using Visual Studio?

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Using Chrome OS
by delta0.delta0 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:57 UTC in reply to "Using Chrome OS"
RE[2]: Using Chrome OS
by Laurence on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Using Chrome OS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

*Face Palm* Seriously ?
How do you think the Linux Kernel is written do you think they use an IDE ? no its called vi or emacs and gcc....

Seriously that has to be the stupidest comment I have read.. Why do you need an IDE to code ? Windows is probably the _WORST_ platform to code on.. The developers are probably already developing using Linux and are probably reading your reply and laughing and mocking you right now..



Vi, emacs and gcc would still be classed as development tools.

<sarcasm>
    Or are you trying to imply that they would use vi / emacs and gcc via a web browser in ChromeOS?
</sarcasm>

Edited 2010-06-01 12:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Using Chrome OS
by delta0.delta0 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Using Chrome OS"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

what is an ide ? integrated development environment (IDE)

So in your definition a text editor and compiler == integrated development environment ??

They are development tools yes, but an IDE ?

The company policy is Linux / Mac, where does chromeOS come into this ? Also just fyi , ChromeOS is based off of Linux, how difficult do you think it would be for them to build a developers build of chrome for internal development ? Wow seriously I am not sure who to give the dumb ass of the year award to now

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Using Chrome OS
by Laurence on Tue 1st Jun 2010 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Using Chrome OS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


what is an ide ? integrated development environment (IDE)

So in your definition a text editor and compiler == integrated development environment ??

I never mentioned IDE. I simply said they were development tools.
For someone who advocates vi, you sure keep harping on about IDEs. ;)


They are development tools yes, but an IDE ?

And the original post said "development tools eg IDE".
He didn't (and nor I) state that developers had to use an IDE nor that IDEs were the only type of development tools available.

But then who needs to properly read what people post when you can start an egotistical flamewar?



The company policy is Linux / Mac, where does chromeOS come into this ?

I take it you didn't bother reading any of the comments before kicking off? Otherwise you'd know who originally raised ChromeOS and why it was being discussed.

So I suggest you go back, read what people have *ACTUALLY* written, *THEN* comment.


Also just fyi , ChromeOS is based off of Linux, how difficult do you think it would be for them to build a developers build of chrome for internal development ?

ChromeOS may have a Linux kernel (or at least Linux-derived - I'm not sure how much custom code is in it), but that doesn't mean it will have all the user-land tools and APIs needed to run their development tools.

In fact, I don't know why I'm wasting my time with muppets like yourself when there's much more mature people on here who also happened to know what they're talking about.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by delta0.delta0 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

To quote original commentor:

Doubt this would extend to the developers though, as they would surely need access to software development tools, e.g. an IDE, etc.


Yes they are indeed development tools, is Vi / Emacs and GCC not development tools ? So what is the parent poster implying ? That you can only find development tools on windows ? That Windows would be the primary platform for development , that IDEs are the only viable development tools ? .. Please note :

they would surely need access to software development tools, e.g. an IDE, etc.

Then re-read my comment then come back to your own.

Now back to your points:

I take it you didn't bother reading any of the comments before kicking off? Otherwise you'd know who originally raised ChromeOS and why it was being discussed.



Look at the time of my post .. Again in relation to the main article not to any ones comments but to the main article what does ChromeOS have to do with development tools ?


ChromeOS may have a Linux kernel (or at least Linux-derived - I'm not sure how much custom code is in it), but that doesn't mean it will have all the user-land tools and APIs needed to run their development tools.


Next FYI, Linux is Licensed under the GPL :. If they develop "custom code" that code falls under the GPL and gets released back into the Linux Kernel. So it will be a 100% Linux Kernel, I hope that also makes sense to you..

You get the dumb ass award right there well done..

You can take a base distribution, lets say Debian and then build your own new Interface, but in the background still run a full development toolkit..

Also please understand, the development version and the developers version of ChromeOS will be completely different to the final released version of ChromeOS.

If your building for a platform you would build it on the platform, not on a completely separate platform, because you need to be able to compile the code and test the interface.. Its like logic is thrown out of the window, both of you deserve the dumb ass of the year award, Seriously congratulations, well done..

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Using Chrome OS
by Laurence on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Using Chrome OS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Yes they are indeed development tools, is Vi / Emacs and GCC not development tools ? So what is the He wasn't implying anything. Is English not your first language?

[q]That you can only find development tools on windows ? That Windows would be the primary platform for development , that IDEs are the only viable development tools ?

