Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why IT Won't Like Mac OS X Lion Server

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the sounds-oxymoronic-to-me dept.

OS X 341

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's John Rizzo sees Mac OS X Lion Server as a downgrade that may prompt a move to Windows Server. 'Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server adds innovative features and a new low price tag, but cuts in services and the elimination of advanced GUI administration tools may force some enterprise departments to think twice about the role of Mac servers on their networks,' Rizzo writes. 'Looking more deeply inside Lion Server, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that Lion Server is not built for those of us in IT. The $50 price tag — down from $500 — is the first clue that Lion Server trying to be a server for the consumer. But the ironic part for IT administrators is that Lion Server actually requires a greater degree of technical knowledge than its predecessors.'"

cancel ×

341 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

mac /= server (3, Interesting)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872690)

No doubt Apple is backing its new iCloud platform as the way for everyone to share - and damn the so-called hardware Server market. This is the only operating system not natively supported in most virtual machines. IDC [idc.com] doesn't even include Apple in market share reports anymore, and they've clearly de-leveraged [techrights.org] their investment over the past few years as opposed to their commitment to growing xServe in 2002 [macobserver.com]

All that aside, I had a client who insisted on moving to OSX Server in 2003 to manage his email. FIle sharing was fine, even over a massive fiber/iscsi San config. But it didn't take long for his users to force a switch to an exchange hosted environment. The features just weren't there and the support or the tech resources to make corrections were far too time-consuming.

Re:mac /= server (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872952)

Yeah Exchange...there's no support nightmare there *eye roll*

Re:mac /= server (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873206)

I will tell you this... a Glassed in Server room full of Apple servers and Xsan are 800X more sexy looking than ANY other manufacturer. When I was IT manager at a comcast regional our Director of sales would take clients down to the production offices to show them THAT server room full of apple servers instead of the real one. Simply because that room looked professional and random Sun+Dell+HP servers look like a hodge podge mess even though it was very clean.

Re:mac /= server (0)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873278)

our Director of sales would take clients down to the production offices to show them THAT server room full of apple servers instead of the real one. Simply because that room looked professional and random Sun+Dell+HP servers look like a hodge podge mess even though it was very clean.

So just marketing [despair.com] as usual.

As a Mac admin, I agree. (5, Interesting)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872742)

I've played with it for a few days now, and I absolutely agree. I'm not planning on upgrading any of my customers at this point, and I'm considering my options for replacements in environments where I can't maintain Snow Leopard Server indefinitely. I think it's likely to be relegated to calendar server duty, and I'm going to move mail, web, and FTP to some variety of Linux.

I'm really not happy with Apple about Lion - it just doesn't feel like an upgrade to me, and server is even worse. I don't like seeing the best operating system there is backsliding like this.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (2)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872854)

We run a mixed OS X/Windows 7 environment. We use AD/Open Directory, but mail is done by Google Apps (as well as calendaring, etc), DHCP/DNS/etc. is done by network gear. Is Lion great? Meh. With email/calendar outsourced, the only thing we need it to do is directory services, software updates, etc., which it does fine.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873006)

What email client do you use on OSX? I see Google doesn't make Apps Sync for Outlook 2011 yet.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873224)

"but mail is done by Google Apps (as well as calendaring, etc),"

Read and you will receive the info he already told you.

Their Email client is called a web browser.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873238)

This. Everyone uses Chrome. IT policy is to use the web browser for email, calendaring, etc. You *can* use Outlook if you prefer, but it's IMAP only, and calendaring is through the web still. Works like a fucking champ.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (2, Informative)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872898)

Go here to download Server Admin, and gain back all of the old functionality:

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1419 [apple.com]

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873060)

Go here to download Server Admin, and gain back all of the old functionality

From TFA:

"Once you locate and download the Server Admin tool, experienced Mac OS X Server administrators will notice it's a much thinner tool than it used to be. Roughly half the services that used to be there are missing. Most user-based services, such as file sharing, calendaring, and Web services, have been moved to the simple Server application. Others, such as QuickTime Streaming Server, have been completely removed."

