Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 27th Jan 2008 22:09 UTC
Mac OS X "Apple has brought its unique brand of richness and simplicity to servers. OS X Leopard Server is the fifth generation of the software half of Apple's server platform. This time around, Apple took what is a unique and bold approach for a Unix server. Leopard Server continues the OS X Server tradition of delivering platform-independent file/print, e-mail, Web, and network edge services (such as stateful firewall, VPN, proxy, virus, and spam filtering). But it is as easy to set up and run as a desktop. Truly; the typical Mac user could get a Leopard Server going, because the default administrative interface is a match for a Mac's System Preferences."
Order by: Score:
Ads Suck
by porcel on Sun 27th Jan 2008 23:15 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

The summary and the first part of the article read like a poorly done "infomercial", commenting primarily on how pretty the interface is. I think the interface is secondary on a server operating system. If the interface and the feature set are awesome, great. But a great interface does not make a great server operating system.

When we get to the meats and bones of what a server is supposed to do, here's what the author says:

"If Leopard Server has a shortcoming, it is its limited scalability. This is a legitimate concern for IT, but then IT is neither Apple's target for Leopard Server nor the most likely purchaser of turnkey, user-friendly servers. Again, Leopard Server passes muster in the general purpose category, and linking in Apple's Xsan SAN filesystem opens Leopard Server's intrinsic scalability. But the turnkey features that make Leopard Server so appealing don't scale with the use of the GUI tools. The tools themselves fall short of an experienced admin's expectations, especially with regard to real-time reporting. Apple thoughtfully made all of its admin tools operable remotely so that you don't have to resort to VNC or a remote shell; the console administrative GUI runs on any Mac client, and the tools are free. But when a remote management connection goes down mid-session, the admin tools handle it poorly. There is no notification that the link to the server has been cut. Rather, stale stats persist on-screen until the admin tool is restarted, at which point a broken connection is reported.".


And then we return to the infomercial bullshit. For instance:

" Don't base your expectations on what Windows and Linux PCs can do. Leopard is a different beast that could easily be the only collaboration server that an organization of modest size requires."

What does modest size mean in this context? What makes this more powerful than Windows or Linux, other than the fact that this guy was paid to say so?

Edited 2008-01-27 23:16 UTC

Reply Score: 12

RE: Ads Suck
by irbis on Sun 27th Jan 2008 23:51 UTC in reply to "Ads Suck"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

I agree that the story reads too much like an advertisement and could have had more depth... However, what I like about the story is the idea of an easy to use reliable server, and the combination of the Unix core and the ease of use of Mac OS X.

Unix & Linux servers may often be the best options for serious server usage. However, why do so many people still use and prefer MS Windows servers instead of Unix or Linux and although they have to pay for Windows licenses when they could get a well tested secure Linux or BSD server operating system free of charge? Ease of use is certainly one reason, and a field where Linux and Unix servers could still develop a lot - and even though Linux and Unix desktop usability may already sometimes be easier than, say, that of MS Windows.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Ads Suck
by kaiwai on Mon 28th Jan 2008 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Ads Suck"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree that the story reads too much like an advertisement and could have had more depth... However, what I like about the story is the idea of an easy to use reliable server, and the combination of the Unix core and the ease of use of Mac OS X.


If you have a look at the website, IT Business, its a website designed for CEO/CIO/CFO and other TLA titled people who have no idea about IT but love reading magazines that give them the illusion that they do. It flutters over the details - if you want the details, best to go to a website like Arstechnica.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Ads Suck
by TechGeek on Mon 28th Jan 2008 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Ads Suck"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I'll tell you why people use Windows Servers: Because they are locked in to Microsoft only technologies. Want Exchange? Gotta have a Windows server. Want AD? Gotta have Windows Server. Want to run a web site with ActiveX or ASP? Gotta have a Windows Server. Need ftp, samba, OpenLDAP, a firewall, or any other mail server? Pretty much any server out there can handle it. Difference is I can run a ftp/http (not full on apache, granted) server off a floppy disk on anything. Or you can have the behemoth that is Windows 2003 Server.