What?!!! We're talking about ChromeOS's viability for development, not Windows.
In fact, I don't recall anyone in the conversaion even mentioning Windows until now.

And as for the IDE comment, you're the only one that keeps making that point. Nobody apart from you has implied, stated or even asked that question, and this is a point I've made several times now. So why keep reiterating something that never happened?


Look at the time of my post .. Again in relation to the main article not to any ones comments but to the main article what does ChromeOS have to do with development tools ?

You're a terrible liar.
Not only have you referenced other comments, you've quoted them and hit reply so OSNews's threaded view as grouped the conversations together.

Next FYI, Linux is Licensed under the GPL :. If they develop "custom code" that code falls under the GPL and gets released back into the Linux Kernel. So it will be a 100% Linux Kernel, I hope that also makes sense to you..


You're about 25% correct (and that's being generous!): If Linux gets developed upon, the source code has to be available due to the GPL licencing - that part is correct. Everything else you've stated from then on is quite wide from the mark:

Not all updates to a particular kernel project makes it back to the kernel main branch. For example, much of the work Google have done on Android's kernel is unlikely to see its way onto the vanilla Linux kernel branch. Some times this is due to incompatibilities between the two designs, sometimes it's because there'd be a duplication in functionality (different forks will have a different approach to the same problem) and sometimes it's because there's simply no need for a specialty piece of code to appear in the vanilla kernel.

Furthermore, because of this there is not a "the Linux kernel" as you put it. There will be several branches depending on the specific developments going on. You'll also find than some base distros have their own adaptations (eg ArchLinux) rather than using the vanilla kernel (as Slackware does).

However, the key issue with your whole argument is that you're assuming ChromeOS is using standard GNU user-space tools. AFAIK it's not. That's not to say that development tools couldn't be ported to run on ChromeOS, but doing so might not be straightforward.

So the question is this: if ChromeOS -in it's current build- isn't suitable for development, then why change it. After all, there are other OSs (and Linux distros) already capable and ChromeOS wasn't really developed with this this type of usage in mind (it's more designed as a web front end for low-end machines - essentially a bootable Chrome browser).

But of course you knew all this already, what with being the intellectual you are ;)




You can take a base distribution, lets say Debian and then build your own new Interface, but in the background still run a full development toolkit..

ChromeOS isn't a base distribution. You seem to have some idiotic opinion that ChromeOS is Debian/Red Hat/or whatever but with Chrome bolted on. It's not. The changes in ChromeOS run deeper than whatever window manager and desktop environment is bolted onto Xorg.

I suggest you read up on it before engaging is a discussion (or at least be man enough to ask questions rather than making absurd arguments)



Also please understand, the development version and the developers version of ChromeOS will be completely different to the final released version of ChromeOS.

I doubt it will be "completely" different, but yes, there will be some changes and some might be significant. However that's not a get out clause for your idiotic statements earlier.


If your building for a platform you would build it on the platform, not on a completely separate platform, because you need to be able to compile the code and test the interface.. Its like logic is thrown out of the window, both of you deserve the dumb ass of the year award, Seriously congratulations, well done..

errr, most of ChromeOSs apps will be web apps and you don't need ChromeOS installed to test that as, well, pretty much any computer can run Chrome web browser.

You keep talking about dumb ass awards and yet you spouting off a whole load of rubbish about a platform you clearly know nothing about.

Oh, and let's not forgot that ChromeOS isn't their only project: they have Chrome (for several platforms), Android, numerous cloud products (from Google DNS to GMail).



From here on I'm writing you off as a troll (and judging by the number of times you've been marked down, I'd say others agree with me). So unless you've got anything intelligent to say, I have nothing further to say to you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Using Chrome OS
by jibadeeha on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Using Chrome OS"
jibadeeha Member since:
2009-08-10

what is an ide ? integrated development environment (IDE)

So in your definition a text editor and compiler == integrated development environment ??

They are development tools yes, but an IDE ?

The company policy is Linux / Mac, where does chromeOS come into this ? Also just fyi , ChromeOS is based off of Linux, how difficult do you think it would be for them to build a developers build of chrome for internal development ? Wow seriously I am not sure who to give the dumb ass of the year award to now


I have been thinking about your dilemma, and the dumb ass award of the year definitely belongs to you ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Using Chrome OS
by delta0.delta0 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Using Chrome OS"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

No No .. You and the other guy both get to stand up and share it seriously.. ;)

How can you even think that there is no good development tools on Linux / Mac , Seriously ? Have you ever used Linux ? The whole OS can be turned into one massive integrated development environment if you want it to be.