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (1)

everyplace (527571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873112)

Fantastic find. Makes a lot of sense, and basically means the app that ships with 10.7 server is an upgrade for the "basic" server administration app if you use the simple 10.6 configuration, but that all of the underlying services we know and love continue to exist, and just need a different app to admin them. This is no different than how it worked with 10.6, except now the apps don't come with the OS.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873444)

From TFA:

"Once you locate and download the Server Admin tool, experienced Mac OS X Server administrators will notice it's a much thinner tool than it used to be. Roughly half the services that used to be there are missing. Most user-based services, such as file sharing, calendaring, and Web services, have been moved to the simple Server application. Others, such as QuickTime Streaming Server, have been completely removed."

Except, as the above user explained,

"From TFA:

"Once you locate and download the Server Admin tool, experienced Mac OS X Server administrators will notice it's a much thinner tool than it used to be. Roughly half the services that used to be there are missing. Most user-based services, such as file sharing, calendaring, and Web services, have been moved to the simple Server application. Others, such as QuickTime Streaming Server, have been completely removed."

So it is not just "needing a different app". It is quite different.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873004)

I think it's likely to be relegated to calendar server duty, and I'm going to move mail, web, and FTP to some variety of Linux.

You don't have to keep the Mac around for serving calendars. Apple open sourced the server [calendarserver.org] and you can run it on your favourite *NIX flavour.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (3, Insightful)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873346)

Yeah, I know about that.

It's not really ready for production server use yet:

Milestone: Linux Port

No date set

Milestone with the goal of a functional (to approximately whatever the current level of functionality is) server on some version of Linux.

This is intentionally vague; the point is to get a server running on something other than Mac OS, which should make future portability work a bit simpler by identifying and reducing the Mac OS dependancies.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873318)

I'm really not happy with Apple about Lion - it just doesn't feel like an upgrade to me

Considering Lion crapped out on my within a day, I am forced to agree. Pray that you never have to reinstall from the recovery partition. The process is backwards, primitive, and error-prone. I'm probably going to reinstall Snow Leopard and be happy.

Dear Apple,

May I suggest another name for your new OS? Mac OS X Vista.

Re:As a Mac admin, I agree. (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873524)

I think it's likely to be relegated to calendar server duty, and I'm going to move mail, web, and FTP to some variety of Linux.

I'm confused as to why based on this article. It sounds to me as if everything is still there, but some of it has to be command line configured like it would in Linux. I generally think that for servers command line and text file configuration are much preferred anyway, and it's the way you'd have to do it in Linux. I was reading the whole article trying to find out what the problems are. The installation issues sounded mildly annoying, but usually with a new server OS deployment I'm going to build one then image it anyway, so not a huge deal. There's still a lot more GUI tools than you typically get with a Linux server if that's your thing, and the group policy capabilities sound like a big step in the right direct.

If anything, assuming that your IT department is competent, this article seems to be complaining from the wrong point of view. It sounds like Lion Server might kinda suck for a SoHo type setup where the users and the admins are the same people, no one is really an expert, and there are minimal resources for things like imaging and deployment; but for an enterprise IT shop these changes shouldn't have much impact. I won't be rushing out to buy it, but to be honest I've never used Mac servers. I like them as clients, but I'd just as soon make the back end Linux.

We get the idea (0, Offtopic)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872760)

So IT departments may not like apple for various reasons.

Look at the share price and the earnings. Apple, quite rightly, couldn't care less.

I don't think it needs an article a day to say what IT departments think of apple either

Re:We get the idea (2)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872920)

The share price and earnings of a vendor doesn't help the IT department do their work. IT doesn't care about share price and earnings, as long as they're both positive numbers and not trending downward (meaning the vendor isn't likely to go bankrupt and thus leave them with unsupported product).

Re:We get the idea (0)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873106)

That's not the point. The point is that Apple is doing quite fine without even worrying about success in the "enterprise" market. The consumer market is where they are focusing and it is totally paying out for them. It's sort of the opposite of the strategy that Microsoft took.

Re:We get the idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873216)

This is "News for geeks, stuff that matters," not "News for Apple execs, stuff that mattes to Apple"

It is still useful info for people considering Apple in these server positions.

Re:We get the idea (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873430)

" IT doesn't care about share price and earnings, as long as they're both positive numbers and not trending downward"

You might want to go look at any other vendor's numbers then...

Re:We get the idea (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873190)

So IT departments may not like apple for various reasons.

Look at the share price and the earnings. Apple, quite rightly, couldn't care less.

