"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:2005-11-10
"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.
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
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.
Member since:
2005-08-18
You're spot on.
Amen brother. Uptime is a meaningless metric, only used by geeks when they need to bolster their ego.
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.