Back on topic, if Leopard is the people's Unix, how about letting the people use virtualization?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Ads Suck
by senornoodle on Mon 28th Jan 2008 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ads Suck"
senornoodle Member since:
2005-07-12

They do now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ads Suck
by John.Gustafsson on Mon 28th Jan 2008 07:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ads Suck"
John.Gustafsson Member since:
2005-08-08

Virtualization yes. Because I really would like to buy a virtualized Mac OS X server. I haven't looked into things yet, but I know there are linux (and other) variants out there, and I really would like a 24/7 server to put some small stuff up on. But I don't want a linux box on 24/7 at home and I simply can't justify an XServe.

I don't care about "opening" up OS X for non-Apple hardware. I don't even think they should do it. But running virtual OS X servers should be a high priority for Apple. I would even venture to say that I would be OK with an OS X specific solution. I.e. you can only run the virtual stuff on an OS X machine. I don't particularly care how they solve it (you don't have to have virtual computers running after all), just do ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ads Suck
by tomcat on Mon 28th Jan 2008 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ads Suck"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I'll tell you why people use Windows Servers: Because they are locked in to Microsoft only technologies. Want Exchange? Gotta have a Windows server. Want AD? Gotta have Windows Server. Want to run a web site with ActiveX or ASP? Gotta have a Windows Server.


While that's true, it isn't the ONLY reason why people use Windows Server. Give MS some credit. Windows Server 2003 is a pretty darned good server OS. Highly integrated, good security record, excellent administration tools, scalable, etc. That's not to say that Linux is any less capable.

Need ftp, samba, OpenLDAP, a firewall, or any other mail server? Pretty much any server out there can handle it.


Including Windows Server. Isn't that ironic?

Difference is I can run a ftp/http (not full on apache, granted) server off a floppy disk on anything. Or you can have the behemoth that is Windows 2003 Server.


That's really not a very interesting scenario for most organizations. But you already knew that. I suppose it was more interesting to draw an unreasonable comparison.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Ads Suck
by ichi on Mon 28th Jan 2008 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ads Suck"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

That's really not a very interesting scenario for most organizations.


But running more servers on less hardware is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ads Suck
by Windows Sucks on Mon 28th Jan 2008 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ads Suck"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

[q]I'll tell you why people use Windows Servers: Because they are locked in to Microsoft only technologies. Want Exchange? Gotta have a Windows server. Want AD? Gotta have Windows Server. Want to run a web site with ActiveX or ASP? Gotta have a Windows Server.


While that's true, it isn't the ONLY reason why people use Windows Server. Give MS some credit. Windows Server 2003 is a pretty darned good server OS. Highly integrated, good security record, excellent administration tools, scalable, etc. That's not to say that Linux is any less capable.

Actually most places I have been that use Windows on the server user it for several other reasons.

1. MS's development tools (Sorry to say) are loved by a LOT of people. Which means a LOT of people develop on Windows, using Windows for Windows. And most of those apps are going to be deployed on Windows with IIS.

2. Using AD to manage users at a help desk (Also sorry to say) Can not be matched. A 6 year old with a few days to play around in AD could do the basic tasks of a help desk person. Being able to: make users, set up email accounts, change passwords, add or change groups, set group policies etc are very simple tasks in AD.

3. TCO. Serving data on and Web sites, providing edge services etc on Linux is the way to go. You have low TCO. But user management, file and print services (Sharing to Windows, Linux and Macs) single sign on etc have lower TCO on Windows. And that is because 2003 server and AD are just good enough and get just good enough uptime that you can lower staff and pay less for user management etc once you get the servers up and running! You don't need some shell scripting guru on staff that charges 80,000 plus a year. For that you can hire 2 40,000 a year Windows guys and have one manage the servers and one manage the desktops, images etc. (That is not good for us in the industry but its good for business!

4. Roll out is quicker on Windows. In reality how log does it take to set up redundant Windows 2003 servers, add users, create a domain, set up DNS, DHCP etc and then add Windows machines to the domain, share and map printers, files shares etc. Although we hate to admit it, those are very easy tasks to do, even a non Windows admin could do it because Windows gives you those dumb wizards that show you how to do it. Now how long would it take to do that using all Linux (Desktops and servers) I am sure a tad bit longer since you would have to piece everything together. Using Suse it's not so hard, but hard enough. Not as smooth as with Windows. (Or Apple since this is actually supposed to be a talk about Apple server anyway)

Anyway, I am not knocking Linux as I am a big Linux fan. But there are some things that Linux could do better. If Linux companies like Novell and or Redhat had a workgroup server that was out the box as easy to use as Windows 2003 and Apple are in workgroups, Linux would pick up a LOT more steam in the enterprise. Novel has their small business server but it's a pain to set up. All the tools are there (Samba, Edirectory etc) but it's not easy to set up out the box. Too much going on!

