A lot of new information on Mac OS X Panther Server is to be found at MacNN. And new Panther screenshots here. In the meantime, Wired has an article titled “Design According to Ive“.
Apple Offers Details on Panther Server
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
it is OS X Panther server….huge diffrence.
Other than to serve files and printers to other Macs, is there a really good reason to use this?
Glad to see Panther is getting asynchronous I/O support. This will help convince application developers who use the POSIX aio_*() functions to port their applications to OS X.
I’m very curious as to whether kqueues will end up in the desktop version of Panther or not. I’m guessing so, as they would seem to me to be the only way to implement the “fast searching” Apple is touting.
kqueues are probably the most powerful event monitoring system in existance, greatly surpassing BeOS’s node monitoring and Linux’s DNotify/epoll() interfaces as it provides a stateful multiplexing mechanism for not only VFS events but also file descriptors of all sorts (and I can only hope in the OS X version Mach message queues as well) while minimizing the number of system calls necessary to implement the interface (which is only 2, iirc)
One can only hope that Panther will include a poll() system call as well…
Other than to serve files and printers to other Macs, is there a really good reason to use this?
As soon as Apple releases PPC970-based Xserves, MacOS X Server will be an excellent choice for people interested in a turnkey server with easy GUI administration and without the security headaches of running IIS. The only platform offering anything similar now is Solaris/SPARC which is no longer cost effective and is still quite a headache for those requiring GUI administration. Despite Sun’s best efforts, Solaris still requires a competant system administrator familiar with the CLI, whereas with OS X much less experience is required on the part of the administrator.
The one thing I found lacking with the XServe was the email services. Having no list capabilities is a big no-no for companies who need it, like we did.
Maybe they can do it right now and I don’t have to keep pulling my hair out with a third party solution…
Why is everything in the screenshot so FREAKIN’ HUGE. Is it aimed towards the legaly blind?
It is not huge. You can set the icons how big you want them, up 128×128 pix.
That sounds great, but previous version of OS X server was not particularly efficient: problems with Directory services, high CPU usage, Apache failing around 200’s on virtual web servers (I did research on the topic and I am not the only one having similar problems).
New hardware is o.k. but OS still needs improvement if it is going to be serious server OS.
So I dould hold on horses with comaparison to Solaris or general UNIX. Ease of use is too little to consider (for now) OS X as a real server.
If one is interested in cheap server there are cheaper (and more efficient) alternatives.
As Hubbard sed OS X is good for Mac only small shops. That of course may change in future.
Hi there,
can anyone explain me in a few words, what is asynchronous I/O?
Thanks a lot.
Anton
Okay, I see three different window styles here:
(1) Increased use of brushed metal (Network browser, part of the Finer? dunno)
(2) Pinstripe (Software Update)
(3) One where the titlebar is neither metal, nor pinstripe (“Mounting M-Beat1.26.dmg”)
This doesn’t bode well for consistency.
Of course you must also remember that Win2K Server only servers to Windows Clients. I’ve tried Win2K Servering to Mac, it does not work well. What I’ve read on Windows 2003 Server doesn’t do any better.
In a Multi-Platform environment Win2K just does not cut it and at least Mac OS X gives that capability of serving to Windows clients among other platforms. Panther if it performs to the claims it should allow the directory services to be on a single server.
At least Apple implements Apache for web services and CUPS is setup for print services. Micosoft’s IIS certainly still is unsecure and hacker prone. Print servers on Win2K is much like the rest of the server only serves to Windows. No I will not pay $3,200 for Windows 2003 Server when I can purchase a full Mac OS X Server and Xserver for less and I will not pay Microsoft $250 a phone call for virus information.
can anyone explain me in a few words, what is asynchronous I/O?
In a few words, asynchronous I/O offloads I/O calls onto a separate kernel thread, then provides some mechanism for notifying the calling process when the operation is complete. For a full description, keep reading.
Normally I/O system calls block until they have completed. If you are doing a sequence of I/O calls in which data is read (and processed) then written again blocking can be undesirable as what could be a steady stream of simultaneous read()s and write()s becomes a call to read() (and intermediate processing) then a subsequent call to write().
