Do you believe this?

[vasa1]

Google ditches Windows on security concerns

By David Gelles and Richard Waters in San Francisco

Published: May 31 2010 23:26 | Last updated: May 31 2010 23:26

[MidnightCowboy]

I believe everything I read, especially if it's in PC Mag or on YouTube

Maybe there's just a hint of commercial politics involved here with Microsoft being a major search competitor to Google. I admit to not being fully conversant technically with the hack that Google suffered, but would Mac PC's have been any less vulnerable? If all of this is browser related then Safari seems easy enough to break, and surely their easiest option would be to block IE. One assumes that Google employees would want to use Chrome anyway

[rhiannon]

Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy

I believe everything I read, especially if it's in PC Mag or on YouTube

Maybe there's just a hint of commercial politics involved here with Microsoft being a major search competitor to Google. I admit to not being fully conversant technically with the hack that Google suffered, but would Mac PC's have been any less vulnerable? If all of this is browser related then Safari seems easy enough to break, and surely their easiest option would be to block IE. One assumes that Google employees would want to use Chrome anyway

Considering that the exploit came through an old (and, I understand, unpatched) computer running XP and IE6, I really don't see how Microsoft can be held responsible.
Mac's are vulnerable as well, but they are less of a target due to market share. That could change as their market share grows.

[vasa1]

More on the topic:
Mac OS X and Linux are no magic security bullet for Google

The net result is that fully-patched Windows 7 machines, especially running 64-bit software, represent a tough nut to crack for attackers. Assuming Google's system administrators are competent, modern versions of Windows would provide decent—not impenetrable, but good nonetheless—protection against precisely the kind of attack that Google is apparently striving to guard against. So banning Windows for security reasons makes no sense.

Linux doesn't have the same organized development process as Microsoft—that's just the nature of a decentralized open source development effort. It does, however, have a range of complex and powerful security capabilities, if you elect to use them. The result is that by default Linux may be a bit easier to attack than Windows; conversely, it can also be made harder to attack. If Google wants to avoid another Aurora, Linux, too, could be a good choice.

Where things get a bit weird, however, is Google's alleged decision that Mac OS X is a good alternative. Though Apple likes to trumpet the security of its platform, the reality is quite different. Mac OS X is easy, even fun to exploit. Safari, too, is "easy pickings" for hackers.

[vasa1]

If Microsoft Switched to Google Apps..

Imagine the impossible. If Microsoft switched to Google Apps today, they could save around $277 million in costs per year ...

Link

I think the title of the thread is quite apt ...

[vasa1]

Revealed: Government blows thousands on iPhone apps

[Sope]

Originally Posted by vasa1

Revealed: Government blows thousands on iPhone apps

Last sentence sums it up.

As a UK taxpayer I find this depressing

[vasa1]

Looks like company!

The federal government's USA.gov website unveiled a new “app store” with about 20 mobile applications, including five health-related applications, just before the holiday weekend.
US government launches mobile app store