the trust of large companies.

fertieg95

recently, apparently Google has begun to implement a new internal security policy, and it looks like it might be related to this issue: Microsoft Windows will be eliminated within the company. Microsoft chose to gloss over the security strategy of the practice effect of making a false security has been challenged, however,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Google is not the first company to abandon all Microsoft products, and for Google, now is the time to abandon Microsoft products rely on key information to ensure The implementation of the technology business.

for Google and other large data center server equipment, the use of the main Linux-based systems. The new Google employee workstation system selection is Apple's MacOS X and Linux systems.

Without the support of huge amounts of money, a lot depends on the Microsoft Windows system large-scale migration during the time the company may experience serious difficulties, even if such a situation, after five years of adjustment, the company also the effect of cost savings can be found. On the other hand, Google is an operating system from Microsoft, the company's flagship operation for the better model.

for the company, the phase-out of Microsoft Windows, leaving only a small amount of code used to test the machine, may be an incredibly simple process. It looks more like, stop deploying the new Microsoft Windows system and will run after the system date to be eliminated. For many companies these cases, may need to be analyzed to determine the cost effectiveness of the migration situation, for Google, it seems the situation is the cost savings, reduced costs, whether authorized or heterogeneous network maintenance cost reduction, have confirmed this.

In fact, many people have found that, if a company's information technology infrastructure is the main component of non-Microsoft systems, then Microsoft Windows system will occupy, including security management and more general systems management maintenance and troubleshooting resources, including the majority of expenditures. Partly because of the nature of Google's business and the company size and influence, it can even out of the way Microsoft do anything specific, whether internal or external.

Currently, Google and Microsoft business systems did not complete phase-out desktop systems, this may take some time. Google spokesman declined to phase-out strategy for Microsoft Windows, any comment, but the Financial Times in the \Description quoted companies expressed dissatisfaction with the growing of Microsoft products, combined with should be \.

on the Internet, Microsoft Windows in terms of security on the merits and shortcomings, especially with Apple's MacOS X and Linux systems compared and discussed (it can be said, in contrast to) topics, from the last century has now been continued for a long period of time, largely due to the Internet for home and commercial use common operating system used on so three. In the past decade, we often see high-profile area of the desktop computer to renounce the dominant example of Microsoft's Windows system, was particularly prominent is the number of Linux distributions, or other. Examples include the city and national governments, public school district, concerned about the cost of the enterprises and their business is Microsoft's licensing strategy which may lead to severe and frequent angry CEOs.

Although the representatives and decision makers, in all cases very little security may be the main reason, but during the discussion on the expected benefits, it will involve. In rare cases, the company decided to migrate away from Microsoft Windows, will find that the consideration on the migration of the entire project is not perfect, and ultimately have to decide to give up part or the whole project. If you can find because of security issues (really, not unforeseen expenses or to Microsoft's volume license for internal bargaining) resulted in conversion to give up the case, then it will get rewarded.

In fact, the problem is that Microsoft's Windows security brought in all the benefits (regardless of how much it actually benefits.) Most for Microsoft Windows and other operating systems are based on a comparison of security or other ambiguous situations. The most popular seems to be the following two points, each with their own problems.

1, Microsoft Windows systems more secure than Linux, because Linux is open source, anyone can change the source code.

This argument completely misunderstood the open-source software development process, we support this view, ignorance of frustration. In fact, the open-source software development process and closed source software development process used in almost exactly the same way, the core is controlled by a dedicated team of developers in this way or another, to obtain direct access to the code library permission.

for Microsoft's case, involved is a post-employment through the interview process; and for the Linux kernel, the core team involved is whether the technology providers that patches and intentions, which may the test takes a long time. Prior to this, any patches submitted to the core team into the main code base before the need to review the quality and reliability.

frequent disputes on this point is that, since the source code can be seen by anyone, so even if they can not simply modify their main project, a malicious security attack could also make it easier to find the code vulnerability and take advantage of them. However, the truth is not so simple. In most cases, than reading through the reverse engineering of free open source software source code easier to find loopholes. Only the most obvious level error structure was easy to find. In addition, the open source code will lead to increased potential vulnerability of this argument will be offset by other facts, which is more good people can see the source code, and would have improved the software, they not only have found the vulnerability released patch tool,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], but also re-handling code to eliminate unnecessary complexity and may hide some security holes.

2, Microsoft Windows seem less secure because more people use it.

there may be a kernel line with this argument. In fact, this argument is very close to Apple's MacOS X system, the real situation, thanks to Apple's development and patch management strategy (very failed). Even so, other operating systems more secure is still good reason to choose to use them, if you are really serious about security, then the extra security does not need specific reasons.

And there are other reasons to believe, based on Linux, FreeBSD, such as the system and other open source Unix-like operating system,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], is safe. These reasons include, based on system-level privilege separation model, and Microsoft security patches in the treatment of short-sighted development and deployment.

lot of attention in the discussion, the security is Why abandon Microsoft Windows in a well-founded, but many people simply refuse to acknowledge through the use of other alternative products will bring significant improvements in safety. Some people think on a global scale, (almost) everyone in the use of the evidence that they are not the only Windows operating system, the trust of large companies.

For many Americans, it is very easy, for example, ignore the European governments are trying to get rid of Microsoft products, the impact of the wealth of a hundred corporate giants rather than the relatively small company (although they are also useful in areas of their influence, such as Ernie Ball) as a professional information technology infrastructure management paradigm.

Google will not be so easily ignored.

text / ZDNet secure channel

Do not use the mouse
I thank >_