Anyway, let me know what everyone thinks. Thanks. :-)

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Ads Suck
by kaiwai on Tue 29th Jan 2008 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ads Suck"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Just a quick reply; why do you need exchange? do you need exchange or exchnage like functionality? the purpose of software is to fulfill a task. If you decision to purchase something is based on brand than what it can do and the price it can do it at - then god help what ever company you are at.

You don't need to look far to find alternatives to exchange which are superior; Sun sell a middleware stack called "Solaris Enterprise System" which will be opensourced soon, there is Lotus Notes/Domino, Oracle eve has their own collaboration suite. All of these substantially cheaper than exchange.

Which comes back the original question; as you buying software based on brand or functionality and price?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ads Suck
by Soulbender on Tue 29th Jan 2008 08:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ads Suck"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Don't forget Zimbra.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Ads Suck
by kaiwai on Tue 29th Jan 2008 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ads Suck"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Thank you for that - I was trying to remember the numerous ones off the top of my head. I think you reinforced the fact that there are hundreds of alternatives to Exchange - so why use Exchange?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ads Suck
by Windows Sucks on Tue 29th Jan 2008 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ads Suck"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Thank you for that - I was trying to remember the numerous ones off the top of my head. I think you reinforced the fact that there are hundreds of alternatives to Exchange - so why use Exchange?


People use Exchange because of 1. Outlook. You can't get get all the features of Outlook in Zimbra or any other server that has an Outlook plugin etc. 2. Because MS gives enterprises a big discount on Exchange if you have an Enterprise contract. 3. It's what people know. Almost anyone who has used MS Office has used Outlook at some point in time.

I sell off site email hosting myself and I fight to get people off Exchange and on to things like Scalix, Zimbra or Desknow. But people want Outlook. That is the key.

Scalix comes pretty close, its about at the point of Exchange 2000. Using Outlook most users would not know that you are not using Exchange. But Scalix is not cheap. And is not as scalable as Exchange yet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Ads Suck
by Soulbender on Tue 29th Jan 2008 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ads Suck"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Outlook. You can't get get all the features of Outlook in Zimbra or any other server that has an Outlook plugin etc


The real question is not whether you can get the same features but if you can get the features you need. Unfortunately not many IT managers get that distinction.

2. Because MS gives enterprises a big discount on Exchange if you have an Enterprise contract.


Not surprising. We, fortunately, don't have those so we're going Zimbra. To this day I'm still haunted by managing Exchange 5.5.

3. It's what people know.


I'd say that's the most important factor.
A: "We need Exchange"
B: "Why"
A: "I hear it's good and everyone uses it"

But people want Outlook.


But people can't always get what they want, especially not at work (unless they're the CEO...).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ads Suck
by rayiner on Mon 28th Jan 2008 18:54 UTC in reply to "Ads Suck"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I think you're missing the point. There is a very substantial niche for a server OS with a good, easy-to-use interface and limited scalability. There are lot's of servers that support a relatively small number of users and are maintained by a non-professional admin. For example, at my university, the small departmental computer labs are sometimes maintained by professors or students in their spare time. Where I work, our e-mail and source-control servers are maintained by people who have no formal IT training, and other primary duties. OS X Server is perfect for such environments. Indeed, if I recall correctly, that's exactly what runs our setup at work --- a PowerMac with OS X Server.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ads Suck
by Windows Sucks on Mon 28th Jan 2008 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Ads Suck"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

I think you're missing the point. There is a very substantial niche for a server OS with a good, easy-to-use interface and limited scalability. There are lot's of servers that support a relatively small number of users and are maintained by a non-professional admin. For example, at my university, the small departmental computer labs are sometimes maintained by professors or students in their spare time. Where I work, our e-mail and source-control servers are maintained by people who have no formal IT training, and other primary duties. OS X Server is perfect for such environments. Indeed, if I recall correctly, that's exactly what runs our setup at work --- a PowerMac with OS X Server.