Did you make that comment as a joke or were you serious and just didn't know any better ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Using Chrome OS
by jibadeeha on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Using Chrome OS"
jibadeeha Member since:
2009-08-10

No No .. You and the other guy both get to stand up and share it seriously.. ;)

How can you even think that there is no good development tools on Linux / Mac , Seriously ? Have you ever used Linux ? The whole OS can be turned into one massive integrated development environment if you want it to be.

Did you make that comment as a joke or were you serious and just didn't know any better ?


I don't actually recall saying there was no good development tools on Linux / Mac.

Yes I have used GNU/Linux.

Did you even read the article and my original comment?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Using Chrome OS
by bnolsen on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:40 UTC in reply to "Using Chrome OS"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

I'm going to have to object on that one. Programming under windows is by no means enjoyable, not in the least. Limited control of system, especially diagnostics, most good free development tools are ported from the unix world, and major headaches with the whole mt, md, etc, etc builds that can't mix and match, subpar support for many many source control systems, gui easily becomes very non responsive during performance testing. I cannot for the life of me understand why people keep repeating that windows is so great for developers.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Using Chrome OS
by moondevil on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Using Chrome OS"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Maybe because we do use the right tools?

I develop for Windows and Unix systems, while it is true that Windows out of the box does not support many of the nice tools Unix seems to have, there are tons of tools to install and ease developers life.

True, many of them are commercial, but if you are developing for leaving what are a few euros, if they make your life easier.


Somehow I feel you don't have real Windows development experience.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Using Chrome OS
by nt_jerkface on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Using Chrome OS"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

most good free development tools are ported from the unix world, and major headaches with the whole mt, md, etc, etc builds that can't mix and match, subpar support for many many source control systems, gui easily becomes very non responsive during performance testing. =


When was the last time you developed in Windows? 1998?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Using Chrome OS
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Using Chrome OS"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If you are talking about doing development on windows, chances are you are talking about using visual studio. If you are talking about doing unix development on windows, I understand how that could suck.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Using Chrome OS
by lemur2 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:43 UTC in reply to "Using Chrome OS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Google is working on the Linux-based Chrome OS, so promoting internal use of Google products is high on the agenda."

Doubt this would extend to the developers though, as they would surely need access to software development tools, e.g. an IDE, etc.


http://qt.nokia.com/products/developer-tools
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7yje3D1UM4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.wingware.com/wingide
http://www.kdevelop.org/
http://www.codeblocks.org/

Integrating with the world's premier compiler for multiple platforms:
http://gcc.gnu.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection
GCC has been adopted as the standard compiler by most other modern Unix-like computer operating systems, including GNU/Linux, the BSD family and Mac OS X. GCC has been ported to a wide variety of processor architectures, and is widely deployed as a tool in commercial, proprietary and closed source software development environments. GCC is also available for most embedded platforms, for example Symbian, AMCC and Freescale Power Architecture-based chips. The compiler can target a wide variety of platforms, including videogame consoles such as the PlayStation 2 and Dreamcast. Several companies make a business out of supplying and supporting gcc ports to various platforms, and chip manufacturers today consider a GCC port almost essential to the success of an architecture.


Welcome to 2010.

Edited 2010-06-01 12:58 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Using Chrome OS
by nt_jerkface on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Using Chrome OS"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

His comment was in reference to how Chrome OS only provides a browser.

But thanks once again for providing links that are redundant when it comes to supporting your point.

Now here are a link for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pithy

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Using Chrome OS
by jibadeeha on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Using Chrome OS"
jibadeeha Member since:
2009-08-10

""Google is working on the Linux-based Chrome OS, so promoting internal use of Google products is high on the agenda."

Doubt this would extend to the developers though, as they would surely need access to software development tools, e.g. an IDE, etc.


http://qt.nokia.com/products/developer-tools
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7yje3D1UM4&feature=player_embed...

http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.wingware.com/wingide
http://www.kdevelop.org/
http://www.codeblocks.org/

Integrating with the world's premier compiler for multiple platforms:
http://gcc.gnu.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection
GCC has been adopted as the standard compiler by most other modern Unix-like computer operating systems, including GNU/Linux, the BSD family and Mac OS X. GCC has been ported to a wide variety of processor architectures, and is widely deployed as a tool in commercial, proprietary and closed source software development environments. GCC is also available for most embedded platforms, for example Symbian, AMCC and Freescale Power Architecture-based chips. The compiler can target a wide variety of platforms, including videogame consoles such as the PlayStation 2 and Dreamcast. Several companies make a business out of supplying and supporting gcc ports to various platforms, and chip manufacturers today consider a GCC port almost essential to the success of an architecture.


