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."
Thread beginning with comment 298028
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Ads Suck
by kaiwai on Mon 28th Jan 2008 02:20 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Ads Suck
by TechGeek on Mon 28th Jan 2008 04:11 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 Parent Score: 5

RE: Ads Suck
by rayiner on Mon 28th Jan 2008 18:54 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ads Suck
by Windows Sucks on Mon 28th Jan 2008 19:41 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 Parent Score: 1