4 ms·

Google to employees: 'Mac or Linux, but no more Windows'

58 points by tca 16y ago

zavulon 16y ago
That makes a lot of sense, as Windows boxes are not really good for web development, but I really hope they still test everything on Windows, extensively. Even though their software is web-based, there's still difference in behavior on different platforms.
- macemoneta 16y ago
  Windows in a VM makes web application testing easy. Always starting from a snapshot insures integrity of the environment too.
  - eli 16y ago
    Agreed. I also combine that with a Linux server VM. This way you can mess around with server configuration without nuking your development environment. Plus you're developing on a server that is very similar to the production server.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > Windows boxes are not really good for web development Unfair! I use Linux and Windows for web dev and they are both equally as good as the other. EDIT; oh come on, at least justify it... :)
  - weavejester 16y ago
    Honestly, it depends what you're developing in. If you're developing in .NET, Windows isn't a bad platform. Anything else, and Windows starts to feel like a second-class citizen. For instance, a lot of tools written in Ruby tend to assume a Unix-like environment, even though the language itself is cross-platform. The other problem with Windows is that it doesn't make a very good server, and it's often useful to develop on the same OS you'll be eventually deploying to.
    - jimfl 16y ago
      Windows is surely a better server than OS X. Also, the tool set for web development on Windows is very mature and stable. Google is making a business decision here: it is too expensive for them to support Windows at the level of security they desire, which is likely a higher standard than most software development shops, and perhaps many banks.
      - weavejester 16y ago
        "Windows is surely a better server than OS X." I've been unable to find anything equivalent to Puppet or Chef on Windows. Might I enquire what tools you use for managing Windows servers? That said, I doubt I'd ever actually use an OSX server. There's little difference in functionality between an OSX server and a Linux server, and Linux servers have no licensing costs to worry about. Currently we're developing on OSX and Linux desktops, and deploying to Linux servers. "Also, the tool set for web development on Windows is very mature and stable." For .NET, maybe. Not for something like Ruby, I'm afraid. Also, we haven't found any good way of deploying to Windows. I'd be curious how you manage deploying applications to a Windows server.
        ErrantX 16y ago
        For .NET, maybe. Not for something like Ruby This is ignoring PHP (one of the biggest web dev languages) and Python which do just as well on both. Also I have never seen the need to develop on the same platform as your server (if your using a local server, well, then that makes sense - but it's not the best workflow and, in addition, that is not a limitation of the development but of the server requirements :)) I won't disagree Ruby is better on Linux though.
        Zak 16y ago
        If you're the sole developer, it makes a lot of sense to run a local server for development purposes. It's cheaper, more convenient and really helpful if you're stuck somewhere with a poor Internet connection.
        16y ago
  - wanderr 16y ago
    Me too. I greatly prefer the tools that are available to me in Windows, but apparently I'm a freak for wanting a decent GUI IDE; most of my colleagues just use vim.
    - weavejester 16y ago
      Out of interest, which IDE do you use that is Windows-only? Visual Studio?
  - fr0man 16y ago
    Yeah, other than Rails, I pretty much agree. I actually prefer Vim on windows to Vim on *nix, (I guess I'm mostly speaking of gVim),Visual Studio is terrific if you don't mind working in .NET, Eclipse and Netbeans are equally mature on Windows, and if you spend a lot of time in the command line, Powershell is really a better Bash in a lot of ways (still needs persistent command history though).
chl 16y ago
Banning the platform most of your users are using doesn't sound like a great idea to me. There's enormous value in eating one's own dogfood (and stuff running in Chrome is an entirely different kind of dogfood than stuff running in IE, on Windows).
- ThomPete 16y ago
  Exactly. One has to wonder what kind of culture this fosters with time.
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    Increasingly their users are going to be using Macs and Android, and I really do expect Linux distros to start to see an upswing as data becomes accessible on more and more devices.
  - wendroid 16y ago
    A Windowsless one where one can shrug and go "meh, works for me on Linux" for a change
- enomar 16y ago
  From what I've heard, very few engineers were using Windows in the first place. This mostly affected sales people.
- dstorrs 16y ago
  According to the article, this is only for primary machines. They will likely still have secondaries and/or VMs running Windows, for testing and etc.
- FlorinAndrei 16y ago
  People who actually need Windows for some business-related reason can still get a licensed copy, they just need approval from higher ranks now. So, "ban" - not so much. More like "strongly discouraged unless there's a reason".
InclinedPlane 16y ago
To a certain degree this is sensible. It will probably make them safer in the short-term. Ultimately though this is just a TSA level maneuver. It's reactionary, short-sighted, and imperfect to a degree that is likely to make it nearly useless. Security is a meta-property, for organizations as well as for software. You can't create security in software as a line-item feature. Nor can you create security in a company by using, or not using, a particular tool. Security ultimately is an overarching endeavor. If google is serious about security they need to approach it that way. The particularly dangerous failure mode for google's recent actions is that they think they've made a serious security enhancement (at best it's incremental), they become complacent, and then they get owned harder than before. Hopefully this is just a teeny, tiny aspect of a larger security initiative, but from the outside it's difficult to tell if that's the case.

