22 replies to this topic

[The Simpleton]

This was a little interesting news. Google is blaming the recent security breaches in China on the Windows operating system. Now they're suggesting that employees switch to either Linux or Mac OS X for better security. That's a really sensible decision on Google's part, although this hasn't been confirmed officially yet. The employee who revealed this news preferred to remain unnamed. Apparently, now the CIO's permission is required to get a new Windows system!

Quote

“We’re not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort,” said one Google employee.

“Many people have been moved away from [Windows] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS, following the China hacking attacks,” said another.

New hires are now given the option of using Apple’s Mac computers or PCs running the Linux operating system. “Linux is open source and we feel good about it,” said one employee. “Microsoft we don’t feel so good about.”

In early January, some new hires were still being allowed to install Windows on their laptops, but it was not an option for their desktop computers. Google would not comment on its current policy.

Full article at: http://www.ft.com/cm...144feab49a.html

I think this is a great way to promote Linux - if the world's top company feels Linux is better than Windows, the ordinary folks should think about using it too

[magnafrost]

I'm sure google did not decide Linux for the sake of promotion . In any case, I'm not so sure about how secure linux could be either. There's gotta be security flaws in it and considering that the code is open it'll be easier to spot. My guess is google should pool in some resources for modifying the OS source code itself and have a custom linux OS with a little more security. Though, RHEL and the type might already be highly secure.

[rvalkass]

The Simpleton, on 11 July 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

This was a little interesting news. Google is blaming the recent security breaches in China on the Windows operating system. Now they're suggesting that employees switch to either Linux or Mac OS X for better security. That's a really sensible decision on Google's part, although this hasn't been confirmed officially yet. The employee who revealed this news preferred to remain unnamed. Apparently, now the CIO's permission is required to get a new Windows system!

I remember reading about this quite a while ago, though at the time I can't remember how official the rumours were. Still, if it's true, it's nice to see that large companies are waking up to the fact that Windows is not secure and is unreliable.

magnafrost, on 11 July 2010 - 09:18 AM, said:

I'm sure google did not decide Linux for the sake of promotion . In any case, I'm not so sure about how secure linux could be either. There's gotta be security flaws in it and considering that the code is open it'll be easier to spot. My guess is google should pool in some resources for modifying the OS source code itself and have a custom linux OS with a little more security. Though, RHEL and the type might already be highly secure.

There are security flaws in pretty much all code. The difference with Linux (and open source code generally) is that you have thousands of people looking at the code who can say "Hang on, that doesn't look right..." or "I think this could be a security hole..." and then trying to fix it. Problems are found quicker and fixed quicker. Also, the huge public effort in reviewing code before it enters release versions of software ensures a large number of security problems (and general bugs) are fixed before the code reaches a release version.

[The Simpleton]

magnafrost, on 11 July 2010 - 09:18 AM, said:

I'm sure google did not decide Linux for the sake of promotion . In any case, I'm not so sure about how secure linux could be either. There's gotta be security flaws in it and considering that the code is open it'll be easier to spot. My guess is google should pool in some resources for modifying the OS source code itself and have a custom linux OS with a little more security. Though, RHEL and the type might already be highly secure.

Lol the crackers can't just inject malicious code on a Linux machine just because they can modify the original source code. Cracking a Linux machine takes much more skill than it does for Windows. Have you used Linux before? If so you might have noticed that visiting malicious websites from inside Linux doesn't affect your system at all, and you can try executing Windows' worms and get away with it Plus it's super-fast and many popular Windows applications run comfortably inside Linux. So there are many good reasons to use Linux over Windows. In some aspects Mac OS X is much better, but Linux is free while you need to pay a premium for a licensed OS X.

@rob: It's excellent that of all companies, Google decided to take this step, because it's the biggest one out there and this might encourage smaller companies to follow their lead. Ultimately this could mean a large increase in the user-base of both Linux and OS X.

