Bah, i understand this, but it makes me sad because Apple is a lot worse than Windows (as far as being evil goes). They just happen to make shiny products so they get away with it. In other words, they're really good at being evil =[
They should go GNU+Linux only for company computers and let employees use whatever they like on their own machines?
I wonder if this will affect the support they give to their products, usually Windows is more supported than all the others, hope it doesn't affect it!
mmm by the way is this why they made Chrome Stable on Mac recently?!
I think they should really use Linux seeing as all of their servers run a Google flavor of Ubuntu you would think using it on the desktop would be the next logical step then they could reuse all of their existing hardware.
alexandrojv "is this why they made Chrome Stable on Mac recently" – hardly (read: not).
Besides, Chrome/Mac may be stable in terms of statistical dependability, but it is far from optimized for the OSX. The garbage collection leaves much to be desired.... because, the longer it runs, and the more tabs opened/ closed, the hotter my Mac laptop becomes, and the fan kicks in – after a couple of uptime-days basically after mere 10 minutes of use [I apologize for not being able to come up with wider-range normalized values extracted from more units than one – though I am pretty sure Google Chrome team has seen those figures and, short of rewriting Chrome from scratch in Mac-optimized fashion, decided they can not do much about them.]
That's why, stable or not, I'd call it downright unusable. Also see my earlier comment blogoscoped.com/forum/171257.h ...
I too am finding the switch to Mac strange, particularly after their ranting about "openness" at I/O. MS may not be open, but it is much more open than Apple. And Linux is about as open as you can get.
They said this was about security, not openness. From an "Open" perspective what does it matter which OS is used internally?
I wonder if this had more to do with McAfee debacle  than with the famous China hack.
Windows needs McAfee, and Google may have decided they can't risk the class of bugs arising from OS/Antiviral combinations.
OS X users don't run antiviral software (one may argue we should, but we don't – and so far that hasn't causes us grievous harm).
 krebsonsecurity.com/2010/04/mc ...
No, if McAfee was the problem, Google could just as well bought it up and fixed the leaks themselves. But this is bigger than that. On some level they must've reached the same conclusion as I did back in 1984 or so – that legacy issues will make any MS-DOS[*] offspring unfixable.
[^*] né Quick and Dirty Operating System – "quick and dirty" meaning it'll work only as long as end-user stays within narrow command parameters it has been designed with.
Why are so many people including me being locked out of our gmail accounts? Has any one figured out how to get back into our emails?
Also see Microsoft's response: windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/ ...
Linux is hardly secured. Hackers compromise it OFTEN. If this is about "security" then Google needs to make some personnel changes because they're not switching apples with oranges on a security level.
It 'll work only as long as end-user stays within narrow command parameters it has been designed with,good ！
And your point being...? [it goes without saying that an enterprise-class OS can not rely on its users staying within prescribed params. So what's "good" about it.]