Google Shares Experience of Using Ubuntu in their Offices

http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/05/how-google-developers-use-ubuntu.html

by arb99 • 14 years ago

151 119 14 years ago

Periodic• 14 years ago

What I'm curious about is how much control they are willing to give their developers over their workstations. At a previous company they had trouble because the developers needed administrator access to their Windows systems because they needed to install a lot of different software and run many things in administrative mode (server development). It was a constant tension between developers and security. I wonder how it is with Linux, which might have more fine-grained controls and an easier way to install per-user software.

I'm surprised xmonad got a mention. I interpreted it as a window manager that didn't have much traction outside of the Haskell community, particularly with all the configuration being done in Haskell. Perhaps it was just an example of an one of the more strange requests.

That said, I love xmonad. People keep asking me for help with their Gnome desktops and I have to shrug and point out I don't really use Gnome if I can get away with it.

neild• 14 years ago

Developers have root on their workstations. Google doesn't believe in treating developers like the enemy.

nooooooo• 14 years ago

Just like in every other sane tech company.

myko2• 14 years ago

As an intern last summer with Google I had my personal Xmonad environment setup and running day 2 in the office.

So yeah, Google gives their developers plenty of control over their workstations :) And Xmonad rocks for productivity.

mhitza• 14 years ago

Where you using a multimonitor setup or just a single big monitor?

I found xmonad not so pleasant in multimonitor setup where it saw each monitor as a separate workspace.

jmillikin5• 14 years ago

(I work at Google)

A few employees in particularly security-sensitive positions don't have full root, and have to use "sudo" with a whitelist of commands, allowed packages, and so on. It's fairly easy to get packages added to the whitelist, by filing a request with the security team.

Users who need to run insecure operating systems, or need to install arbitrary packages, use heavily sandboxed VMs.

Two members of my current team used xmonad before I got here, and I've helped two more to convert. I anticipate there will be more conversions after Precise comes along and forces everyone off GNOME 2. To my knowledge, none of them know anything about Haskell.

keithpeter11• 14 years ago

I am fascinated by the preference for Xmonad as an alternative to Unity/Gnome Shell.

Would Gnome 2 -> XFCE or Gnome 2 -> Gnome Classic not make more sense?

Or is it more along the lines of: we have to change anyway so lets have a look at a workflow that really fits how we work?

I say this as a humble end user who has gone dwm/dmenu -> Unity with 12.04

dkersten2• 14 years ago

My question is: why XMonad over one of the other tiling window managers, eg AwesomeWM? Just curious what XMonad has to offer that I may not know about (I personally use Musca).

eliasmacpherson2• 14 years ago

What I am fascinated is the widespread migration caused by unity. In my circle, users have moved distributions to mint and debian, changed to using twm, dwm and xmonad. The despair at unity was caused by the bugs, and the fact that the ubuntu android distro required a proper screen to be utilised properly. It was not caused by the concept, but the implementation. If the user unfriendliness caused by unity was intended to support smartphones and smaller screen devices, why does the mobile unity require an external screen? Baffling! The user decisions made were relatively permanent. The users who made changes don't seem to be swayed by assertions that more recent versions of ubuntu have better implementations of unity.

krzyk3• 14 years ago

I used for about a year IceWM and I loved everything in it (I always have a single window in full screen) besides the fact that it resized a simple modal boxes (e.g. firefox asking for proxy credentials) to full screen, which was really ugly.

If I would switch (from XFCE) to xmonad, would it do such strange things to small modal boxes? I don't like to split my screen, I always have windows if full screen.

sliverstorm• 14 years ago

easier way to install per-user software.

Not "easy", but a real, functional option- compile from source in your home folder, targeting ~/bin, ~/lib, etc. The onus is entirely on the user, of course.

krzyk3• 14 years ago

At my company almost everyone uses Windows (it's the official supported sytem) but I installed Linux on my box and no one had issues with this (I didn't ask for any permission, I just did it - as long as I do my work there shouldn't be any issues). We have some internal page for people using alternative OSes (Linux and MacOs, didn't see any other) and there is some kind of support with the availability of an VM image with all the office software that we use.