Mac OSX servers actually scale pretty well. here on our Development Network we have a bunch of Macs and Mac servers. On our Production Network it's all Windows, some Linux and Unix.

As I said the cost of hardware is Apples problem. For what you could buy a Mac Pro for you could get a couple Dell or Gateway small business servers with Windows 2003 server on them. (As the Mac pro does not come with Mac OS X server out the box) for the same price. And yes the Apple machine will be more powerful etc. But the Windows machines will get the job done and cost much less. (And they run Linux more easy) LOL!

Reply Score: 1

Mac OS X --does-- scale VERY well
by Sabon on Mon 28th Jan 2008 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ads Suck"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

As noted by a previous posts. Mac OS X does scale very well. Maybe not from the GUI but it is BSD UNIX under the hood and I don't think anyone will tell you that BSD UNIX doesn't scale well.

Harder to do than Windows? Only people I know that have only ever used Windows Server will say something like that. Or people that have used very old versions of other NOSs.

PS: Installing a NOS on a home computer and hooking up less than 200 computers to it doesn't even begin to make you an expert. Step two would be having people and all their ingenious ways of doing things differently from each other and supporting them would start to make you an expert.

Reply Score: 1

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Mac OS X is not BSD Unix. It is a BSD layer built on top of a Mach core with some BSD tools in the userland. They've done some things to improve their kernel scalability, but it's fundamentally a workstation OS right now. I think they've been improving it steadily, though they're nowhere close to FreeBSD, Linux, or Windows as a server OS.

Reply Score: 2

Weeman Member since:
2006-03-20

As noted by a previous posts. Mac OS X does scale very well. Maybe not from the GUI but it is BSD UNIX under the hood and I don't think anyone will tell you that BSD UNIX doesn't scale well.

Darwin's based on FreeBSD, and the FreeBSD team thought and admitted that it doesn't scale well, giant locks were everywhere in the kernel. They've started the SMPng initiative years ago to fix this. Apple snatched the FreeBSD 4.x codebase, which didn't get much SMPng treatment at all.

Edited 2008-01-29 15:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

Leopard, as with earlier Mac OS X Server products, is directed toward print houses and other smaller (fewer than 30 people perhaps?) businesses where technical expertise is not related to computer management.

Print houses, radio stations, etc. could make use of the user friendly administration to handle a business.

As with other Apple GUI encapsulations, things are uneven and stop being effective as things become more difficult. It's a bit much for a non-IT person to open the Terminal application to customise things, which is likely why Apple doesn't push their servers into big installations.

Reply Score: 4

Buck Member since:
2005-06-29

Try saying that on a macos-x-server list and watch yourself get torn into tiny pieces.

Reply Score: 4

Apples Strength
by theTSF on Mon 28th Jan 2008 01:27 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

Apples Strength is its ability to figure out what people want to do the most and simplify it, so the jobs that people do the most are the most easy. Then common jobs are fairly easy then the advanced features are further driven down. The tradeoff is the features that are rarely used are near impossible to get at.

Linux distro's like to assume that everyone will want to do different things or use the original configuration at a near equal amount so while performing advanced configuration are easier on Linux systems, the common tasks are harder.

Reply Score: 7

Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

I am managing a Tiger server network for a US federal government of 2600 users in Washington DC and another 1000 users internationally. Tiger (Have not worked with Leopard yet) is pretty easy to use and unlike some people are saying here, it scales well.

Using Mac and Windows clients with it is pretty easy. Its also easy to use with active directory. So we have Windows servers mixed with Apple servers so that we can apply GPO's to the Windows machine using AD and to Macs using OD (Open Directory)

Setting up and managing a Mac network is simple and I wish I had these same tools on Linux, then I could push Linux more at my office. But because 1. Using Samba as a BDC does not work very well (Although Apple seems to have gotten it to work) 2. Not enough easy to use GUI tools. Now I know most real admins hate GUI tools (As do I) but it makes it easy for your help desk to manage daily tasks like making new users, setting policies, managing groups, changing passwords etc. And that is what IT managers want to know. That its easy to use for the people with little knowledge to do repetitive tasks.