Welcome to 2010.
"

Welcome to 2010 - you are so funny ;)

You really didn't need to go to all that trouble in providing all those links, but hey I guess it is your free time and what you enjoy doing.

I am quite aware that GNU/Linux is well supported in terms of development tools at that Chrome OS is based on the Linux kernel.

What I was getting at is this, if Google were to insist employees use Chrome OS then this probably would not extend as far as the developers or support teams unless they modified a version of Chrome OS for this purpose.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Using Chrome OS
by lemur2 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Using Chrome OS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What I was getting at is this, if Google were to insist employees use Chrome OS then this probably would not extend as far as the developers or support teams unless they modified a version of Chrome OS for this purpose.


Do you know what "cross-platform" actually means?

Development on GNU/Linux with its multitude of of IDEs in conjunction with gcc can target a huge array of end platforms and architectures.

Even Chrome OS, even Chrome OS running on any of these architectures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Architectures
composing programs in any of these source languages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Languages

can be targetted by a developer running an IDE in conjunction with gcc.

I note with interest that even Google's Go language is to be targetted.

The GCC steering committee has recently announced that it will also support the Go programming language in GCC 4.5 or later.


You can run Chrome OS itself under a virtual machine.

The IDE and gcc can itself run on many platforms, including Mac OSX and GNU/Linux.

Edited 2010-06-01 23:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

This article's title should read:
by Eddyspeeder on Tue 1st Jun 2010 10:45 UTC
Eddyspeeder
Member since:
2006-05-10

Will Google Embrace Microsoft? No.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:08 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

Such an enlightened company. More should follow their example.

Reply Score: 2

XP and IE6
by gedmurphy on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:13 UTC
gedmurphy
Member since:
2005-12-23

Wasn't the attack brought against an XP machine running IE6?

Companies running this setup are hardly in a position to blame the software vendor for insecurities.

Reply Score: 4

RE: XP and IE6
by kvarbanov on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:22 UTC in reply to "XP and IE6"
kvarbanov Member since:
2008-06-16

True, IE6 is known deficient, XP too. However, number of critical vulnerabilities exist for OSX, too - Safari, Quicktime, iTunes, and so on. Many are cross-platform - Flash, Reader, Firefox, etc, etc. If it's SECURITY to run after - build a custom kernel and pre-build an image of the preferred OS with number of approved applications and their respective versions. Build a local repository and have a security team review each update, remove portions of code that you don't like, contribute back to the open source community, and you should be fine. Personally I'm not enforced to a specific OS for work, hence OpenSuse is my choice. Which, on the other hand, is a bad habit - you forget how to deal with viruses and malware on a windows installations ;)

Edited 2010-06-01 11:23 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: XP and IE6
by gedmurphy on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE: XP and IE6"
gedmurphy Member since:
2005-12-23

True, IE6 is known deficient, XP too. However, number of critical vulnerabilities exist for OSX, too - Safari, Quicktime, iTunes, and so on.


Yeah, but no one is running OSX and Safari from 10 years ago.

If google had been running Win7 and IE8 then it's very unlikely they'd have been compromised.

They're trying to blame Microsoft for their own mistakes and promote themselves in the process.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: XP and IE6
by Windows Sucks on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP and IE6"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

[q]
If google had been running Win7 and IE8 then it's very unlikely they'd have been compromised.


So you are saying that you can't get Malware on Windows 7? LOL! From what I have seen you can get it just as easy as XP. (We are testing Windows 7 now for the government agency I work for)

Only way you are really safe on Windows 7 is going 64 bit. But as we have found out here, tons of custom apps built for XP won't work in Windows 7 64 BIT. So you are still stuck.

We have to make a HUGE investment to move those apps to the 64 Bit version of Windows. A lot of people want to go to the 32 bit version. We are having a big fight over this now. :-(

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: XP and IE6
by gedmurphy on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP and IE6"
gedmurphy Member since:
2005-12-23

Considering your nick highlights you as being unbaised and everything you said makes perfect technical sense, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: XP and IE6
by nt_jerkface on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP and IE6"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


So you are saying that you can't get Malware on Windows 7? LOL! From what I have seen you can get it just as easy as XP. (We are testing Windows 7 now for the government agency I work for)


It's well established that Vista and 7 are less vulnerable to malware than XP. If you are getting malware in an office environment then the IT guys are doing something wrong.