I don't think it needs an article a day to say what IT departments think of apple either

Slashdot is not the Wall Street Journal - most people here don't care about Apple's share price and earnings, but many of us do care about what to do with our existing OSX servers, whether or not we should plan an upgrade to Lion, and what impact that will have on us.

There are more options than this, no? (5, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872770)

The summary mentions only two choices for IT professionals:
  • Upgrade to Lion
  • Switch to Windows server

I can easily think of two more:

  • Stay with what you have
  • Switch to a non-windows, non-MacOS option

I have not heard any reason why a currently working installation of OS X would suddenly stop working altogether just because the owner did not upgrade. Windows people have seen this before; there are plenty of people still running Windows XP even though two newer version of the same have been released since.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872844)

Stay with what you have

How long does Apple continue supporting OS releases? (I have heard it's shorter than MS, but I'm actually pretty ignorant...)

Re:There are more options than this, no? (3, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873044)

Who knows? They don't say.

No, seriously, I've gone looking for this information and wasn't able to find it. The best answer appears to be they will support the current version and the previous version, and that's it.

If someone has better information than that, I'd love to have it, but it makes suggesting a Mac OS X-based solution a bit difficult when I can't give a solid number on how long the platform will receive security updates.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873054)

In general, security updates keep coming out until shortly after version N+2 is released (i.e., 10.5 security updates will probably stop soon now that 10.7 is out). Some exceptions to this rule are Safari, Quicktime and iTunes, which are often updated/supported farther back.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873164)

How long does Apple continue supporting OS releases? (I have heard it's shorter than MS, but I'm actually pretty ignorant...)

Longer than the average Linux distro (which in most cases is a couple of months if that).

Re:There are more options than this, no? (3)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873460)

How long does Apple continue supporting OS releases? (I have heard it's shorter than MS, but I'm actually pretty ignorant...)

Longer than the average Linux distro (which in most cases is a couple of months if that).

Ubuntu releases are supported for 18 months. Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) releases are supported for 3 years on the desktop, and 5 years on the server.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases [ubuntu.com]

Re:There are more options than this, no? (2)

Nephster (203800) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873234)

How long does Apple continue supporting OS releases? (I have heard it's shorter than MS, but I'm actually pretty ignorant...)

Apple only offers security and bugfix support for its current release and the one before it. So, 10.4 was deprecated when 10.6 came out, and now that 10.7 is released, 10.5 is deprecated.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872880)

Unless they've changed stances recently, Apple does not support running macs with any OS version earlier than the one they shipped with. They don't specifically try to stop you; but they make no effort to be particularly helpful about it. Outside of tiny shops, that pretty much squashes the "Well, we just won't upgrade" plan. People still routinely run XP because it is still quite easy to buy brand new hardware with full, vendor supported, XP compatibility.

Anywhere large enough that "IT" is a mass noun will have serious trouble not upgrading if they can't get new hardware...

Re:There are more options than this, no? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873042)

Unless they've changed stances recently, Apple does not support running macs with any OS version earlier than the one they shipped with. They don't specifically try to stop you; but they make no effort to be particularly helpful about it. Outside of tiny shops, that pretty much squashes the "Well, we just won't upgrade" plan. People still routinely run XP because it is still quite easy to buy brand new hardware with full, vendor supported, XP compatibility.

Are Apple shops really that dependent on Apple for support? PC users, and shops that have large implementations of PCs running something other than Mac OS X, have become accustomed to finding support places other than their OS provider.

In other words, the software problems that people are having with PCs have already been seen by other PC users. It seems unlikely that this is distinctly not the case with OS X users. If the business is capable of running well with a current version of OS X (or any other OS for that matter) and they don't like what is next in the pipeline, then why should they feel forced into it?

And if the server is the question, why would they need to upgrade their server OS immediately? A well-configured server shouldn't even need to reboot more than once or twice a year, it certainly shouldn't need to have an OS upgrade every time the vendor releases something new.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873258)

When I say "Does not support" I don't mean "Cry, cry, Apple's helpdesk monkeys won't talk to me because I installed version y OS on a version z computer!!!"

I mean, When Apple releases a new hardware model, they release a slightly different spin of the OSX installer that includes drivers, firmware, etc. for the new hardware platform. If the hardware platform drivers for your platform were released in conjunction with, say, 10.6, Apple will not bother to release a platform support package for running 10.5 on that hardware.