Anyway, I look forward to the day I can do the same things with Linux. For now I am stuck with Apple or Windows.

Reply Score: 6

mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

Darn. You got to them before I did. OS X scales, and scales well. It also interacts with an AD domain really well as well.

I get more business done before 8 a.m. with my OS X and Linux servers than most so-called Windows systems administrators in-house get done in a day.

Most of the time they are in either panic or repair modes of operation. I'm not sure if it's a joy or a pain to watch their Microsoft misery. Somehow, in twisted logic, they believe panic mode is a form of job security.

Anyone who says 2003 server is well behaved is parroting someone. I would give them better uptime in seconds than their NT predecessors but not by very much. At least it does not need to be rebooted daily. Generally once a month now since it does not cleanly kill of zombied services or apps well.

I really don't see a reason to run Windows-based servers, but, you know, Microsoft has done a really, really good job of marketing their pair of shoes.

As for the article, yeah, it does sound like a high-school level ad without the drama or teen angst.

Reply Score: 3

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Darn. You got to them before I did. OS X scales, and scales well. It also interacts with an AD domain really well as well.

I get more business done before 8 a.m. with my OS X and Linux servers than most so-called Windows systems administrators in-house get done in a day.

Most of the time they are in either panic or repair modes of operation. I'm not sure if it's a joy or a pain to watch their Microsoft misery. Somehow, in twisted logic, they believe panic mode is a form of job security.

Anyone who says 2003 server is well behaved is parroting someone. I would give them better uptime in seconds than their NT predecessors but not by very much. At least it does not need to be rebooted daily. Generally once a month now since it does not cleanly kill of zombied services or apps well.

I really don't see a reason to run Windows-based servers, but, you know, Microsoft has done a really, really good job of marketing their pair of shoes.


You are right about the real up time. I don't see why people should run Windows ether, but most of what I wrote came from me asking people and seeing why people actually do use Windows.

When I am asked to set up networks for my job and my side clients they come to me with requirements, and almost all of those requirements come from their use of Windows.

Another shocking thing I found out is that even though Linux, Unix and Mac OS in practice are more secure then Windows, most security experts in companies poo-poo on them because they don't know how to secure Linux and Unix. At the government agency where I work, putting a Linux machine on the network is worse then surfing porn! And that is because most people are trained for Windows security, and most IDS's are geared for Windows security (And maybe Solaris on the Unix side)

I love my Linux but there are a few more steps to climb before we can see Linux everywhere.

Reply Score: 3

Buck Member since:
2005-06-29

WindowsSucks,
saying a 6-year old can do that doesn't prove Windows makes for a great server platform. In reality most of Windows "admins" have a knowledge of those 6-year olds.
It's also one thing to set something up and another thing to be able to maintain your setup. This is where two factors come into play - general OS stability and maintainability and your experience. As the other person said, many of Windows server installs are stuck in a permanent panic mode with a varying degree of panic and brokenness. Worse, this has taught the management to accept that condition as something normal. I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain Windows in a working order, it's just that its 'ease of use' makes people think they can handle everything while in reality they can not.

Reply Score: 3

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

WindowsSucks,
saying a 6-year old can do that doesn't prove Windows makes for a great server platform. In reality most of Windows "admins" have a knowledge of those 6-year olds.
It's also one thing to set something up and another thing to be able to maintain your setup. This is where two factors come into play - general OS stability and maintainability and your experience. As the other person said, many of Windows server installs are stuck in a permanent panic mode with a varying degree of panic and brokenness. Worse, this has taught the management to accept that condition as something normal. I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain Windows in a working order, it's just that its 'ease of use' makes people think they can handle everything while in reality they can not.


I never said that Windows was a great or even good server platform, what I was saying was related to what I have seen at all the companies and government agencies I have worked for. Its the same reasons that Novell Netware which has 80% of the server market in Enterprises at one point and Banyan Vines which was 90% of government networks at one point and both failed! And that is TCO and ease of use.

It managers dont give a darn if the network or server admin spends most of his day putting out fires as long as the end user can get to their resources that is all the matters! And that just requires redundancy.

The thing that sells to It managers is ease of use. How easy is it for your help desk staff to manage user accounts, how easy is it for you to go out and hire It staff?