[magnafrost]

The Simpleton, on 11 July 2010 - 12:38 PM, said:

Lol the crackers can't just inject malicious code on a Linux machine just because they can modify the original source code. Cracking a Linux machine takes much more skill than it does for Windows. Have you used Linux before? If so you might have noticed that visiting malicious websites from inside Linux doesn't affect your system at all, and you can try executing Windows' worms and get away with it Plus it's super-fast and many popular Windows applications run comfortably inside Linux. So there are many good reasons to use Linux over Windows. In some aspects Mac OS X is much better, but Linux is free while you need to pay a premium for a licensed OS X.

@rob: It's excellent that of all companies, Google decided to take this step, because it's the biggest one out there and this might encourage smaller companies to follow their lead. Ultimately this could mean a large increase in the user-base of both Linux and OS X.

My point is that knowing the source code makes it easier for the attacker to explore and figure out the loopholes. It might have just 0.1% of the number of loopholes that windows has, but its also that much easier. Like rvalkass said the whole power of open source is that there are a lot of people looking at the code and saying "hey there's an issue here". While most of the people who see that will try to fix it, someone could try to exploit it. Thats why I am saying a combination of open source and closed source is better. Use a linux base which has been waded through by the community, but put in some closed source effort from your end too!

[rpgsearcherz]

magnafrost, on 11 July 2010 - 03:10 PM, said:

My point is that knowing the source code makes it easier for the attacker to explore and figure out the loopholes. It might have just 0.1% of the number of loopholes that windows has, but its also that much easier. Like rvalkass said the whole power of open source is that there are a lot of people looking at the code and saying "hey there's an issue here". While most of the people who see that will try to fix it, someone could try to exploit it. Thats why I am saying a combination of open source and closed source is better. Use a linux base which has been waded through by the community, but put in some closed source effort from your end too!

By being able to see the source it's also easier to protect it from flaws.

The problem with Windows is only Microsoft employees are able to see what is going on in the code. As we have seen in the past, they can't even stabilize their OS, much less fix security breaches. Linux has more people working on it and stabilized their OS's years ago; something Microsoft has still failed to manage.

It's really like forum bases. For example, VBulletin often goes through security breaches. phpBB, on the other hand, goes through them on a much lower rate, because there are soo many others working on the same system.



Some claim that Linux isn't really "harder" to hack, it's just that it isn't mainstream (there was a report a while ago about how less than 3% of all PC users are using Linux). As such, it just isn't worth the time to do so.


Either way, I feel safer with open source than proprietary. At least with open source I know what I'm getting.

[rvalkass]

magnafrost, on 11 July 2010 - 03:10 PM, said:

My point is that knowing the source code makes it easier for the attacker to explore and figure out the loopholes. It might have just 0.1% of the number of loopholes that windows has, but its also that much easier. Like rvalkass said the whole power of open source is that there are a lot of people looking at the code and saying "hey there's an issue here". While most of the people who see that will try to fix it, someone could try to exploit it. Thats why I am saying a combination of open source and closed source is better. Use a linux base which has been waded through by the community, but put in some closed source effort from your end too!

The code, before being released as a software release, is studied by loads of people. If security problems are spotted, they're fixed before the code is marked as released. If, at that stage, someone malicious spots a problem with the code then the developers are also incredibly likely to spot the same problem, and fix it, so there is no risk. If problems manage to sneak through to code that gets released then they're usually spotted quickly and fixed quickly. For example, someone recently tried to release a screensaver (if I recall correctly) that contained malicious code. Within a few minutes of its release, people had spotted the problem. Then they fixed it. All in under an hour I think. Pretty impressive!

rpgsearcherz, on 11 July 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

The problem with Windows is only Microsoft employees are able to see what is going on in the code.

And the Russian secret service, don't forget! http://tech.slashdot...gency?art_pos=1
It seems they just didn't believe it was secure, and demanded to inspect the source before they would consider using it.

