Slashdot Log In
Inside Apple's Leopard Server OS
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 27, 2007 07:50 AM
from the nice-place-to-visit-wouldn't-want-to-live-there dept.
from the nice-place-to-visit-wouldn't-want-to-live-there dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Mac expert John Welch, author of the widely read OS X versus Vista comparison, delves into Apple's Leopard Server OS. He and Information week have on offer a deep dive into what's known so far about OS X Server 10.5, which will be showcased at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference in June. Welch weighs in on Leopard's iCal, Wiki, file, Quicktime, and mail services, along with Xgrid 2, Open Directory 4, and 64-bit capabilities. What does it all add up to? His assessment: Apple probably isn't aiming at 'big' enterprises; just the same, Leopard Server is shaping up to be a great SMB (small and mid-sized business) product. Welch writes: 'For about a thousand bucks on existing hardware, or for the cost of an Xserve, you get a really solid server, able to support Web services, collaboration, groupware, IM, and file services. You can run it with its own directory service, or as part of an Active Directory implementation out of the box. It provides some features that due to pricing and/or setup requirements, have traditionally been reserved for big enterprises — in particular clustering of both email and calendaring servers.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: Sun CEO Says ZFS Will Be 'the File System' for OSX 384 comments
Fjan11 writes "Sun's Jonathan Schwartz has announced that Apple will be making ZFS 'the file system' in Mac OS 10.5 Leopard. It's possible that Leopard's Time Machine feature will require ZFS to run, because ZFS has back-up and snapshots build right in to the filesystem as well as a host of other features. 'Rumors of Apple's interest in ZFS began in April 2006, when an OpenSolaris mailing list revealed that Apple had contacted Sun regarding porting ZFS to OS 10. The file system later began making appearances in Leopard builds. ZFS has a long list of improvements over Apple's current file system, Journaled HFS+.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am curio
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering that this will not be even showcased until June, how do you have any idea about that?
Probably because OS X Server has been around a while, and has always been super easy to deploy, manage, extend, expand and use.
The thing is, anybody who can administer Linux can also admin an OS X (non-server) box to do the exact same stuff. OS X is basically just Mach+BSD+Aqua. You don't need OS X Server to just run sendmail or apache or
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mac versus linux decision point (Score:5, Informative)
If you are going to have anything less than 20 computers, and you actually have a bussiness in which time is valuable and you don't have IT-class people with time on their hands, then Linux is insanley expensive to maintain. Get the apple even if the cost per node is higher.
Okay now you say you have 50 to 100 nodes. most of these are behind a cluster router so don't have to be locked down. They all don't have to be running services or what they do run is identical. Well then get Linux. There's zero need to get the apple cost per node. And to boot they will probably reun just a tad faster since you can strip out all those services you don't need. At 100 nodes, having a machine run 10% faster is like 10 extra nodes, so it's worth the optimization at that level of use.
People who claim different, must consider their time has no value, the risk to their bussniess from uncertainty about the patch level of their system has no value, or they have free access to high level sys admin.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In a server setting, ports must be open. OS X much-vaunted security (mostly, no ports open) is now at risk.
In a server setting, you would use a supported distribution of Linux. This includes security updates. Same as Apple.
In serving Windows clients, SMB would be provided by SAMBA. The web administration of SAMBA is the same.
OS X has always performed very badly in disk access (its architecture is bad for this).
Local service can provide setup and maintainance contracts. The small shop does not a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IT-class people with time on their hands, then Linux is insanley expensive to maintain.
I would have disagreed with you until I had the experience of working on a small network set up by a creative monkey based on Mandrake distros. The monkey quit and left the non-tech savy boss begging for help.
That said, if you are set up initially by someone who knows what they're doing and get a modicum of training with regard to day to day tasks, Linux can run rock solid without much trouble. If it's well set up when you do need to call an expert for support, the expert can just get to work on your p
Re: (Score:2)
No, Linux is a kit of parts you use to build a system. Apple's market is some one who wants to open a box and pluig in a working server AND big AND here have ONE place to call for help for both hardware and software suport.
A better comparison would be with Sun Microsystems. Sun can sell you a UNIX box that does what an Apple server does. Heck it even uses much the same Open Source software. Put Sun can send a hardware or softwar
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but... (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks
--Bill G.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The magic end-to-end bullet (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has made huge inroads with solving the desktop issues of running Unix on the desktop. For the most part though I have seen either Linux or MS solutions on the server for file sharing and web serving and NIS/NFS and such. Even on the mac I would imagine that Entourage connecting to an Exchange server makes up a large portion of the Enterprise mail community.
If Apple can provide a cheaper end-to-end solution from the server to the desktop with LDAP directories, email, calendering, intranet etc - all preloaded on their server hardware and ready to go - then they have a real winner. Hell the cheaper licencing costs they can offer from basing on open-source can help subsidize their higher hardware margins to make this a comparable, if not cheaper, solution compared to something MS from the likes of Dell or HP.