Most people in the Linux world are use to doing the admin tasks themselves, same as it used to be with Novell. I used to have my Novell CNA cert and thought I was hot shit cause it was hard to get etc and I could command money for it. Blah, then MS came along and showed that you dont need a network admin to do simple tasks that your help desk staff could and should be doing.

Like I said before, no IT manager cares that you get better uptime with Linux in the area of Workgroup services. When it comes to keeping your website up and running, YES it will matter, when it comes to keeping your firewall up, YES it will matter, when it comes to keeping your Oracle databases up and running, YES it will matter. When it comes to filesharing, printsharing, user management, identity services etc, Windows will win every time.

People will say "Well MS doesn't share it's protocols etc so that is why you can't have Linux servers share file with Windows clients right etc" Yet Apple does it with their server, using Samba, Open Ldap and Kerberos. same as AD on Windows yet using open source code. Only thing holding Apple back is you have to use Apple hardware. If Apple server ran on any hardware, I would choose it over Windows! Because Apples tools are easy to use AND you get quality uptime, security etc!

At this point the ease of use part eludes Linux in this area.

Reply Score: 4

mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

I disagree. IT managers, in my experience, want both uptime and continuation of services. The "where the hell is?" days are coming to a close.

They want their sys admins to be system admins - not - repairmen.

Granted, you are still going to get the occasional PEBKAC who deletes an operating system file and completely downs their system and needs a real professional to diagnose, repair or rebuild and restore.

Creating a user in AD is simple. Migrating it outward can be a pain depending on the age and type of server systems you have running in your environment.

Ease of use as a system administrator, in my play book, is the ability to run three or more systems from one specific set of hardware. In my case, a recent Mac running Leopard and VMWare.

From my machine, I drive OS X, Linux and Windows. One actual and two virtual. Singularity in the data center does not breed ease of use. The ability to manage from a single station actually does.

We have actually reduced the need for more staff by not relying on a Microsoft-only solution. From my observation, Linux and OS X sys admins generally do a better job at managing Windows servers and AD domains than most freshly or not-so-fresh minted Windows sys admins.

In any case, IT is not a field you grow old in, as some Win-specific tech are trying to do.

Our help-desk people are local and not outsourced to some place in India or Pakistan which has happened to some IT shops that went Windows only.

IT managers `do` care about up time when they have vice presidents and other executives in their office taking a piece of their ass. Crap flies when mission critical and business essential servers go down. Nothing like nurse maiding Windows servers to keep your hind end from disappearing like the manager's.

It's actually easier to get a non-Microsoft files sharing solution up and running than a Microsoft one. OS X server is, by far, the simplest one I have ever had the pleasure to continue to manage.

Edited 2008-01-28 16:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

I disagree. IT managers, in my experience, want both uptime and continuation of services. The "where the hell is?" days are coming to a close.

They want their sys admins to be system admins - not - repairmen.

Granted, you are still going to get the occasional PEBKAC who deletes an operating system file and completely downs their system and needs a real professional to diagnose, repair or rebuild and restore.

Creating a user in AD is simple. Migrating it outward can be a pain depending on the age and type of server systems you have running in your environment.

Ease of use as a system administrator, in my play book, is the ability to run three or more systems from one specific set of hardware. In my case, a recent Mac running Leopard and VMWare.

From my machine, I drive OS X, Linux and Windows. One actual and two virtual. Singularity in the data center does not breed ease of use. The ability to manage from a single station actually does.

We have actually reduced the need for more staff by not relying on a Microsoft-only solution. From my observation, Linux and OS X sys admins generally do a better job at managing Windows servers and AD domains than most freshly or not-so-fresh minted Windows sys admins.

In any case, IT is not a field you grow old in, as some Win-specific tech are trying to do.

Our help-desk people are local and not outsourced to some place in India or Pakistan which has happened to some IT shops that went Windows only.

IT managers `do` care about up time when they have vice presidents and other executives in their office taking a piece of their ass. Crap flies when mission critical and business essential servers go down. Nothing like nurse maiding Windows servers to keep your hind end from disappearing like the manager's.

It's actually easier to get a non-Microsoft files sharing solution up and running than a Microsoft one. OS X server is, by far, the simplest one I have ever had the pleasure to continue to manage.