[web_designer]

well, this is not the first time i hear that google giving up windows and microsoft, but i don't think that they promote linux or any other company or product, they are only use what benefits them. and unfortunately, windows shows a lot of flaws and less security lately therefor they have the right to replace it with a better operating system like MAC or LINUX even if that's mean they are promoting for them, and showing that they are not trusted in windows anymore, after all it's all about business.

[rpgsearcherz]

rvalkass, on 11 July 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

And the Russian secret service, don't forget! http://tech.slashdot...gency?art_pos=1
It seems they just didn't believe it was secure, and demanded to inspect the source before they would consider using it.

Man, I had never seen that before -- just read over it and I find that a little ridiculous. No wonder we always get hacked -- Russia has more access to our operating system than Americans do!

[magnafrost]

rpgsearcherz, on 11 July 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

By being able to see the source it's also easier to protect it from flaws.

The problem with Windows is only Microsoft employees are able to see what is going on in the code. As we have seen in the past, they can't even stabilize their OS, much less fix security breaches. Linux has more people working on it and stabilized their OS's years ago; something Microsoft has still failed to manage.

It's really like forum bases. For example, VBulletin often goes through security breaches. phpBB, on the other hand, goes through them on a much lower rate, because there are soo many others working on the same system.



Some claim that Linux isn't really "harder" to hack, it's just that it isn't mainstream (there was a report a while ago about how less than 3% of all PC users are using Linux). As such, it just isn't worth the time to do so.


Either way, I feel safer with open source than proprietary. At least with open source I know what I'm getting.

Yes, from what you say I gather that Linux is a lot more value for money in any case.

rvalkass, on 11 July 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

The code, before being released as a software release, is studied by loads of people. If security problems are spotted, they're fixed before the code is marked as released. If, at that stage, someone malicious spots a problem with the code then the developers are also incredibly likely to spot the same problem, and fix it, so there is no risk. If problems manage to sneak through to code that gets released then they're usually spotted quickly and fixed quickly. For example, someone recently tried to release a screensaver (if I recall correctly) that contained malicious code. Within a few minutes of its release, people had spotted the problem. Then they fixed it. All in under an hour I think. Pretty impressive!



And the Russian secret service, don't forget! http://tech.slashdot...gency?art_pos=1
It seems they just didn't believe it was secure, and demanded to inspect the source before they would consider using it.

That makes perfect sense. I'm actually considering switching to Linux from now. Just waiting to get a new laptop for that though.

[rpgsearcherz]

magnafrost, on 11 July 2010 - 05:48 PM, said:

Yes, from what you say I gather that Linux is a lot more value for money in any case.



That makes perfect sense. I'm actually considering switching to Linux from now. Just waiting to get a new laptop for that though.

Well Linux is free so... More value for the nothing, .

I love Ubuntu with a passion. Once it turns 18 I'm marrying it. Seriously.

My only issue with Linux at this point is the lack of gaming. I am a big MMORPG player and Windows developer, and sadly you can do neither using Linux. Even with WINE you deal with a lot of problems. So I actually went back to Ubuntu a couple weeks ago and did everything I could to get my Windows programs working on it. I got everything going but games (which lagged horribly) so I was forced to revert back to Windows.

If Linux (Ubuntu specifically) ever gets DirectX support I'm there and won't return to Windows again.

[The Simpleton]

Quote

And the Russian secret service, don't forget! http://tech.slashdot...gency?art_pos=1
It seems they just didn't believe it was secure, and demanded to inspect the source before they would consider using it.

If only the other countries had this luxury. Hmm maybe the other countries do not care too much about security like Russia does! Now it's only a matter of time before some Russian hacker leaks the code....

Quote

That makes perfect sense. I'm actually considering switching to Linux from now. Just waiting to get a new laptop for that though.

Till then you could install Ubuntu Linux inside Windows, as a separate drive. Try it out if you want You won't regret the decision.

Quote

My only issue with Linux at this point is the lack of gaming. I am a big MMORPG player and Windows developer, and sadly you can do neither using Linux. Even with WINE you deal with a lot of problems. So I actually went back to Ubuntu a couple weeks ago and did everything I could to get my Windows programs working on it. I got everything going but games (which lagged horribly) so I was forced to revert back to Windows.

