Inside Apple's Leopard Server OS

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.'"

Apple vs Microsoft

[suv4x4]

Apple's infamous closed-mouthed approach to major OS releases, while great for marketing purposes, isn't always so great for the IT world.

The thing is, they don't wanna be great in the IT world. They wanna show the Mac fans "see? we can do it" and simulatenously provide something to tie together Mac based little networks, where it's not the cheapest or more powerful option, it's the EASIEST option. "It just works" - you know, this is Apple.

While certainly possible (and being done in some datacenters), Apple based server for public facing sites is a terrible idea, though unless you have money to waste and don't care for industry-grade support, so don't confuse the one kind of servers with the other.

You see, the IT world is boring and predictable, it's like the PC guy. The PC guy will put out public betas years in advance and listen to feedback.

The Mac guy will keep quiet and at the last moment, wow the audience with the latest gimmick.

But he's not the kinda guy you'd normally hire in your company. You'll hire the boring and predictable guy, who delivers.

Re:Linux

[rindeee]

You're wrong. No offense intended. Your response is, I suspect, a common one. The reality however is that in the market Apple is targeting with this, MS is the standard. Could you build out a Linux box to do all the same stuff that Apple is doing here? Yeah, pretty much (not sure on the QuickTime streaming). That's not the point. What matters is that Apple HAS built it out. They've used OSS to do it. They wrapped it in a slick package. They've made it super easy to deploy, manage, extend, expand and use. A 'systems consultant' could walk in the door and give a small/medium business a complete solution using the Windows desktop and top notch OSS client software (Thunderbird, etc.) providing a truly complete solution for peanuts compared to what an MS back-end would set you back. Kudos to Apple!

The Windows guy ain't delivering.

[argent]

The Windows guy ain't delivering.

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]

Re:ATTN: Windows/Linux refugees!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cause almost every fucking Mac application actually DOES maximize when you press "zoom". Woooow, supaaaaaar greaaaaat feature. Yawn.

I switched back to Linux. It's not perfect, but at least gives me more freedom.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

That same systems consultant could do the same with Apple, Linux, BSD or Windows. How are you saying "you're wrong"? A system consultant that chooses and deploys a specific system is familiar with it and it is turnkey system for him. There is no trying this and playing with getting that working etc.. That consultant has done it in the past many times and knows how to do it. If the consultant is playing around and attempting to get basic things working, you need to hire a different consultant.

I am curious about your claim of:
They've made it super easy to deploy, manage, extend, expand and use.
Considering that this will not be even showcased until June, how do you have any idea about that? That aside.. Have you deployed this in an SMB environment and done some expanding and extending? If you want people to take your opinion seriously, make it your opinion based on some personal experience with the product with some feedback. Repeating or assuming based on something you've heard someone else say is useless to everyone.
   

Re:The Windows guy ain't delivering.

[argent]

Windows is also responsible for countless man-years lost to fighting viruses abnd worms that could have been avoided (yes, really, the big flood of Windows malware coincided with the introduction of Active Desktop and the merging of Internet Explorer, Outlook, and Windows Explorer through the HTML control), and that's just one of the ways it's a classic Wally-style "high maintainance employee". I've already mentioned its "moonlighting" as an enforcer for the RIAA and MPAA, which you can explore further in Peter Gutmann's article [auckland.ac.nz].

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.

Re:Apple vs Microsoft

[UnknowingFool]

While certainly possible (and being done in some datacenters), Apple based server for public facing sites is a terrible idea, though unless you have money to waste and don't care for industry-grade support, so don't confuse the one kind of servers with the other.

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.

But he's not the kinda guy you'd normally hire in your company. You'll hire the boring and predictable guy, who delivers.

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.

Re:Mac versus linux decision point

[ratboy666]

A few points.

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 full-time guru.

Re:Mac versus linux decision point

[fyoder]

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 problem without first having to hose off the monkey shit.

If a creative monkey is going to set things up, then as much as it pains me to recommend Microsoft, that might be the way to go. Choices are more constrained. Still would be a good idea to get an expert to go over the set up with eye to security. Or use a distro like Fedora and do things the Fedora way, don't get creative unless you really know what you're doing.

Re:The Windows guy ain't delivering.

[rthille]

A friend who used to work at Microsoft who was talking to a current microsoft employee (paraphrased):
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?"

Re:Where is the small business hardware?

[inKubus]

I work in a company where the infrastructure is primarily Win but the CEO is a Mac user since 1984. So there is always a push for interoperability at the least. MSFT apps do not play well with non-windows machines. Even web-based apps which should work on any web browser are crippled because of some Active X control or other crap. I'm talking about the newest versions of all MS products also, including SQL 2005, Reporting Services 2005, Dynamics CRM and GP, Sharepoint 2007, etc.

Apple could kill MSFT with the following package:

A few DVD set with preconfigured (and designed) replacements for:

SQL to run everything on
OpenDirectory to authenticate everyone
Mail/Calendar/Task server ala exchange (with rules and distribution lists pulling from OpenDirectory)
CRM (with single sign on capability from directory)
Accounting (with SSO)
Enterprise reporting with charts, graphs, etc. that actually look good
Decent office programs (ala word, excel, PPT, outlook etc. DEPLOYABLE to desktops)
Office server program for collaboration, workflows and file sharing (Ala Sharepoint 2007 with SSO and integrate seamlessly with office programs)
Web forms server for forms
Decent analytics software
Enterprise antivirus
Backup solution

The number one thing is Single Sign On to all of this with one Kerberos login. This has been possible for about 30 years, yet it never seems to get done.

Anyway, a seamless install of all this, in one set, for one price, all interoperating, with a cohesive style all the way across the board (LOOKING *GOOD*, like Apple can).

Oh, and make sure that you can use Windows browsers to access the web-based content (support Firefox at least ;)

With this package you could easily replace everything in my company that runs on Windows, and probably most companies. A lot of this is possible with open source stuff. They (Apple) would of course have to co-opt the open source crap and run it past their designers to make it actually look good. Run a few billion bucks worth of refining. Sorry to say this but I have yet to see a decently designed (for the people) open source app (and I know it's not usually the goal so foo), but with a few bil and Apple's staff and connections it might be possible.

Anyway, sell this package for $699 a seat and you will still come in well under MSFT!