Its interesting but last time I looked MS's profits were better then ever and Red Hat was the only Linux company making money and they don't sell any product that competes with Windows servers in Workgroup management.

What you are saying sounds good, but it's not reality in practice. People still buy Winblows WAY above and beyond Apple server and Linux.

Linux has not provided any competition to MS. As Linux has gotten big it displaced expensive AIX, Solaris and HP-UX servers, not Windows. And Windows even got some of that AIX and Solaris business.

Linux has always been the way to run UNIX without running (And at one point paying for) UNIX. Its the easy but robust UNIX clone.

Also I don't really know many companies that are dieing to use virtualization. Some are, but most of those are using VMware ESX and Windows.

And Apple can't compete in the Enterprise space at all. Hardware lock in is a bigger issue to managers then software. So people will not use Apple server because it only runs on expensive Apple hardware. When with Windows you have lots of choice!

As for help desks, most of the companies and agencies I have worked in and with have in house Help Desks not outsourced ones. Like I said most of them were former Novell and or Banyan shops who moved to Windows.

Also I am hard pressed to see someone put up a more easy to use filesharing system then Windows to share files to Windows clients. Apple is pretty darn good. But Linux fails in this area. :-(

And since Windows clients make up 90% of the desktops out there you have to support them (In the Enterprise and in SMB)

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

IT managers `do` care about up time when they have vice presidents and other executives in their office taking a piece of their ass.


IT managers don't care about the uptime of individual servers, they care about uptime of the services they provide and that the impact on operations is minimal. I should know, I am one. If a service is important enough you have redundancy and then it's not a disaster of one node goes down.
Unless you're a 24h operation, and most business isn't, you can reboot and have downtime pretty freely when it isn't business hours.
IT is a support facility, we're there to make sure the core business runs smoothly. IT's function is not to run Linux, Windows or OSX, its primary function is to run whatever makes the core business work the best.

Reply Score: 4

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

"IT managers `do` care about up time when they have vice presidents and other executives in their office taking a piece of their ass.


IT managers don't care about the uptime of individual servers, they care about uptime of the services they provide and that the impact on operations is minimal. I should know, I am one. If a service is important enough you have redundancy and then it's not a disaster of one node goes down.
Unless you're a 24h operation, and most business isn't, you can reboot and have downtime pretty freely when it isn't business hours.
IT is a support facility, we're there to make sure the core business runs smoothly. IT's function is not to run Linux, Windows or OSX, its primary function is to run whatever makes the core business work the best.
"

This is 100% what I see. Long as people can get to their files etc that is all that matters.

Like you said, Workgroup services are normally not 24 hour services. So Windows servers can be patched and rebooted etc after hours. No big deal.

"IT's function is not to run Linux, Windows or OSX, its primary function is to run whatever makes the core business work the best"

Right, at most places I have worked IT tasks are worked through using a ticketing system like Remedy. Help desks have metrix to meet. Like where I work now they have one called "First Call Resolution" This measures how many issues can be closed from the initial call received from the customer. So when the customer calls the help desk, they measure how many of those calls can be closed right there when the help desk gets them. This requires that the call is not forwarded to Sys Admin staff or Tech Staff as they are busy anyway. This requires that the Help Desk person can do the task and take care of the customer right there! AD makes this easy sad to say. Works well. For Single Sign On, User management, SBC, Email, VOIP services etc. All of this can be managed through AD.

Edited 2008-01-28 17:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You're spot on.

Like I said before, no IT manager cares that you get better uptime with Linux in the area of Workgroup services.


Amen brother. Uptime is a meaningless metric, only used by geeks when they need to bolster their ego.

When it comes to keeping your website up and running, YES it will matter, when it comes to keeping your firewall up, YES it will matter, when it comes to keeping your Oracle databases up and running, YES it will matter.


Right, but on the other hand if those services are vital you'll have redundancy anyway so one node going down isn't a disaster.

Reply Score: 2

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

You're spot on.

"Like I said before, no IT manager cares that you get better uptime with Linux in the area of Workgroup services.


Amen brother. Uptime is a meaningless metric, only used by geeks when they need to bolster their ego.