If Linux (Ubuntu specifically) ever gets DirectX support I'm there and won't return to Windows again.

We're all waiting for the day when Linux finally supports gaming on a large scale. That would certainly bring in a large chunk of Windows users over to Linux. But the game developers have to start supporting Linux as well otherwise there won't be any major shift in the gamer community.

[magnafrost]

The Simpleton, on 12 July 2010 - 02:15 AM, said:

If only the other countries had this luxury. Hmm maybe the other countries do not care too much about security like Russia does! Now it's only a matter of time before some Russian hacker leaks the code....




Till then you could install Ubuntu Linux inside Windows, as a separate drive. Try it out if you want You won't regret the decision.



We're all waiting for the day when Linux finally supports gaming on a large scale. That would certainly bring in a large chunk of Windows users over to Linux. But the game developers have to start supporting Linux as well otherwise there won't be any major shift in the gamer community.

I still stick to the old school when it comes to gaming. Windows windows and more windows! Pressing the windows key mid game and shouting at your friends to pause the game while you struggle to get back kind of appeals to me But seriously, get dual OS on your system. Use linux for everything, and windows for gaming. You'll be happy I promise

[mahesh2k]

Quote

I think this is a great way to promote Linux - if the world's top company feels Linux is better than Windows, the ordinary folks should think about using it too

It's all about making money be it linux or windows. Be it operating system company or the consumer using the product. Windows is popular not because it's easier but there is trade and better business build on it. Though many people think business can save money on linux but more business can be easily lost on linux. For example, windows support and security is business in itself, but linux hardly generates revenue on that domain. Apps being free in linux domain kills another aspect of business in the world of programming. Linux/Open source world makes people more lazy and used to free things which is one step ahead of killing economy. Once people start to procrastinate about paying for things and stuff then surely it kills economy. Be it free or paid software, there is money,time and hard work involved in it. Not paying for it makes it low value and people don't even care for those things. Open source made many programmers lazy and simple-copy paster after posting lot of code in public. I failed to see the profit in this linux side. Any platform if gets overused then likely to get abused. Few years earlier people used to claim that linux was virus free and then came script kiddies and small viruses. So saying that it's secure platform is not at all convincing. Just because google moved to linux doesn't mean it's better. It's about business and google will realize it soon when they'll recognize short funds from their search engine revenue. I hope google rethinks on their decision, instead of windows they should move to apple that will keep them on unix(mach BSD) atleast.

[magnafrost]

mahesh2k, on 12 July 2010 - 08:55 AM, said:

It's all about making money be it linux or windows. Be it operating system company or the consumer using the product. Windows is popular not because it's easier but there is trade and better business build on it. Though many people think business can save money on linux but more business can be easily lost on linux. For example, windows support and security is business in itself, but linux hardly generates revenue on that domain. Apps being free in linux domain kills another aspect of business in the world of programming. Linux/Open source world makes people more lazy and used to free things which is one step ahead of killing economy. Once people start to procrastinate about paying for things and stuff then surely it kills economy. Be it free or paid software, there is money,time and hard work involved in it. Not paying for it makes it low value and people don't even care for those things. Open source made many programmers lazy and simple-copy paster after posting lot of code in public. I failed to see the profit in this linux side. Any platform if gets overused then likely to get abused. Few years earlier people used to claim that linux was virus free and then came script kiddies and small viruses. So saying that it's secure platform is not at all convincing. Just because google moved to linux doesn't mean it's better. It's about business and google will realize it soon when they'll recognize short funds from their search engine revenue. I hope google rethinks on their decision, instead of windows they should move to apple that will keep them on unix(mach BSD) atleast.

Actually, I dont agree that if its free it'll kill the economy or the product. Look at it this way. When you work for a closed source product for which you get paid, I see the money as the main compensation that you get. But, when you work for a open-source product out of your free time, you get a special happiness out of it. I'd say for all the open source developers, this far outweighs the financial compensation that they would get for it and they'll put in lots of effort, probably making a product superior to its closed source counterpart in much lesser man-hours.

