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 298095
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.
RE[3]: Wish Linux had some of these easy to use feature
by Buck on Mon 28th Jan 2008 14:54
in reply to "RE[2]: Wish Linux had some of these easy to use feature"
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.
RE[4]: Wish Linux had some of these easy to use feature
by Windows Sucks on Mon 28th Jan 2008 15:43
in reply to "RE[3]: Wish Linux had some of these easy to use feature"
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.
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-10
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.