Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 27th Jan 2008 22:09 UTC
"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 298083
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-10
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. :-)