I really love that my company supports Windows only, because if they would support Linux it would mean that they would force me to use packages that I don't want to or take away my root access.

djeikyb2• 14 years ago

Direct link to video: http://youtu.be/fu3pT_9nb8o

why-el• 14 years ago

7 minutes into the video and I am glad to hear Google is considering offering Google Drive for linux. A free Dropbox/Drive combo will fit my needs for the moment.

gioele2• 14 years ago

What Linux really needs is well documented protocols, not applications. See how integrated GTalk is in any Linux desktop and how differently is Skype treated.

At the same it is nice to have a nice client as a binary package just to kickstart the efforts, but it never a good long term plan.

Drbble4• 14 years ago

That's what yegge's infamous platform rant was begging for. Google has been slow to appease, though. Controlling everything is more enticing to the ego of a manager.

drivebyacct24• 14 years ago

Do you mean Linux needs Drive to offer "well documented protocols"?

Otherwise I don't know what "Linux[...] protocols" you're referring to or how it's relevant to GTalk vs. Skype, etc. Skype integrates poorly because it's locked down and has been neglected for... 4 years?

sixbrx• 14 years ago

I work in the FDA, and it almost takes an act of congress to get root on developer workstations. Also we can't install software unless it's on the the MAT (master approved technologies) list. Which is pretty ironic, because we create software ourselves, which is of course not on that centrally maintained, slow to change list. So we're not sure if we're actually allowed to ever run the results of our compiles. Nobody wants to ask because we might not like the answer...

keithpeter11• 14 years ago

Sounds like a David Foster Wallace short story there... go on ASK

jrockway4• 14 years ago

Bank of America was like that. One former colleague wanted shell logins on a windows box, but was denied permission to install cygwin sshd. So he wrote his own version that listened to a port and executed the unauthenticated command sent to that port. And that was 100% within policy.

Drbble4• 14 years ago

It is reasonable to trust your developers but not trust unaudited third party code.

NelsonMinar• 14 years ago

The summary mentions "...won't be upgraded to Precise until next year because of a nasty Python 2.7 incompatibility bug." What's the bug?

nswanberg• 14 years ago

I was curious about that too. If you listen to the video at 12:26 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=fu3pT_9nb8o#t=746s), he has made that up as a reason why a team might not upgrade from Lucid to Precise, not that there is currently any such issue.

codexon• 14 years ago

I have found at least 3 problems upgrading to Ubuntu 12.04. I have upgraded 4 of my servers and found the following problems.

1. The ia32-libs package uninstalled itself somehow, causing all my 32bit programs to fail start back up if they restarted.

2. @reboot cronjobs ran 2 minutes after the machine booted in kern.log. I accidentally started the programs manually because I thought they wouldn't run.

3. On a fresh install, the byobu network display doesn't show up.

srparish• 14 years ago

I don't work at google, but my team is in the same boat because of this bug: http://bugs.python.org/issue10394

Moving to python3 wouldn't be too hard, except we have some really complicated cheetah templates, and cheetah apparently has no plans for supporting python3 any time soon.

diminish• 14 years ago

Wish Google had mostly used Linux on desktops; would be a strong motivator for the rest of the world to get better hardware certifying for Linux.

jrockway4• 14 years ago

Google does mostly use Linux on desktops.

icco2• 14 years ago

Isn't that exactly what this is about? Seems like Google uses Linux on everything according to the video.

brown9-2• 14 years ago

I suppose it varies between office/department but when I interviewed there 2 years ago I saw nothing but MacBooks.

brandon2• 14 years ago

Most of the big name hardware vendors are starting to get more serious about supporting Linux on their professional product lines. The bigger problem is that no attention is given to Linux on consumer gear and the components within are refreshed on such a frequent basis that keeping up is tough even when you try.

