[pook]

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.

[jlmendezbonini]

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]

[1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/apple-fixes-old-java-for-... [2] http://www.dailytech.com/Charlie+Miller+to+Unveil+20+Zeroday... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Miller_(security_resear... [4] http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0412/technology-apple-hack...

[naz]

Google employees probably won't be using Safari but it is 95% open source (WebKit). iTunes would be a better example.