When you click Start and see a textbox which is labeled search, do you not think, what if I type "add remove". Google has taught me this, so when I see search I expect to enter keywords or search criteria and that expected results are returned.
Guess what it works.
Classic what? Click what? Where's what?
Just search for it.
Implying the rest just seems archaic, especially from a user perspective.
I'm one of those people. I switched to OS X somewhere around XP SP3. Have never used Vista on any of my own machines, and only run Win7 on a VM to get access to IE 8 and 9.
Search on Windows is horribly broken. One of the first "shortcuts" I learned on OS X was Cmd+Space and typing out the application I wanted to run. Spotlight immediately brought up what I wanted. Windows never did that for me, or spent 45 seconds or more with a spinning hourglass to return a document that happened to be named similar to a program I wanted. I don't care if it works better now, they've set a precedent in my mind that it is broken, because it was broken for the ~15 years I used their OSes.
No offense, but level playing field is ridiculous.
Think about what you're saying, you're saying Google is going to sit there and review all of the source code, and all patches and new releases to that source code. Really? Do you actually believe this...
As per China having the source, do you really think it matters? If someone wants to break in, they're going to get in... (regardless if its Windows/Linux/Mac) why... because that's their job and they are going to spend every minute of every day until they figure it out, and that's what makes them better than you. Majority of the time the issue is not software itself, but the policies in place. Hell, why even break in technically, when I can probably call one of these 10,000 employees up and they'll give me their password. Duh.
If you believe security is 1-dimensional, then you are bound to fail. History has shown this time and time again, just read a book / biography in regards to this topic.
More importantly but less vociferously, by Google switching to an open source OS, it means anyone, anywhere, can fix vulnerabilities. Not just Google.
Considering the difficulty of patching security holes in proprietary software versus patching holes in open software, Google indeed would hugely benefit by drastically reducing the difference between the cost of defense and the cost of cracking.
It's not so much levelling the playing field, as removing Harrison Bergeron's buckshot-filled equality harness.
Switching to an open source OS? OSX is a mix between open and closed source software where quite a bit of its open source code is not updated frequently. Google can't patch Preview, Quicktime, Safari or any other closed source program develop by Apple. Also, Apple is not famous for quickly patching OSX[1]. Quoting Charlie Miller[2,3]: "Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town."[4]
> you're saying Google is going to sit there and review all of the source code, and all patches and new releases to that source code. Really? Do you actually believe this...
It's not crazy to pay someone on their security teams to review checkins to OSS apps they use. Saying 'OH MY GOD' loudly and repetitively doesn't consitute an argument and is rude to the parent poster. Be civil.
>Think about what you're saying, you're saying Google is going to sit there and review all of the source code, and all patches and new releases to that source code. Really? Do you actually believe this...
Maybe not Google by itself, but the sum total of everyone reviewing all the source code and sharing what they know is that it's far easier to develop a more complete security profile for Linux than it is for a proprietary system we can only study by reverse engineering.
Its my understanding that Apple would like require an "explicit" rating, since you could change your web page to have pictures of an "inappropriate" nature.
Same restrictions apply: the web view has a limited set of functionality and there is no way to communicate between the native cocoa part of the app and the javascript part running in the web view.
Guess what it works.
Classic what? Click what? Where's what?
Just search for it.
Implying the rest just seems archaic, especially from a user perspective.