If they really wanted to twist the knife in they should release some client software/drivers for Windows that make it just as easy to connect that to their servers and services as Macs to accomodate the need for having some PCs in a newly mac office.
Now is the time to do this as companies are faced with upgrading to Vista on the desktop, a new version of Office, and soon a new server platform. Most of this means new hardware purchases anyway. They might be able to just swoop in and offer a complete solution the likes of which linux has been unable to - all bundled with and guaranteed/supported on their own hardare as well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They do? It does? What planet did I wake up on today?
Re:The magic end-to-end bullet (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, Leopard pretty much is the last piece they need to provide that. it adds iCal server which is really all they were missing. With iCal server, Open Directory, Cyrus IMAP, Postfix and MySQL OS X Server could essentially do everything an SBS Premium install can do with out the 75 user limitation. However, you will need someone with some knowledge and experience to set it up. OS X doesn't have a million little wizards to get everything going with 4 mouse clicks. Initial set up should be done by someone who has an idea what they are doing.
Parent
Re:The magic end-to-end bullet (Score:4, Interesting)
In the SMB space, they really seem to have a winner. Maybe I just never took heavy enough drugs to grok Win2K3, but I could never make it work as smoothly as OS-X server does. It's not Solaris, but it'll do.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple doesn't have a complete equivalent-or-better solution ready to go, right now, they've missed the boat and will have to wait to pull your "swoop in" move until the next Windows release.
Re: (Score:2)
They already have Windows services in OS X Server 10.4. You can set it up to look like a Windows server, with AD and such. The rest of the services (POP email, web, LDAP, etc.) are pretty agnostic. I'm not sure about the iChat IM server. Is there a Windows client that can speak to it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even on the mac I would imagine that Entourage connecting to an Exchange server makes up a large portion of the Enterprise mail community.
Not generally. If Macs are allowed at work, it's generally in an environment that has a generic IMAP service set up (or, where I work, we're all webmail based. Really. But it does allow you to use any platform you like that has a web browser). While non-Exchasnge email isn't common, it's not common to have Macs at work either, so there you go. Entourage to Exchange
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The interface is a bit different and it chokes a bit if you have tons of delegated mailboxes/calenders compared to Outlook but, for most situations, they have it to the point where it is very usable.
ZFS (Score:5, Interesting)
Even Microsoft shops might be inclined to test this out for a NAS box. One of the big reasons why people by netapp boxes is for the snapshot and snapmirror capabilities. With ZFS, OSX would have very similar capabilities for a lot less $$.
No exchange server = not ready for business (Score:2, Interesting)
Exchange alone is a good enough reason to go with Windows servers (and yes, I know some people have difficulty setting up exchange.)
Re: (Score:2)
We have Xserves in our server room. They're not bad-- they get the work done, sharing out 7 TB of data. But they're there for one reason: support for HFS metadata. If it weren't for that one
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Lego Star Wars: the number one benchmark for enterprise-ready servers!
The Windows guy ain't delivering. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not Dilbert, he's Wally. Look at Vista... it's got a few improvements, but most of what's new in Vista is the business it's running out of its cubicle selling music and movies for the entertainment industry.
The Mac guy, maybe he's the guy in sales with executive hair, but luckily there's a better choice for the server room.
The employees you really want are in the Tron suit and devil costume. [imageshack.us]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Just think, if MS had ALL of the desktop market, they could use their lack of documentation to ensure that those desktops only worked with MS servers, and thereby corner the entire server market as well.
Not that they would do anything like that.....oh, wait. Nevermind.
Re:The Windows guy ain't delivering. (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses are used to putting up with people like this, so it's no wonder that they accept the same kind of abuse from computers.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
A secure, stable environment. Businesses and consumers spend literally billions of man-hours every year patching and re-installing their Windows systems, trying to keep them secure and usable. Whole departments of extra technicians have to be hired just to keep on top of Windows security. This is money poured down the drain, and if Microsoft can't fix the situation, eventually people are going to go with a solution that can.
Re:The Windows guy ain't delivering. (Score:4, Insightful)
Former to Current: "What I want is a stable, secure system that works without having to reboot for patches all the time."
Current to Former: "Our server version is coming out later this year."
Former to Me: "That's when I knew she just didn't get it. She didn't realize that there are benefits to the 'regular consumer' by having a secure, stable system."
Me to Former: "You're surprised a Microsoftie doesn't get it? WTF?"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. I have never spoken with anyone located outside of the United States during AppleCare's normal business hours. Ever. I just had to call last week, and got someone speaking English, and during our conversation, it sound like they were located on the West Coast. I think one time I called after normal hours and was routed to Ireleand. But never to India. I don't even think they have a call center in India [businessweek.com] any longer.
2. AppleCare [apple.com] prov
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you'd rather hang out with the Apple guy outside of work.