That's the difference: With Windows, MS does bundle a variety of drivers-that-are-commonly-used with their install media, in order to improve the odds of things Just Working; but the OEM you purchased the computer from, or potentially the OEM they purchased the chips from, are the actual providers of the drivers, and will have them available for whatever platforms they support. Apple doesn't do that. Their install media come equipped with all drivers for supported models as of the OS release. If you wish to run an OS that was released before a given piece of hardware, the drivers won't be included in that OS. If you are lucky, you might be able to bodge drivers taken from a later OSX release into working on an earlier one. If not, too bad.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873168)

Apple does not support running macs with any OS version earlier than the one they shipped with.

Does anyone? I mean Dell won't support you running XP on a machine that they installed Vista or Win 7 even if the machine runs it. I remember that there was alot of complaining that consumers had to pay for downgrade rights to XP when Vista came out. For enterprises, they normally have separate agreements with MS for support and Dell doesn't even install Windows on the machine anyway.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873436)

Pretty much any manufacturer with an "enterprise" line does. Dell's most recent desktop and laptop models ship with 7; but support back to XP, HP does the same. The only ones that are a little patchy are models that officially support XP-64bit or Linux. Consumer lines, on the other hand, generally offer no official support for earlier versions.

Beyond that, it matters a lot less if your random PC OEM supports XP: basically every component in the system(with the possible exception of some proprietary BIOS-flasher) is just a standard chip from one of the OEMs. So long as they support XP it won't be 'Official'; but it will almost certainly work.

Apple both doesn't support and pretty much none of the OEMs who make the guts of Apple systems offer independent OSX driver support for any OSX versions, much less earlier ones. If you want to run Windows, or Linux, you can get 3rd-party driver support from the OEMs; but not for OSX. Only makers of 3rd-party peripherals release OSX drivers of their own. For the internal stuff, it's Apple or nothing.

Huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36872968)

I posit that anyone using a server version of an Apple product is not an IT professional to begin with.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873122)

I posit that anyone using a server version of an Apple product is not an IT professional to begin with.

I posit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Re:Huh? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873192)

So using Unix to run your server means you're not an IT professional? What are they supposed to install? BeOS?

Re:Huh? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873232)

Well, I presume he means GNU Linux, of course! Because Gnu Not Unix!

Re:Huh? (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873210)

I posit that anyone using a server version of an Apple product is not an IT professional to begin with.

I posit you're either an idiot or a bigot, or both. But it's clear you are uninformed. There are many installations, profit and non-profit, using OS X Server.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873034)

Switching to Windows seems particularly stupid. Most of the server stuff in OS X server is open source, only the admin GUIs are proprietary. It's relatively painless to migrate to FreeBSD - you can just copy the config files across for the most part.

Re:There are more options than this, no? (3, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873328)

I have not heard any reason why a currently working installation of OS X would suddenly stop working altogether just because the owner did not upgrade. Windows people have seen this before; there are plenty of people still running Windows XP even though two newer version of the same have been released since.

Apple doesn't seem to announce end-of-support dates for their operating systems (at least they don't make it easy to find), but many IT departments aren't allowed to run unsupported software because they have a regulatory requirement to keep the software up to date with security patches.

So sure, Keeping Leopard or Snow Leopard is a short-term fix, but they are only going to be a viable solution for as long as Apple continues supporting them.

Server Admin Tools (0)

Deadric (13491) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872784)

Is he aware that the advanced GUI tools known as Server Admin Tools are now an optional installation but still completely compatible with 10.7 server?

Re:Server Admin Tools (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36872884)

The server admin tool you're talking about is cut down compared to the tools in v10.6. Some key screens are now completely gone and so configuring some aspects will not work.

My favourite feature of the new server.app is how the ssl certs keep resetting to bad configurations.

Re:Server Admin Tools (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872894)

It sounds like he isn't. I'd mod you up if I could.

John Rizzo (2)

daktari (1983452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872818)

John Rizzo, author of "Mac OS X Lion Server for Dummies"

It's not for Enterprise IT (3, Interesting)

macshome (818789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872842)

Mac OS X Server before it, and now OS X Lion Server aren't intended for enterprise IT, and haven't been for a while. Apple has been working the word enterprise out of the marketing pages for a while now.

Indeed, the current blurb says this on apple.com: "OS X Lion Server gives you everything you need to provide workgroup and Internet services.".