(Context: I'm the lead on hardware qualification for Goobuntu)

jiggy2011• 14 years ago

How does rebooting a workstation set them back a million dollars?

gouranga• 14 years ago

Well one place I worked, the entire network's DNS was hanging off the back of a single VAXstation running NetBSD. That was serving for 2350 machines. One day, someone accidentally fork bombed it via a bad script and when they power cycled it the disk popped. It took an entire day of 1500 people twiddling thumbs before they got it back...

They must have a turd that size somewhere ;-)

stfp• 14 years ago

I think he meant rebooting everyone's workstation - at 35K employees even a couple minutes per person is something you probably want to avoid wasting.

gbog2• 14 years ago

I don't like this way of thinking. The two or even ten minutes you spend not using your PC are not lost. It could be a unique occasion to talk to your colleagues, it could be time well spent cleaning some papers. If you think by the minute if work, then you better start eating pills instead off lunch, use headphones during commute and check emails while watching sunset with gf. We ain't no robots, sir.

icco2• 14 years ago

Not sure, that is an interesting number. If they had 20,000 devs, with an average boot time of 10 min, at $5 a min (which seems high, if it's just salary), then it would cost them $1m. But given that developers don't work 24/7, and I also think that Google has less than 20k devs (the company is only 30k). But it could have to do with math outside of salary, such as power or maintenance costs. I think it was Google that did a study on how screen saver choice affected their power bill, so I wouldn't be surprised if they knew exactly how much a reboot cost.

dws• 14 years ago

You also have to consider the break in flow. A boot time of a minute, at the wrong time, can cost the mental context of the interrupted developers to get dumped on the floor. That costs a lot more than a minute to recover from.

rwmj• 14 years ago

What's interesting, I think, is that "Linux", "GNU", "Red Hat" (who write most of the software), "BSD", "free software" are not mentioned in the main article.

tzs• 14 years ago

Is that the same Thomas Bushnell who was the primary architect for HURD until he said he didn't think the GFDL was free enough and got kicked off the project by RMS for that heresy?

btilly• 14 years ago

I didn't know about that incident, but it is definitely the same Thomas Bushnell.

j_baker• 14 years ago

I will say this: Google has really good developer tools in general. I have had to spend far less time setting up software on my workstation than I ever have at any other job. Between using Ubuntu and some internal tools, I spend far less time installing software and more time writing software.

Although I should note that certain security systems are notoriously annoying to say the least.

insaneirish• 14 years ago

Based on what I've seen here, Google needs to have more presentation skills classes.

adgar4• 14 years ago

I haven't watched the linked video yet, but my only complaint as a Google engineer about our employees as presenters is that engineers are often ineffective moderators.

joe_the_user2• 14 years ago

"However, not many employees like new UI changes meant for consumers and not developers. Some of the Google employees also requested removing Unity and Gnome 3 and using xmonad instead."

This.

Google is exactly the company that would use Ubuntu. They're not the company that would want unity. So WTF were they thinking?

Basically, some time on the earlier 2000's, someone decided the "secret" of a good Linux UI was a UI "for dummies". Whoever decided this was wrong, pathetic and contemptible. As alternative OS for an alternative desktop, Linux needs to be easy yes, but also powerful enough to give an exciting experience to those smart and adventurous people willing try something new, not a shitty copy of cartoonish UIs intended for morons. IE, the idiots who are targeted by Unity will not lift a finger to actually install it. The people who would try Ubuntu on their own deserve better than Unity.

Paulish• 14 years ago

I always thought unity was designed for touch screens. Everything about it is fat for touching. I think Ubuntu wants to move to the touch screen device market.

And I find it very frustrating because I have no intention of touching any of my desktop screens.

djeikyb2• 14 years ago

I don't like Unity for my own daily computing. I prefer a tiling wm, often with all windows full screened. I tend to prefer minimal gui. My preference is especially strong because my laptop screen has a ten inch diagonal.

But on other machines that I've set up (for my self, and others), with a normal size screen, used primarily for web browsing and basic word processing, Unity is great. Widgets aren't "fat for touching", they're fat targets for easy clicks.

