CIOs want to see more of Google Apps

TalkBack 12 of 18:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

I only disagree with one thing: Security. Google has not proven to store critical sensitive data better than the average network admin can inhouse.

Google desktop, with it's open link to google from your client and the data being pushed out to Google servers, that most don't realize is happening and the breach of said desktop makes me a bit nervous. MS has always delivered a high end development productivity suite of apps and tools. Yes security is secondary. In life you have to make those judgements sometimes...do you give up extreme value (or Freedoms to use our lives as an example) to be restricted by extreme security measures? I think you have to have a balance, like life itself, and there are ways to mitigate the risks of the holes windows has due to it's extremely powerful system. ActiveX gets hammered all the time but if you take security out of the picture, it's been hailed, by the objective, as one of the most powerful client side technologies ever. Vista is a good step and I don't like the wga crap but it's taken care of ton of problems. It's mitigated IE problems very well and is going to be the end of exploitable client side bugs. But all companies have some level of crap we don't like. Take Google and their China deal, or their army of lawyers that makes MS's staff look like a half dozen public defenders. Or their arrogance about the death to this and the death to that. They and Mozilla are a good fit. Mozilla mascot at netscape was named from the terms "Mosaic" and "Killer"...with slang injected of course, but that's what Mozilla stands for. Mosaic Killer. What comes around goes around I would say, eh? So now Mozilla is being funded by the next monopoly of modern times...good or bad? Their next browser is going to have so much Google technology built in it may have to undergo a name change. Fireoogle? Googfox?

Google is no better than MS and people have no idea what Google is even really about or what they do.
I still don't understand the licensing for open source. How can Google sell apps developed with open source Linux and not share the source? Or even their search engine, which is a commercial product...i thought they had to share the source? Where is the advantage to open source again? If a company can take the code, close it up and sell apps and even OSes w/o exposing the code, what happened to the "open" in open source?; Posted by: xuniL_z Posted on: 02/28/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use