[mahesh2k]

magnafrost, on 12 July 2010 - 11:28 AM, said:

Actually, I dont agree that if its free it'll kill the economy or the product. Look at it this way. When you work for a closed source product for which you get paid, I see the money as the main compensation that you get. But, when you work for a open-source product out of your free time, you get a special happiness out of it. I'd say for all the open source developers, this far outweighs the financial compensation that they would get for it and they'll put in lots of effort, probably making a product superior to its closed source counterpart in much lesser man-hours.

Does this happiness from open source buys food for family ? Does this happiness help pays the rent,bills ? Does happiness from open source helps economy at all ? What if tomorrow people start to demand free logos and design, why not give them for free ?See, once this free thing is entered in mindset customers hardly bother to pay for it. This hurts economy a lot. Creating something free for recurring solution does prevent irritation and saves time. But creating everything free as counterpart for commercial project is indeed hurting economy. I think this is going off-topic but let's carry on wrt google's action.

In my country, once people start to get taste of free they'll demand everything free that is associated with that thing and will never pay for labor in programming and installation or support. I know this mindset in people of my country and that is why i hate this free OS concept. I'm sure like my country there are many other countries who have people with similar mindset will come up with excuses for money and hardwork of others.

Upto certain extent open source/free does help but if it starts to affect economy then it's not worth it. Though even if google moves to linux nothing new will happen as there is freedom for google employees to use OS. Their work involves in web development and not on desktop apps(some exceptions) so unless some sites need it they don't advocate certain platform and language. Some of google's projects use C#, ASP.NET while some projects use python and java. That way, google is working on most of the languages and platform. Even if they decide to move to another OS, their work will revolve around multiple platforms and language cause they want to serve people and make money with it. They'll not just move to another platform killing another entirely. Then again, i don't know its about promoting linux or something as some of the other here post cause they failed in their OS project(though they got netbook offer from sony there is not much progress in their OS). I see no reason they'll waste their money on linux projects that don't convert into profits. Funding to projects that doesn't give financial returns is foolist business,it's like digging their own grave.

[The Simpleton]

Hmm now the discussion is shifting towards whether or not open source is beneficial to the economy or not. I'll just say a quick thing regarding this. Open source fans will fiercely maintain that it is very beneficial to the users who cannot afford to pay for quality software (either that or they do not want to pay). Commercial software vendors will say that they are losing their business due to the open source market which doesn't earn much and is ruining the game for everyone else. Wouldn't it be better if there was some sort of balance between these two communities? The pricing would come under control and at the same time people wouldn't be restricted for choice at any given time. I'm not sure what this "balance" means exactly, but it's a small possibility that could help both the communities support each other.

Coming back to google, it's not as if they've ditched Windows completely. They're just trying out new measures to increase their security and it's a good decision that they've taken. Mac already gets a lot of publicity on its own, thanks to Apple.So let Linux hog the limelight for now

[magnafrost]

mahesh2k, on 12 July 2010 - 01:00 PM, said:

Does this happiness from open source buys food for family ? Does this happiness help pays the rent,bills ? Does happiness from open source helps economy at all ? What if tomorrow people start to demand free logos and design, why not give them for free ?See, once this free thing is entered in mindset customers hardly bother to pay for it. This hurts economy a lot. Creating something free for recurring solution does prevent irritation and saves time. But creating everything free as counterpart for commercial project is indeed hurting economy. I think this is going off-topic but let's carry on wrt google's action.

In my country, once people start to get taste of free they'll demand everything free that is associated with that thing and will never pay for labor in programming and installation or support. I know this mindset in people of my country and that is why i hate this free OS concept. I'm sure like my country there are many other countries who have people with similar mindset will come up with excuses for money and hardwork of others.