58 points by tca 16y ago

That makes a lot of sense, as Windows boxes are not really good for web development, but I really hope they still test everything on Windows, extensively. Even though their software is web-based, there's still difference in behavior on different platforms.

macemoneta 16y ago
Windows in a VM makes web application testing easy. Always starting from a snapshot insures integrity of the environment too.
- eli 16y ago
  Agreed. I also combine that with a Linux server VM. This way you can mess around with server configuration without nuking your development environment. Plus you're developing on a server that is very similar to the production server.
ErrantX 16y ago
> Windows boxes are not really good for web development Unfair! I use Linux and Windows for web dev and they are both equally as good as the other. EDIT; oh come on, at least justify it... :)
- weavejester 16y ago
  Honestly, it depends what you're developing in. If you're developing in .NET, Windows isn't a bad platform. Anything else, and Windows starts to feel like a second-class citizen. For instance, a lot of tools written in Ruby tend to assume a Unix-like environment, even though the language itself is cross-platform. The other problem with Windows is that it doesn't make a very good server, and it's often useful to develop on the same OS you'll be eventually deploying to.
  - jimfl 16y ago
    Windows is surely a better server than OS X. Also, the tool set for web development on Windows is very mature and stable. Google is making a business decision here: it is too expensive for them to support Windows at the level of security they desire, which is likely a higher standard than most software development shops, and perhaps many banks.
    - weavejester 16y ago
      "Windows is surely a better server than OS X." I've been unable to find anything equivalent to Puppet or Chef on Windows. Might I enquire what tools you use for managing Windows servers? That said, I doubt I'd ever actually use an OSX server. There's little difference in functionality between an OSX server and a Linux server, and Linux servers have no licensing costs to worry about. Currently we're developing on OSX and Linux desktops, and deploying to Linux servers. "Also, the tool set for web development on Windows is very mature and stable." For .NET, maybe. Not for something like Ruby, I'm afraid. Also, we haven't found any good way of deploying to Windows. I'd be curious how you manage deploying applications to a Windows server.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        For .NET, maybe. Not for something like Ruby This is ignoring PHP (one of the biggest web dev languages) and Python which do just as well on both. Also I have never seen the need to develop on the same platform as your server (if your using a local server, well, then that makes sense - but it's not the best workflow and, in addition, that is not a limitation of the development but of the server requirements :)) I won't disagree Ruby is better on Linux though.
        Zak 16y ago
        If you're the sole developer, it makes a lot of sense to run a local server for development purposes. It's cheaper, more convenient and really helpful if you're stuck somewhere with a poor Internet connection.
      - 16y ago
- wanderr 16y ago
  Me too. I greatly prefer the tools that are available to me in Windows, but apparently I'm a freak for wanting a decent GUI IDE; most of my colleagues just use vim.
  - weavejester 16y ago
    Out of interest, which IDE do you use that is Windows-only? Visual Studio?
- fr0man 16y ago
  Yeah, other than Rails, I pretty much agree. I actually prefer Vim on windows to Vim on *nix, (I guess I'm mostly speaking of gVim),Visual Studio is terrific if you don't mind working in .NET, Eclipse and Netbeans are equally mature on Windows, and if you spend a lot of time in the command line, Powershell is really a better Bash in a lot of ways (still needs persistent command history though).

chl 16y ago

Banning the platform most of your users are using doesn't sound like a great idea to me. There's enormous value in eating one's own dogfood (and stuff running in Chrome is an entirely different kind of dogfood than stuff running in IE, on Windows).

ThomPete 16y ago
Exactly. One has to wonder what kind of culture this fosters with time.
- DrSprout 16y ago
  Increasingly their users are going to be using Macs and Android, and I really do expect Linux distros to start to see an upswing as data becomes accessible on more and more devices.
- wendroid 16y ago
  A Windowsless one where one can shrug and go "meh, works for me on Linux" for a change
enomar 16y ago
From what I've heard, very few engineers were using Windows in the first place. This mostly affected sales people.
dstorrs 16y ago
According to the article, this is only for primary machines. They will likely still have secondaries and/or VMs running Windows, for testing and etc.
FlorinAndrei 16y ago
People who actually need Windows for some business-related reason can still get a licensed copy, they just need approval from higher ranks now. So, "ban" - not so much. More like "strongly discouraged unless there's a reason".

InclinedPlane 16y ago

To a certain degree this is sensible. It will probably make them safer in the short-term. Ultimately though this is just a TSA level maneuver. It's reactionary, short-sighted, and imperfect to a degree that is likely to make it nearly useless. Security is a meta-property, for organizations as well as for software. You can't create security in software as a line-item feature. Nor can you create security in a company by using, or not using, a particular tool. Security ultimately is an overarching endeavor. If google is serious about security they need to approach it that way. The particularly dangerous failure mode for google's recent actions is that they think they've made a serious security enhancement (at best it's incremental), they become complacent, and then they get owned harder than before. Hopefully this is just a teeny, tiny aspect of a larger security initiative, but from the outside it's difficult to tell if that's the case.