For workgroup and SMB sized applications it's pretty nice, but a bit of a quandary when you hit the big leagues.

I put all my thoughts on it in my review on AFP548.com: http://www.afp548.com/article.php?story=lion-server-review [afp548.com]

The real place in enterprise for the Mac has been in on the client side for quite some time now.

Re:It's not for Enterprise IT (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873252)

"For workgroup and SMB sized applications it's pretty nice, but a bit of a quandary when you hit the big leagues."

when you hit that point you use a real Unix, and it runs really nice on their sexy hardware!

Unix Knowledge (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36872846)

"Requires a greater degree of technical ability" omg, the command line, NOOOOOooooooooooo!

Re:Unix Knowledge (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872948)

heh that's what i was thinking any it staff above the mcse gofer, entry level would not only know how to use the command line. but be good enough in it that they would be able to handle the new server.

learn how to use the command line (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36872852)

Or there is another option. Learn how do to things without a pretty gui helping you.

Re:learn how to use the command line (0)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873202)

Yeah. Also, use an abacus for all of your calculations, sell your car and buy and horse, kill or grow all of your own food, and get rid of your shoes altogether. Progress is overrated.

Re:learn how to use the command line (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873334)

A GUI is not progress. It is the opposite. For any automated/scripted functionality or generally complicated task the CLI will be much faster.

Re:learn how to use the command line (1)

kabloom (755503) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873340)

The truth is that many system administrators prefer the command line, because you can come up with a bunch of repeatable commands that can be put into a script file and replayed on lots of machines, and because you can more efficiently work with a command-line over a remote access protocol like SSH (becuase less data needs to be sent across the network). Of course, the GP's attitude doesn't really help people appreciate the power and utility of the command line, and I certainly admit that crippling or removing the GUI tools could be a hard sell for some of MacOS X's intended audience if they don't have an appreciation of the command line.

Re:learn how to use the command line (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873424)

You grow your own food, I just go wandering through the forest buck naked and eat the random berries, nuts, and leaves I find. I also just use rocks and sticks to kill my own food and then chow down no need for fire here, since you know progress is overrated.

In reality just because something is new or shiny doesn't necessarily make it better.

Re:learn how to use the command line (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873288)

But you will put all the MCSE's out of work...

They need to have mac os X sever for any VM on (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872876)

They need to have mac os X sever for any VM on any base hardware.

Apple does not even have a real sever any more.

The mini and mac pro are lacking in big plies like.

Dual PSU

lights-out management (LOM)

Hot swap HDDS -at least the mac pro has easy to get to HDD bays

Dual nics in the mini.

no easy to make bootable installation DVD or image for sever 10.7 -you can make a OSX 10.7 install image / dvd.

NO sever OS downgrade on the new hardware.

Some of those the mini has (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872982)

Hot swap HDDS -at least the mac pro has easy to get to HDD bays

The minis these days make it very easy to get to HDD and RAM. You just unscrew a large cap on the bottom.

Dual nics in the mini.

How about 20? It has Thunderbolt.

no easy to make bootable installation DVD or image for sever 10.7

What? It's very easy to make a bootable clone using a program like Super Duper.

The dual PSU is an issue, but the mini's are so small and cheap enough why wouldn't you just be running several and have hot failover to the working ones?

They actually seem like really good server systems to me.

Re:Some of those the mini has (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873124)

ECC RAM is somewhat important in a server.

Re:Some of those the mini has (1)

bakawolf (1362361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873166)

Hot swap HDDS -at least the mac pro has easy to get to HDD bays

The minis these days make it very easy to get to HDD and RAM. You just unscrew a large cap on the bottom.

Nope, gotta remove the logic board to get the HDD out of there. Nice try though.

Re:Some of those the mini has (1)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873244)

True, you only have to remove the fan to get to the HD, excellent for hot-swapping, isn't it?

Re:They need to have mac os X sever for any VM on (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873114)

If you have those kind of requirements, then you can probably afford an admin who actually understands the software that he's using. The actual server applications that OS X Server uses are either third-party open source programs or released by Apple on Mac OS Forge [macosforge.org] . If you're a small business that doesn't have a dedicated IT team, then Mac OS X Server gives you a simple GUI that will handle most common tasks and can be operated by someone moderately computer literate. If you're a large enterprise, then you probably don't need the GUI and you can do better by buying server hardware from a company that specialises in that part of the market and running some other *NIX flavour with the same server programs on it.