Only way you are really safe on Windows 7 is going 64bit. But as we have found out here, tons of custom apps built for XP won't work in Windows 7 64 BIT. So you are still stuck.


64 bit is safer because of KPP but the 32 bit version can be plenty safe if locked down properly.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: XP and IE6
by Windows Sucks on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: XP and IE6"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

We have not implemented 7 in our office yet. We are just testing to see the security profile of windows 7 matched against the useability we need for our users. Yes we can lock it down rock solid, then again is it then useable? That is the dilemma we are working with. And then the 64 BIT version!!! Blah!!

But yes Windows 7 is more secure then XP! Better be with a 10 year gap between them!


But

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XP and IE6
by Windows Sucks on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE: XP and IE6"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Safari, Quicktime, iTunes, and so on. Many are cross-platform - Flash, Reader, Firefox, etc, etc. If it's SECURITY to run after -


You can remove iTunes (Don't need it at work) and quicktime. You would be using the chrome browser and flash is supposed to be more secure with it's built in version that now comes with chrome.

Plus as people LOVE to state. Mac OS and Linux have NO market share and that is what makes them more secure! So they should be pretty safe right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XP and IE6
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP and IE6"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Remove QuickTime? Since when?

The player, yes, but that's like removing iexplore.exe. QuickTime is a core part of Mac OS X, you can't remove it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: XP and IE6
by Kroc on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP and IE6"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s more like removing mshtml.dll, iexplore is just the GUI. You can remove QuickTime.app, but the QT frameworks are a central part of the operating system that you cannot remove without breaking it.

And anyway, most people’s complaints about IE and QuickTime are the UI, and not the actual engine under the hood (spare web developers of course)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: XP and IE6
by Windows Sucks on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP and IE6"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Remove QuickTime? Since when?

The player, yes, but that's like removing iexplore.exe. QuickTime is a core part of Mac OS X, you can't remove it.


Far as I have seen most of the QT security issues are related to the player and the codecs not the built in framework. But I could be wrong.

You are right though it is a core part of the OS. But then if you have no vector to get to that core framework. (IE not using something like the quicktime player or something else that needs that framework) and there are no ports open to it, then how would you attack it. I guess you could do something that is triggered by the user?

Edited 2010-06-01 12:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XP and IE6
by Tony Swash on Tue 1st Jun 2010 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE: XP and IE6"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

You know what the desperate attempts to whip up anxiety about the claimed insecurity of MacOSX reminds me of, a sad alcoholic pointing at the small glass of cold beer you sip after a days work and shouting "see your as hooked as I am"

For all the froth and splutter the simple fact remains - Macs do not get comprised or exploited in the real world. You can argue as much as you like about why but that simple fact remains true.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: XP and IE6
by coolvibe on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP and IE6"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

That's a dangerous assumption you are making there. Mac OS X boxes get owned all the time. The sneaky part is that the owners don't realize it when that happens. Because it "can't happen".

Do you run without a firewall and with services enabled to the outside world? When was the last time you checked the system logs of your mac for anomalies?

Think about it...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: XP and IE6
by Tony Swash on Tue 1st Jun 2010 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP and IE6"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

That's a dangerous assumption you are making there. Mac OS X boxes get owned all the time. The sneaky part is that the owners don't realize it when that happens. Because it "can't happen".


What utter bollocks - please contradict me by offering the slightest bit of evidence to support your absurd statement.

Think about it...


You clearly haven't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: XP and IE6
by coolvibe on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: XP and IE6"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

Well, the recent pwn to own contest being an example...

EDIT: Hint, look up Charles Miller and what he has been doing with fuzzing.

Edited 2010-06-01 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: XP and IE6
by Karitku on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:30 UTC in reply to "XP and IE6"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Wasn't the attack brought against an XP machine running IE6? Companies running this setup are hardly in a position to blame the software vendor for insecurities.

LOL did you seriously believed Google bullshit on this, security! It's all public stunt ofc. I think bigger problem is that company which manages large number of customer data isn't taking security seriously. I think Google is trying to dodge bullet here, soon someone might come and say "You guys have lot of stuff but not seem to use them yourself, why should we". I hardly think any Linux company uses Windows there.

Reply Score: 2

Lets see
by Nitrodist on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:38 UTC
Nitrodist
Member since:
2010-04-09

I bet this will be a slow process and most people will opt to shift to Mac OSX. It will just the the hardcore techies who will show Linux any love.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Lets see
by l3v1 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:45 UTC in reply to "Lets see"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

hardcore techies


I'd expect a lot of developers at google would fit under that label. However, I'd also expect that for most developers linux or osx would be equally acceptable, unless they do something osx-specific.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Lets see
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets see"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

for me at any rate, it would be the other way around. unless I need something linux specific, I would rather use OSX, even though the majority of my tools run fine on both (gvim/bash/ruby)

Reply Score: 2

Linux IS for nerds!
by usr0 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 19:06 UTC in reply to "Lets see"
usr0 Member since:
2006-10-27

Come on! Why the OP got an -1 rating?