There have been many attempted solutions to this problem, such as non-blocking I/O and signal driven I/O. None of these has proven a truly effective solution for maintaining I/O throughput. Non-blocking I/O has the drawback that if the buffer you are passing to write() is too large to fit in the kernel’s buffer it simply returns EAGAIN, so you must ensure that the buffer you are passing is small enough to fit in the kernel’s write buffer.
With asynchronous I/O, you invoke an I/O operation and either continue normal execution of the program or wait for the operation to complete. You can have multiple I/O operations running in the background simultaneously if you wish. This can be used to optimize something like “cp”, by having simultaneous aio_read() and aio_write() operations active.
There are several ways of determining if an asynchronous I/O operation is complete. On FreeBSD (and hopefully OS X Panther as well) the kernel can write a notification message to a program’s kqueue when an asynchronous I/O operation is complete. Another method is to have the kernel send the process a signal when the operation is complete. If the kernel implements POSIX realtime signal queues, the signal also contains a value which can be used to determine which operation has just completed. There’s also the aio_waitcomplete() to wait for completion of a given event. This can be useful if you want to start an asynchronous I/O operation, do some intermediate work, then wait for the asynchronous I/O operation to complete (before starting the next one, for example)
Normal I/O is blocking. That is, if you have code similiar to
/* copy 1st 10 characters from stdin to stdout, no error checking */
char buf[10];
int nread = read (0, buf, sizeof(buf));
write (1, buf, nread);
The process will be stalled on the read(2) statement until the read(2) completes. Likewise, the process will be stalled until the write(2) completes. Normally, this is the desired behavior (as with the above example), as you can’t write anything until after you’ve written it.
However, this isn’t always true. Frequently you will be able to write data, but you don’t want to be stalled while writing the data, as you could be writing other data for other clients as well. An example of this would be a web server that stores all information in memory (courtesy of lots of caching). Since everything of interest is in memory, no read(2)’s are needed, leaving only write(2)’s. You want to be able to service as many clients as possible, so you don’t</t> want to stall the process on the write(2), as stalling will slow you down.
One solution is non-blocking I/O. It’s possible to set non-blocking by using fcntl(2), and setting the [i]O_NONBLOCK option.
An alternative is to use asynchronous I/O, a more full-featured solution, which is part of the the POSIX Realtime Extensions. These functions include aio_read and aio_write, which always queue the request without waiting for completion. aio_return can be used to check the status of the queued request (read, write, etc.).
The system costs $3000, but then again it’s filled with dozens of little proprietary clips and doo-dads… soooooo
1) Little proprietary clip that serves 3 functions:
$250.00
2) Plastic sheet allowing people to run computer while open:
$235.00
3) Cordless fans:
$420 each
You better lay that computer on pillows!
-m
Other than to serve files and printers to other Macs, is there a really good reason to use this?
Voilà :
Cross-platform file and print services
  AFP over IP
  SMB/CIFS (Samba)
  NFS
  FTP
  AppleTalk PAP
  LPR/LPD
Directory services and authentication
  Open Directory: LDAPv3, NetInfo
  Password Server
  BSD configuration files (/etc)
  Kerberos v5: AFP, FTP, mail
Internet services
  Apache web server
  Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)
  WebDAV
  Mail server: SMTP, POP, IMAP
  WebMail
Networking
  IP firewall
  DHCP server
  DNS server
Media streaming
  QuickTime Streaming Server
  QuickTime Broadcaster
  MPEG-4
Web applications
  Java virtual machine (J2SE)
  JavaServer Pages, Java Servlets
  WebObjects 5.1 Deployment
  PHP, Ruby, MySQL
  SOAP, XML-RPC
Workgroup management
  Workgroup Manager
  NetBoot
  Network Install
Remote management
  Server Settings
  Server Status
  Server Monitor (5)
  Secure Shell (SSH2)
  SNMPv3
“The system costs $3000, but then again it’s filled with dozens of little proprietary clips and doo-dads…”
[roll eyes]
umm….you are kidding right?
the diffrent look of each window is a feature not a bug.
brushed metal for applications that emulate a real world electronic device (DVD player, radio, cd player, etc)
pin stripe for every other application
no pinstrip for system messages and dialogs.
they are diffrent things so they should look diffrent.
since you think you are a UI researcher, why don’t you tell us why everything should look exactly the same.
