"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
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?
Member since:2005-07-12
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 
Member since:2006-01-06
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.
Including Windows Server. Isn't that ironic?
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.
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?
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.