I was member of staff during the 23th Chaos Communication Congress (a hacker conference) in Berlin.

There, a talk must be canceled because a techie could not connect his Linux box to the projector. And this is a common problem on Linux boxes that is known for decades and has not been fixed for decades.

Two years ago on my job, I had to fallback to a paper presentation because my Linux notebook has not managed to connect to a projector although I've tested it SEVERAL times before my presentation with the very same projector (and it worked — kindof).

So, the conclusion can only be: Linux is not yet ready for the desktop/notebook market. Google Chrome OS coud change it... but there is a long way to go.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Come on! Why the OP got an -1 rating? I was member of staff during the 23th Chaos Communication Congress (a hacker conference) in Berlin. There, a talk must be canceled because a techie could not connect his Linux box to the projector. And this is a common problem on Linux boxes that is known for decades and has not been fixed for decades. Two years ago on my job, I had to fallback to a paper presentation because my Linux notebook has not managed to connect to a projector although I've tested it SEVERAL times before my presentation with the very same projector (and it worked — kindof). So, the conclusion can only be: Linux is not yet ready for the desktop/notebook market. Google Chrome OS coud change it... but there is a long way to go.


My daughter called me the other day, and she asked if I could help out at her workplace (after-school care), because they were having a presentation that evening and could not get the projector to work with a laptop.

It turned out to be a Windows 7 computer that would not connect to the projector through a video splitter. Windows XP (on another laptop) would, Windows 7, no. They had a presentation program (for a video) that was only installed on the Windows 7 laptop. I had to take out the splitter, so that the presentation was visible only one one screen, not two as planned.

The quintessentially Windows experience (i.e. nightmare) involving binary-only executables, non-working drivers, dumbed-down to the point of lack of configurability, software which is licensed to run only on one particular machine, non-portability of applications, and application-specific file formats very nearly sunk the whole show, even though all of the hardware was in perfect working order.

There is a looooooong way to go for Windows.

Edited 2010-06-01 23:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v WTF
by Bustanut on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:49 UTC
RE: WTF
by Windows Sucks on Tue 1st Jun 2010 11:53 UTC in reply to "WTF"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

I would call it marketing if they did not throw OSX into the mix. But throwing OSX into the mix and not going straight Linux seems like its not 100% marketing.

No matter how you slice it and as people always like to say, Mac and Linux have no market share so no one attacks them so they should be safer right? And they would be using the Chrome Browser on both so that should make them even more safe.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: WTF
by leech on Tue 1st Jun 2010 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE: WTF"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I would call it marketing if they did not throw OSX into the mix. But throwing OSX into the mix and not going straight Linux seems like its not 100% marketing.

No matter how you slice it and as people always like to say, Mac and Linux have no market share so no one attacks them so they should be safer right? And they would be using the Chrome Browser on both so that should make them even more safe.


This isn't entirely true. Linux distributions have far more market penetration as servers than Windows does. Yet virus writers don't attack them? Why not? They are more likely to have fatter pipes and more hardware to drive their spam bots. It just so happens to be that they are more secure by their very nature of being modeled after Unix. If I were a virus / bot writer, I'd try to create one for Linux and get it out there. Think about the super computers doing crime for you.

The simple case is, that Windows is far easier to get into and there are simply a lot more stupid people that run it.

Windows can be secured as well, it's just not that way by default. Linux distributions are.

You'd think if Linux (and here I'm referring to anything using the Linux Kernel) were so insecure, all the routers, firewalls, cell phones, etc would have viruses.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: WTF
by Windows Sucks on Tue 1st Jun 2010 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WTF"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

You know that is what I say but everyone tells me that its because of market share (Which is why I made my statement)

I know almost every router and switch in the world and almost every webserver and almost all of Google's servers and Yahoo (Who mostly uses BSD) and Amazon and Facebook etc, etc.

But you know the market share argument seems to keep showing up. Crazy.