“brushed metal for applications that emulate a real world electronic device”
Um, and what real world electronic device does the Finder emulate?
let me amend the electronic off that….the finder is a file cabinet.
I would still like to know what your UI expertice is.
“let me amend the electronic off that….the finder is a file cabinet.”
Ah, so then doesn’t Word emulate a typewriter? It should be brushed metal.
A drawing program emulates a pad of paper, right? I smell some more brushed metal.
I think a lot of people feel Apple is going a little overboard with this brushed metal stuff.
(By the way, I’m a different Anonymous from the original. I claim no UI expertise, but I do find Apple’s choice of window decoration a bit strange. Sure they can do whatever they want – I just don’t understand the logic that decides when brushed metal should be used.)
By the way, I’m a different Anonymous from the original. I claim no UI expertise, but I do find Apple’s choice of window decoration a bit strange. Sure they can do whatever they want – I just don’t understand the logic that decides when brushed metal should be used.
How about this, they thought, “f*ck that looks bloody cool, why don’t we use it in more places!”.
It appears that you and your so-called “complaints” place you in a VERY small minority.
How about this, they thought, “f*ck that looks bloody cool, why don’t we use it in more places!”.
Trouble is it doesn’t look bloody cool, it looks garish and ugly. First thing I do on my OS X boxes is get rid of the brushed metal look.
It appears that you and your so-called “complaints” place you in a VERY small minority.
There are many of us who really don’t like every single application on our systems looking like expensive stereo equipment.
Sure, it looks nice on iTunes, but elsewhere? Ugh…
Apple is also completely disregarding their own HID guidelines:
From http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/…
Mac OS X version 10.2 provides developers with a new ?textured? window appearance (see Figure 5-4). This window style has been designed specifically for use by?and is therefore best suited to?applications that provide an interface for a digital peripheral, such as a camera, or an interface for managing data shared with digital peripherals, such as the Address Book application.
This appearance may also be appropriate for applications that strive to re-create a familiar physical device?the Calculator application, for example. Avoid using the textured window appearance in applications or utilities that are unrelated to digital peripherals or to the data associated with these devices.
And now the Finder is going to be all brushed metal… I’m not looking forward to that
“1) Little proprietary clip that serves 3 functions:
$250.00
2) Plastic sheet allowing people to run computer while open:
$235.00
3) Cordless fans:
$420 each ”
Watching someone make an ass out of themselves…. priceless.
Anyone have any info as to which Linux API’s Panther will be supporting?
I’m really excited about this update (at least about the BSD subsystem, kevent/kqueue, SAMBA, and Linux API??? stuff).
BTW, how is Apple working out the timing with SAMBA, arent they still in Beta1?
> If one is interested in cheap server there are cheaper (and more efficient) alternatives.
I hope you don’t imply Window$ as an (efficient) alternative. OSX is OK for server needs but of course nothing beats Solaris.
the NEW finder provides a central location to interface with all devices connected to your box, network, firewire periferals, cameras, etc.
How long will it be before the we see the next Eugenia headline:
“Using OS X Panther Server as a Desktop OS”
“Like the protohumans confronting the alien monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey, thousands of Mac programmers appeared awed by the brutal austerity of Apple Computer’s new G5 Power Mac when it was unveiled Monday.
As the machine rose on a pedestal from the stage at San Francisco’s Moscone Center, the crowd of several thousand Mac programmers gathered to witness its launch fell silent, as though in the presence of something mysterious and powerful.”
There you have it! Wired’s eyewitness account of the effects of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field on protohumans (Mac programmers).
“And now the Finder is going to be all brushed metal… I’m not looking forward to that”
All of it? Every single 1 window of it?!
I agree, I hate the brushed metal look.
Can you turn the brushed metal look off?
All of it? Every single 1 window of it?!