When it comes to keeping your website up and running, YES it will matter, when it comes to keeping your firewall up, YES it will matter, when it comes to keeping your Oracle databases up and running, YES it will matter.


Right, but on the other hand if those services are vital you'll have redundancy anyway so one node going down isn't a disaster.
"

One thing I do know for sure is that it takes less Linux servers to provide hosted services then with Windows. Because uptime is better on Linux you don't need as much redundancy. Also you have much less over head, so it costs less to provide that redundancy since you can purchase lower cost hardware.

I use linux for my 10 mail servers. Quick to set up, easy to manage, robust and reliable. Rebooting is a thing of the past. Even after patching and installing applications.

Like I said, Linux is king in edge services like Web Hosting, Databases, Mail, Firwalls, IDS's etc. It is just not up to snuff for Workgroup services.

Edited 2008-01-28 17:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

I could not help but chuckle. Like Disney, Microsoft posted its numbers after slicing-and-dicing some of its `dead weight`. You must look good on paper for your stockholders. Microsoft has, as many companies have, plateaued.

The OS X server platform is still relatively new on the server front. So there may be an awareness factor. They believe there are only two players on the market. Perceptions change, empires crumble.

With virtualization, the operating system, while relevant, it is also non-relevant. One server, running a Linux, running a number of Windows and non-Windows servers. Don't miss the boat.

Your geographic location, environment, hardware etc. may lead you to believe that Microsoft is the inly way to go. It isn't. Data is the name of the IT game. The operating systems are just the vehicles which transport it.

Reply Score: 1

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Your Netware information is WAY out of date. Ever since Network 6 and ConsoleOne it has been much easier to admin Novell networks with pretty tools. And that isn't just for one server but over an entire Tree (Trees=Domains except more powerful).

Most companies user Windows servers for the same reason they use Windows Desktops. Nobody gets fired (even though maybe they should) for buying Microsoft.

What I say here will make no difference as to what companies buy. Too bad.

Reply Score: 1

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Your Netware information is WAY out of date. Ever since Network 6 and ConsoleOne it has been much easier to admin Novell networks with pretty tools. And that isn't just for one server but over an entire Tree (Trees=Domains except more powerful).

Most companies user Windows servers for the same reason they use Windows Desktops. Nobody gets fired (even though maybe they should) for buying Microsoft.

What I say here will make no difference as to what companies buy. Too bad.


My Netware info is not out of date. You just dont read. My Netware and Banyan statements were made to show how and why MS knocked them out of the market place. By the time that Edirectory got easy to use MS was king.

On top of that, sorry to say but Edirectory is still a pain in the ass to use. I just tried out Novell's small business server about a week ago. And using it with Windows clients is a mess. Ether you have to do tricks to get samba to work right with Edirectory. If not then you have to use the buggy (For EVER buggy) Novell client. Blah.

Plus even though Edirectory is WAY more robust then AD. AD is still more simple to use. For instance, machine management is simple. You can make a OU for all your Windows machine in 10 sec, apply a GPO and apply security in your sleep. I would LOVE to see you do any of that with Edirectory (Against Windows or Linux machines)

And you are right, a lot of people buy MS just because. But also there are not many companies that can come and show you why you should NOT use MS. Or why something like Edirectory is better.

Apple has it. As I have said 10 times. But no one is gonna dump what they have to buy Apple hardware. Just wont happen! :-(

Reply Score: 1

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

ConsoleOne is not hard at all to user. I could train you in about five minutes. That would be to show you how to find things to either edit that object or the context to add, del, or modify something in that container.

I have very few problems with the Novell Client. None that I haven't been able to work around without much difficulty.

As an added note: Most of the issues I have with the Novell client is the mis-configuration of a client when the tech at the company I work with doesn't use our companies configured install when installing the client and tries to do it manually and usually doesn't get it right. I just uninstall the client, re-install it using our tried and true customized install and the problem(s) is/are gone.

Edited 2008-01-28 20:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

How can a head line go so wrong..?
by Googol on Mon 28th Jan 2008 23:15 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

Lets see.. BSD = Unix on 50 platforms for free as in beer and generally. Apple = (cough!) expensive hardware most people wouldn't look at with a "Unix" that's not free at all and definitely not for "the people". Headlines are there for a reason - spared me another read...

Reply Score: 1