Unity has its flaws. It shouldn't be the only option. I do, however, believe it is getting better for a non-techie user.

res0nat0r3• 14 years ago

Please stop saying 'this'. Just reply with your comments. Thank you.

zerostar07• 14 years ago

not this. 'this' is a shortcut to 'i concur' or any other phrase meaning agreement which would be in the comment anyway. isn't it shorter to just say 'this'?

jbarham• 14 years ago

I find the vitriol directed towards Unity puzzling, and regardless of your technical disagreements with the decisions its designers made, it's surely a tad over the top to call them "wrong, pathetic and contemptible".

FWIW I recently switched to using Unity with 12.04 and overall have found it very useful and efficient. From a classic usability perspective (e.g., Fitts' Law), moving the application menu bar to the window is much more efficient. And I appreciate the speed and ease-of-use of the HUD.

My wife had an oldish laptop running Windows that was becoming increasingly slow and unreliable. Since 99% of her computer use is in a web browser, I installed Ubuntu and Chrome and it's as good as new.

My wife doesn't want an "exciting experience", she just wants the computer to work reliably. Same for me. Generally I don't particularly care what changes are made at the desktop level since most of my time is spent in applications or the shell, but for the record I appreciate and applaud the work that Ubuntu has put into Unity, and kudos to the designers for their good work.

joe_the_user2• 14 years ago

My disagreement is philosophical, not technical.

The problems some people have with Unity might be bugs or simple design mistakes (that kind of stuff certainly appears in any large application and I'm sure Unity's developers were highly competent, well-intentioned and deserving of appreciation despite any bugs). However, the problem I have in particular with Unity is that it's intended to solve making easy stuff easy by making even slightly hard stuff impossible. I don't believe that's a good philosophy for an OS that's going to spread by word-of-mouth, that will inspire loyalty in its users. (if you read my post carefully, my vitriol is directed as those who put forward the "improvement by removing options". I'm sorry if I went a bit over the top. Linux does seem to have a heritage of blunt-to-the-point-of-rudeness expression).

I also believe that it is quite possible to create a graphic shell that satisfies both minimal users and more sophisticated users.

drivebyacct24• 14 years ago

Thank god, with this, I can finally say that there isn't a corner of the Internet that doesn't have irrational Unity hate. I'd bet money you've not used it for any serious amount of time.

keithpeter11• 14 years ago

I have used Unity in its 5.10/Ubuntu 12.04 incarnation for several months now and I rather like it on a medium sized monitor. Not so much on a netbook at 1024/600

But I'm not a programmer. I am an end user. Perhaps we will now see increasing differentiation between those who code and those who use?

astrodust• 14 years ago

A UI that "makes sense" is a lot better than a UI "for dummies". If the time is taken to come up with an interface that's logical, consistent, and minimal, it will appeal both to people with no clue how to use it and those who use it constantly and expect a lot from it.

Linux in particular tends to dumb things down rather than simplify them, as if the distinction is completely lost. Then it buries all the complexity in these configuration files or in obscure nooks and crannies of the UI that only the most determined can find.

The "secret" is to bust your ass and come up with ideas that make sense, to lead with consistency. Unfortunately open-source tends to be design by committee of designed at all because of the collaborative nature of it.

If Linus Torvalds can have final say for the kernel, where are the others who hold similar sway over UI? Maybe it's that it's very hard for a designer to earn the respect of programmers because their skill sets are under-appreciated.

darksaga• 14 years ago

I found it interesting they made a point about rebooting. Considering if you had people turn off their PC's at night, you could save almost double that when you take into account the energy it takes to run a PC and a single monitor. Although most employees I'm sure would be running dual monitors.

If they were indeed running Linux (which boots at least 5X faster than Windows) you could easily make an argument for the exact opposite.

tonfa• 14 years ago

But then you can't ssh to your desktop if you need it.

bconway• 14 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake-on-LAN

jeffnappi• 14 years ago

I've written a post on our company blog about our heavy use of Ubuntu including Diskless fat-client workstations..

http://blog.iacquire.com/2012/05/15/how-iacquire-makes-use-o...

Google Shares Experience of Using Ubuntu in their Offices

Related Stories