Your pointless condescention does not negate the fact that one of the most important components of the system now sports a look which is abhorred by many, including myself, not only because we don’t really like the fact that our web browsers and soon our file manager now look like high-end stereo equipment, but also because it violates Apple’s Aqua Human Interface Guidelines (see my previous post for those)
Anonymous @ .ph.ph.cox.net, if ever there was a zealot who existed nestled within the gentle warmth of Steve Jobs reality distortion field, it’s you.
>Watching someone make an ass out of
>themselves…. priceless.
This coming from someone who obviously has never had to go to Apple for repairs. Sorry to say, but those little trinkets in the Macs often cost absurd amounts of money to replace and are usually not covered in the service plan.
@debman
the diffrent look of each window is a feature not a bug.
I didn’t say it was a bug. I said it was inconsistent. By now, other posters have backed me up on it, so I stand by it.
since you think you are a UI researcher, why don’t you tell us why everything should look exactly the same.
I don’t think I’m a UI researcher. I think I’m a user who (a) likes consistency, and (b) dislikes brushed metal. Why is the Finder suddenly changing from Pinstripe to brushed metal? Just because people think it looks cool? If so, fine, but in that case, shouldn’t everything switch to brushed metal? And what’s this third look in one screenshot that is neither pinstripe nor brushed metal?
I open the Finder, I get a brushed metal window. I insert a CD, and while it’s mounting, I get a window that’s neither brushed metal nor pinstripe. I open the System preferences and get a window that’s pinstripe. It may look cool, but it doesn’t feel consistent to me.
@anonymous
“And now the Finder is going to be all brushed metal… I’m not looking forward to that”
All of it? Every single 1 window of it?!
Dude, some of us browse our hard drives with more than 1 window open.
thanks to Bascule, we have the pertinent section of the Apple HID. based on that reasoning for brushed metal, if you look at what the new finder IS, you will see it connects you to real world periferals, hence it is brushed metal.
a network drive, a local drive, your photos and your movies.
I believe that the last two are what pushed the desicion to make it brushed metal. when you are in iphoto and imovie you get a brushed metal interface, so tehy made the finder brushed metal.
there is no inconsistency here, some people just have a more narrow interpritation of the HID than others….apparently, apple takes a more liberal view of its HID than the critics on this site.
it does not take away from the interface, and if you want to talk about inconsistency, look at Linux or windows, there is almost no HID control on those platforms.
iTunes browses and plays your music. It is metal
iPhoto browses and shows your pictures. It is metal
Address book browses and shows adresses. It is metal.
Finder browses and manage your files. Now it is metal.
Note that all of them look pretty similar. On the left you have a pane to organise. On the right you have the information. (wether it be music or your files).
If you can play your music, you can manage your files. That is what consistency is about, and they improved it with the new finder imo.
Other than that, I don’t really like brushed metal. It looks less polished than Aqua. I don’t think that the two styles are causing any problems though.
@debman
if you look at what the new finder IS, you will see it connects you to real world periferals, hence it is brushed metal.
How is that any different from the 10.2 finder? I connect to the network drive now using the Finder and Kerberos. I browse through my photos using Finder (I can’t stand iPhoto’s unchangeable default setting of loading all photos in the album at startup; in my case it leads to a loooooooooong hang… grind grind grind as it loads loads loads) In 10.2 I can even browse through my digital camera’s files while it’s hooked up through USB. I love OSX as regards its functionality. But — as far as I can tell there’s nothing new about Finder’s functionality in that respect, so I don’t see why it merits a change in look.
I will grant you this: the fact that we are arguing over such a trivial topic illustrates (to me) how functional and useful OSX is in general. 🙂
if you want to talk about inconsistency, look at Linux or windows, there is almost no HID control on those platforms.
I agree totally.
@anonymous
I don’t think that the two styles are causing any problems though.
My point is, there are now three styles!
well, think about it like this…..
they realised that the finder is not HID-ified, so they HID-ified the finder.
Cheaper alternatives are *BSD or (if you like it) linux. Now, Mac SAMBA had (has?) problems even when connecting with BSD, CUPS had same problems (see mac users mailing lists). So for small Mac shops this is good enough.