On top of that you know that EVERY version of Linux is different. Everyone changes the Kernel for their distro. Hard to write viruses for that for sure. You are only going to hit a small group of users. As a matter of fact it's hard to attack users of the same distro if they are using different versions of the distro. Using Ubuntu 9.10 is not the same as 10.04 that is for sure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: WTF
by coolvibe on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: WTF"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

On the other hand, it's very easy to write very nasty virulent code in Perl, Python, or even in shellscripts, which are not dependant on libraries or kernel ABI.

Get a bad package with some nastyness in the pre or postinstall scripts and watch the chunks fly. And that even works across several unices.

No, *nixen are not immune. Watch those checksums.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: WTF
by coolvibe on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WTF"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

Well, the thing is that in the Windows world, it's very common to run everything as an Administrator user (root). And in the unix-world, it isn't. That's a serious obstacle for a virus, but not an insurmountable one.

When a Windows machine is infected, it usually has all the rights to cause some serious damage on a system and hide itself. That doesn't work so well on a unix box. Anomalies are easier to detect with unix. But that doesn't mean that any Unix is immune to them, they are just not as easy to hide.

Unless something gets run as root, then you are SOL.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: WTF
by telns on Tue 1st Jun 2010 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: WTF"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

This isn't entirely true. Linux distributions have far more market penetration as servers than Windows does.


That isn't accurate, actually. This is just one source (eweek, Oct '07):

"In 2000, Windows comprised about half of the server operating system market, followed by Unix and Netware at about 17 percent each and Linux reaching towards 10 percent, she said, noting that today Windows owns about 70 percent, Linux about 20 percent, with Unix below 10 percent and Netware barely registering."

No doubt Linux is doing well, and a jump from 10% to 20% in ~8y was great progress, but even if that trend continued (which it may not, as the article in question is actually about Linux rate of growth slowing) it wouldn't have "far more" market presence in the server arena than Windows.

I'd imagine Linux proved far more dominant against Unix and Netware, particularly as those companies suffered after the dotcom boom, and Linux took a large percentage of those users. Competition against Windows has been stiffer. As the pool of Unix/Netware shrank, the growth _rate_ in Linux was bound to slow, even if overall usage continued to go up. W2K8 was a solid release as well, which I could see stiffening competition even more.

Edited 2010-06-01 22:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: WTF
by delta0.delta0 on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: WTF"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

Telns.. Servers for what ?

For web ?

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200905/index.html

Apache 26,018,677 71.51% 26,313,623 71.59% -0.08%
Microsoft 6,362,860 17.49% 6,381,149 17.36% +0.13%

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/05/14/may_2010_web_server_su...

Market Share for Top Servers Across the Million Busiest Sites
September 2008 - May 2010

Developer April 2010 Percent May 2010 Percent Change
Apache 664,232 66.82% 664,186 66.82% -0.00
Microsoft 168,829 16.98% 167,740 16.87% -0.11
nginx 46,698 4.70% 48,598 4.89% 0.19
Google 20,913 2.10% 19,367 1.95% -0.16


Just feel free to look through those numbers and bear in mind the numbers are actually skewed in Microsofts favour, (the million busiest sites clearly indicates Apaches complete market dominance at +70%)..

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: WTF
by telns on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: WTF"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

Telns.. Servers for what ?
For web ?


Well, you're right and you're wrong at the same time. The first problem is, of course, that running Apache just means you are running Apache, not that you are running Linux. Most of those are likely are running Linux, but you can't actually know, since Apache runs on Unix/BSD/MacOSX/Windows, usw. as well.

There may also be selection bias problems related to any attempt to extrapolate overall OS usage patterns from a survey of the web servers used by the top N busiest sites. I'm not sure what kind of bias that would introduce: pro-Linux, anti-Linux, I've no idea for sure, but I don't imagine it can be taken for granted. If anything, if I were pressed to guess, I think it might introduce a bit of pro-Unix bias.

And, last of all and most importantly, of course, there are more servers in the the world than just web servers.

Some more numbers, this time quite recent (Q3-4 '09):

*snip from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/behind-the-idc-data-windows-sti... *

Here’s IDC’s OS share data break out.