Upto certain extent open source/free does help but if it starts to affect economy then it's not worth it. Though even if google moves to linux nothing new will happen as there is freedom for google employees to use OS. Their work involves in web development and not on desktop apps(some exceptions) so unless some sites need it they don't advocate certain platform and language. Some of google's projects use C#, ASP.NET while some projects use python and java. That way, google is working on most of the languages and platform. Even if they decide to move to another OS, their work will revolve around multiple platforms and language cause they want to serve people and make money with it. They'll not just move to another platform killing another entirely. Then again, i don't know its about promoting linux or something as some of the other here post cause they failed in their OS project(though they got netbook offer from sony there is not much progress in their OS). I see no reason they'll waste their money on linux projects that don't convert into profits. Funding to projects that doesn't give financial returns is foolist business,it's like digging their own grave.

I do not agree that open source is ruining the economy. Say, tomorrow if I decide to make a software and give it out for free instead of asking people to pay for it, am I ruining the economy ? No. In case of open source, there is a balance. They've consciously made a choice. They chose to compromise on the price for the sake of advancement. Do you really think its ever possible for as many people to work on a Firefox or Linux if it is not open source ? For the sake of technological advancement, both routes have to be followed. Windows has its own strategies and innovations that are adopted by Linux. Linux has its own advantages too. It is upto the customer to decide which one he wants. The companies cannot blame open source for spoiling their market because its their job to beat it. Come up with features that are so powerful that people choose you over free alternatives. You cannot honestly expect everyone to pay for every single software they use. There are paid versions of everything! Right from email to blogs to development tools and everything else on the planet which has a free alternative. If people are looking for a minimal set and are not looking for reliability, I dont see any reason why they should pay for an expensive commercial software. For instance, all that my parents use in Microsoft Office is Word, and all they use in Word is text, font formatting and tables. Office is too big for them and Wordpad or Notepad too minimal. OpenOffice is perfect for them as it just doesn't make sense for MS Office. Is it not the same as free vs paid blog hosting ? Just because free blog hosts are there, it does not mean the paid ones disappeared. Its a healthy competition. No single company can give a challenge to the big players on their own. Microsoft had started stagnating, and Linux came in with competition which made Microsoft go up a notch. I hate Vista. I love Windows 7. You know very well that it is even more true in the case of browsers. IE was starting to get hopeless and Firefox changed the picture completely. IE is just catching up and is doing very well now. Can you imagine getting stuck with IE6 now ? Its hardly a few years behind but seems like ages.

But yes, like he said lets stick to the topic. Marketing is definitely not the reason google chose Linux. Its just increasing the focus on using Linux machines which makes perfect sense. They'll just make a more conscious effort in choosing the OS which is good for everyone. In case this triggers a competition for more security the way it was for browsers, and Windows emerges the winner, I'll be more than happy.

Phew. My longest post so far

[The Simpleton]

magnafrost, on 12 July 2010 - 06:55 AM, said:

I still stick to the old school when it comes to gaming. Windows windows and more windows! Pressing the windows key mid game and shouting at your friends to pause the game while you struggle to get back kind of appeals to me But seriously, get dual OS on your system. Use linux for everything, and windows for gaming. You'll be happy I promise

Usually whenever I mention using Linux, I also say that I do have dual-boot and use it rarely; I guess I forgot to put in that line this time My Windows 7 PC gets a very rare visit and that is only when I'm too bored with everything else. I don't dare to connect to the internet when in Windows because somehow it just feels too vulnerable, and more importantly, too slow.

For a company like Google, which has a racing spirit, the slow Windows isn't a good choice at all

[rpgsearcherz]

The Simpleton, on 12 July 2010 - 05:35 PM, said:

Usually whenever I mention using Linux, I also say that I do have dual-boot and use it rarely; I guess I forgot to put in that line this time My Windows 7 PC gets a very rare visit and that is only when I'm too bored with everything else. I don't dare to connect to the internet when in Windows because somehow it just feels too vulnerable, and more importantly, too slow.