Re:Apple vs Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
But I think it is a common mistake in industry to think that you can do better planning based on the information from any vendor other than Apple (in the Steve Jobs Era). If you take Windows Vista vs. 10.5 as an example:
Microsoft has been touting features of Vista for years now, but if you take a look at the list of those features, and the ones that businesses were planning on building on, you would have been completely mislead as recently as 9 months ago. WinFS (database based file system) was arguably the killer feature that everyone was planning on. And we don't know when and if that will be delivered. And if you are really one of those planners who needs to know the future, then you would know that this feature was originally on the plan for Cario, which was Windows 95.
So Microsoft has been giving out information all along, but you can't rely on that information at all. Sure they have had a beta program going for quite some time... but we are talking about long-term planning here. The people who make those plans do not have time or inclination to play with those betas.
Now Apple on the other hand: I was at WWDC last year, and so got to see a lot of the new API's that Apple was working on, and I got to see a lot of the demonstrations of technologies that will be in 10.5. There are a whole number of technical-level details that Apple gave out, the type of things that are very important for programmers, and systems integrators. I got a great idea of how 10.5 will fit into my employer's network (even better than 10.4).
I didn't get to see the wiz-bang super-secret features that are still secrets, but to be honest, those aren't things I have to plan for until 9 months after 10.5 comes out anyways. The things I need to know to do my planning or programming Apple has made available to me (granted not for free), and the stuff that it would be cool to know, but I don't need to know to get my job done they still have behind the curtain.
And the stuff I saw I know will make it into 10.5 (unless the specifically told me it was on the bubble). Apple has a great track record with that. The stuff they didn't know if they could pull off correctly was excluded from public view. In my mind that helps me make the right decisions, rather than lead me to false expectations.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple vs Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
I will admit that Apple doesn't have the Enterprise level support that Microsoft has. However, in every company I worked for, that Enterprise support did nothing for us. Whenever we actually had an issue (servers randomly crashing, web servers that don't respond to HTTP requests), our admins eventually found the solutions themselves online after days of frustrating tech calls to MS. They were there when we called them, but they were of little help to us.
Which one is the guy that is always 2 years late and when he finally delivers, the product does not live up to the original promises? As far as I know most companies (MS included) have marketing departments that oversell/overpromise. Dilbert is funny because that situation is more true that naught.
Most IT departments are conservative. They have to be. That's why Vista is not likely to be adopted by large companies until at least SP1. I would think that these departments would prefer the Mac if a Mac fits their needs. For most IT departments, it is about the right tool for the job. Need an Exchange server? Don't get a Mac. Need a file and print server? Windows, Linux, or Mac depending on your environment. With a Mac, they get a server (based on Unix) that fits into their environment fairly well with a minimum amount of support required and reasonable licensing.
Parent
Hardly a microkernel (Score:2)
Yes, OS X has a lot of unnecessary overhead, and where kernel performance is important you're better off with a traditional UNIX kernel rather than a high overhead modularized one (OS X *or* NT). But it's unfair to tar microkernels with the Mach brush while you're pointing that out.
Anyway...
Why anybody wants it on a server is a mystery.
Same reason they want NT on a server, despite it only being a decent desktop OS (albeit one that's been increasingly screw
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
It takes one full time person to run the network and maintain the network and computers, largely due to Apple's remote desktop and net boot reimaging services and the fact that all the Macs can run off two install images: one for Intel, one for PPC. The WinPCs take roughly twice the maintenance time per cpu than the Macs largely be cause of differing drivers.
Oh.. The facility is a public k-12 school. Mac server are also very common in colleges, law offices, large and medium printing companies, greeting card companies, scientific research, and newspapers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And you're right on in saying that OS X Server is so much more intuitive in it's design that 2k3. I had taken several classes in 2k3, but had never touched OS X Server when I first
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, are "big" enterprises all that exist? The answer should be hopefully obvious.
For our part, which is that of a large public research university, we have probably about 100 Mac OS X Server systems on campus here, and about 35 in our primary datacenter, not counting systems in compute clusters, which probably adds another 100 or so. (We have about 16000 Macs in general on campus, nearly all on Mac OS X.) Mo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are absolutely right, in a perfect world, that is. A friend of mine constantly fights with his customers for this very reason. They buy cheap hardware and expect him to make it work, he could simply refuse to do so, but he has to eat, you know. The latest case had even me wondering, though. A medium-sized business wasn't willing to pay for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple could kill MSFT with
Re: (Score:2)
In a small business environment I need heavy duty features, but on a small scale. A single beefed up server can handle most of the workload, and scalability isn't really a concern. The xserve products look really, really nice, but to me appear to be overkill
English or (American) English (Score:2)
Now that's a beauty of a homophone error. The guy should put that in his sig.
Re: (Score:2)
Stands to reason that they'll release an updated, iCal Server-friendly version of iCal via Software Update for Tiger and maybe even Panther once Leopard Server ships. Even for Apple I think it would be a bit much for them to require Leopard clients for all this stuff to work-- if the idea is for Leopard Server to take a bite out of Windows Small Business Server's market share, they'll need to make it fairly painless to migrate. And