Units (Q3 2009/Q4 2009)

Windows 1,248,200 (73.9%) 1,434,225 (73.9%)
Unix 72,001 ( 4.3%) 84,851 ( 4.4%)
Linux 357,491 (21.2%) 412,041 (21.2%)

Total 1,688,859 1,941,966

*end snip*

Those figures won't be perfect, because I don't know if the study controlled for servers shipped sans OS (which a lot are). Units shipped sans OS are a question mark, not an unambiguous win for Linux. Every server I've ever bought or recommended was ordered without the OS, whether we planned to install Linux or Windows.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by t3RRa
by t3RRa on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:18 UTC
t3RRa
Member since:
2005-11-22

To develop Windows port of Chrome browser and other applications for Windows and to test websites to see if they work correctly on IE, I think that they would not ban all of Windows machines anyway even after transition completed. But I guess they might just limit the network usage of those machines though. Now their in-house technical support team should have fewer burden ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by t3RRa
by lemur2 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 12:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by t3RRa"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

To develop Windows port of Chrome browser and other applications for Windows and to test websites to see if they work correctly on IE, I think that they would not ban all of Windows machines anyway even after transition completed. But I guess they might just limit the network usage of those machines though. Now their in-house technical support team should have fewer burden ;)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualBox#Licensing

http://suepke.eu/embedding-windows-in-linux-with-virtualbox/

http://suepke.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/vbox.png

Edited 2010-06-01 12:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by t3RRa
by coolvibe on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by t3RRa"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

And MSIE runs in wine too. No need to virtualize windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by t3RRa
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by t3RRa"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

not only that, but ie6 is xp only, so you need virtualization anyways, even if you are using windows as a host.

Reply Score: 2

If that isn't MAC Advertising
by drcoldfoot on Tue 1st Jun 2010 14:14 UTC
drcoldfoot
Member since:
2006-08-25

I don't know what is. LOL You see, You really can compete with and endorse a competitor's product at teh same time.

Reply Score: 1

Why Hate
by kaelodest on Tue 1st Jun 2010 15:58 UTC
kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

First of all I am assuming that we are generally smart and tech minded. So please try to sound a little smarter, or at least pleasant/funny

Google is a business. and it has made a business decision it is not a hard one to make when you look at windows and any possibility of return on investment/ security. And I mean real security. The ability to retain a secure config in the office and in the airport or café. Windows is not that OS. But I am for real. sick and tired of Apple Hate. It is Yet Another Unix, and a fine one. I am not an Apple Fanboy or some Naïve newbie who doesn't understand my system but if I was that would be OK too. A user is valid if he is in the server room or in the HR office. I would look foolish or retro if I hated on KDE or GNOME for the reasons that get tossed around for hating Apple.

No Apple isn't perfect but it doesn't come with a legacy of bugs and security holes. Not like Microsoft. And If you ran Unix all day as the Admin account you would get the same bugs and security holes. MacOS is neither free or open, however I can run f/oss software very easily on a Mac. I have used both Linux and Mac OS for years and the one thing that I really would like from the f/oss world is standards and ease of support. That is the nature of the business world. The average user does not want to be technical all of the time. I do not want to have to wonder if this drive or that codec is free or stable.

Maybe Apple Will become the next Microsoft. Maybe not, but Google certainly will become the next Apple. It is a legacy of success that I would want to emulate if I was there. And the reason is there clear as day, If you leave Linux and Unix in the hands of a committee then you will have SW that has no chance of making it in the big world

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why Hate
by tomcat on Thu 3rd Jun 2010 05:11 UTC in reply to "Why Hate"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Google certainly will become the next Apple. It is a legacy of success that I would want to emulate if I was there.


Not certainly. Maybe. Possibly. Google has been effective in two areas (Search and mobile OS), but only profitable in one area (Search). Android is a loss leader/defensive play for extending search to mobile platforms. Google has made a lot of noise with projects like Wave, Google Office, etc, but few of them have taken off. So, unless Google manages to significantly expand the Search market or make Android profitable, it's unlikely that will have the same revenue growth curve as Apple.

Reply Score: 2

google attack
by Bounty on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:20 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

I thought the Google attack was targeted, and not random? If that is the case, security through obscurity only helps against script kiddies. Google should eat their own dog food or use BSD.

-Bounty

Reply Score: 2

RE: google attack
by google_ninja on Tue 1st Jun 2010 18:55 UTC in reply to "google attack"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

It was targetted, by it was leveraging an already infected windows box. it was actually a hell of an attack, don't remember the specifics (read it a few months ago), but it ended up leveraging multiple exploits to get in.

Edited 2010-06-01 18:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Cheap Shot!
by Al2001 on Tue 1st Jun 2010 19:05 UTC
Al2001
Member since:
2005-07-06

Lets not forget the big G is currently creating a competing product. I find it hard to take these comments sincerely with this conflict of interest.

Reply Score: 2

NeoX
Member since:
2006-02-19

Users: "Google [Privacy] We don't feel so good!"

Security on Windows is improving and it has always been an uphill battle.

Google and security are pointless when they have no problem not respecting your privacy.

Reply Score: 1