For a company like Google, which has a racing spirit, the slow Windows isn't a good choice at all

I tried the dual-boot thing but it didn't work out well for me. I play games too much so I was on Windows more than Linux.

So then I tried WINE -- a few games worked, most didn't.

So then I virtualized Windows inside Linux. Slow, laggy games.

So sadly I've made the full-on switch back to Windows, although I do have my Ubuntu CD sitting right in front of my monitor, taunting me for making the wrong choice.

[magnafrost]

The Simpleton, on 12 July 2010 - 05:35 PM, said:

Usually whenever I mention using Linux, I also say that I do have dual-boot and use it rarely; I guess I forgot to put in that line this time My Windows 7 PC gets a very rare visit and that is only when I'm too bored with everything else. I don't dare to connect to the internet when in Windows because somehow it just feels too vulnerable, and more importantly, too slow.

For a company like Google, which has a racing spirit, the slow Windows isn't a good choice at all

Thats the perfect combo! Windows 7 and Linux give you maximum security and flexibility. But .. does the OS really make that much difference w.r.t speed ? Both from client side and server side. I would have thought they'll be pretty much the same .. no ?

[rpgsearcherz]

magnafrost, on 12 July 2010 - 05:46 PM, said:

Thats the perfect combo! Windows 7 and Linux give you maximum security and flexibility. But .. does the OS really make that much difference w.r.t speed ? Both from client side and server side. I would have thought they'll be pretty much the same .. no ?

The speed is very, very different. Windows 7 brought them a little closer together but Ubuntu is still way ahead of it.

For example, Ubuntu can do full boot-up in 14 seconds (from power on to fully loaded desktop), on systems where Windows 7 takes 36+ seconds to do the same.

Loading programs is faster on Ubuntu due to better memory management and the fact it organizes your files in a way that no fragmentation can take place (which Windows 7 does not do).

But at the same time, write speeds are faster on Windows 7 than Ubuntu (in terms of the HDD -- discs seem about the same).


Overall they are very similar when you consider that for each thing one does faster, the other does something else faster as well.


One interesting thing I find about Ubuntu is that the 32 bit version recognizes 8 GB's of ram still. It doesn't manage it properly (it blocks it off into Int blocks rather than differentiating between char, float, etc.) but it still has the ability to use all of it.

[magnafrost]

rpgsearcherz, on 12 July 2010 - 10:01 PM, said:

The speed is very, very different. Windows 7 brought them a little closer together but Ubuntu is still way ahead of it.

For example, Ubuntu can do full boot-up in 14 seconds (from power on to fully loaded desktop), on systems where Windows 7 takes 36+ seconds to do the same.

Loading programs is faster on Ubuntu due to better memory management and the fact it organizes your files in a way that no fragmentation can take place (which Windows 7 does not do).

But at the same time, write speeds are faster on Windows 7 than Ubuntu (in terms of the HDD -- discs seem about the same).


Overall they are very similar when you consider that for each thing one does faster, the other does something else faster as well.


One interesting thing I find about Ubuntu is that the 32 bit version recognizes 8 GB's of ram still. It doesn't manage it properly (it blocks it off into Int blocks rather than differentiating between char, float, etc.) but it still has the ability to use all of it.

You are right. But I was actually talking about it from google's perspective.

The Simpleton, on 12 July 2010 - 05:35 PM, said:

For a company like Google, which has a racing spirit, the slow Windows isn't a good choice at all

How does it matter to google how long your system takes to say , boot up or save a file ? So, I'm talking about things like latency and load times. True, if google is running windows one server might support 1000 requests(just making up a number) but linux might support 10,000. But i see that more as a cost issue than a speed issue. I'm wondering about difference in load times between, say, the following 4 scenarios.

1) Google Linux Server -> Client Linux machine
2) Google Windows Server -> Client Linux machine
3) Google Linux Server -> Client Windows machine
1) Google Windows Server -> Client Windows machine

Here I'm talking about everything from google search to gmail to gtalk to even other IMs like trillian.

Edited by magnafrost, 13 July 2010 - 04:15 AM.