Advanced GUI tools still available (1, Informative)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872886)

All of the advanced GUI tools (Server Admin, Workgroup Manager, etc.) have been updated for 10.7 and available as a separate download from Apple:

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1419 [apple.com]

The whole premise of this article is bunk.

Re:Advanced GUI tools still available (2, Funny)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872944)

The whole premise of this article is bunk.

No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.

Re:Advanced GUI tools still available (0)

sosume (680416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873098)

this!

Re:Advanced GUI tools still available (1)

RatBastard (949) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873228)

1/10. Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:Advanced GUI tools still available (4, Interesting)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872976)

Know how I know you didn't RTFA?

The article is not bunk, and the author mentions the admin tools. He also points out that a good chunk of the functionality of those tools have been ripped out, you're limited to the Server app or command line for quite a few things.

Re:Advanced GUI tools still available (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873086)

IT folks who know what they are doing usually prefer CLIs to GUIs. A GUI is fine for configuring a single server once (or trying to ;) ). Not so nice when you have more than a handful. And good luck having your developers rapidly create decent GUIs for every feature/configuration/task you want to add.

Heck even Microsoft has realized that and made powershell. Perhaps due to the pain of running Hotmail on Windows ;).

A good GUI can probably beat a CLI in many things, but not usually for stuff like "advanced configuration" of servers.

Who had any delusions of Apple being business...? (0)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872902)

Who had any delusions of Apple being business oriented in any way? They aren't even pro oriented these days (see all the hubbub about FinalCut Pro).
The only area where they somewhat cater to business is iPhone and iPad, everything else is strictly consumer oriented...

Strange beef (2)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872904)

I don't know any high quality sysadmins that want more point'n'click high-bandwidth GUI features on their servers, and less reliance on low-bandwidth SSH console commands.

I mean, I'm willing to hypothesize that they are out there, sure, but I'm also willing to postulate the existence of flying monkeys for the sake of discussion. I don't expect to ever meet one.

Windows? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872910)

If you're not satisfied with your upgrade path from an OS X server, why would Windows be your choice? Wouldn't another UNIX like platform be an easier, cheaper, and more reliable choice?

Re:Windows? (2)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873028)

Windoze is not an option, let alone my choice for an upgrade path.

I'm not replacing any currently running OS X servers just for the fun of it, but I'm not going to be putting 10.7 on them, and I'm probably going to be installing quite a few more Linux servers in the coming years.

Re:Windows? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873158)

Windows server isn't reliable? Can you give example of how it isn't?

Oh boy, more speculative click bait about OSX Lion (1, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872924)

Nothing changes. Haters hate, and people who hate change will bicker. Eventually 10.7.1 will come out and fix some of the problems that are discovered during general release and life will go on. I remember similar stories about Leopard and Snow leopard.

Re:Oh boy, more speculative click bait about OSX L (1)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873118)

Not this time. This isn't about bugs, it's about intentionally removed functionality.

I do sincerely hope Apple gets a clue from these articles and realizes that they screwed up. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not recommending any more Mac servers for my customers unless they have a specific need. I've always been a big Mac proponent, but I'm getting tired of apologizing. This time, I'm not going to, I'll be installing more Linux servers as it's time to replace the 10.6 servers I've installed, unless Apple fixes this mess.

Time Machine over a network is broken (2)

qwertyatwork (668720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872946)

If your using a non time capsule network backup, it's broken. They disabled DHCAST128, and use dhx2 instead.

Upgrade process (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872950)

My biggest complaint is the lack of information about the upgrade process. I currently have a Mac running 10.5.8 Server and I haven't been able to find anything that will tell me if any of my settings will migrate if I upgrade to 10.6 and then to 10.7 and then add the Server addon. Do I have to start over at that point or will my server settings be maintained through that process?

Seems like this might be a situation a lot of people could be in if they didn't want to shell out another $500 for 10.6 Server but are now interested in upgrading to 10.7 Server.

Re:Upgrade process (1)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873220)

Apple seems to imply that it will work. But there's no way I'd even consider trying it without cloning the drive and thoroughly testing it on the clone first.

And for the foreseeable future, it looks like 10.6 Server is a much better product. I'd keep an eye out for used copies of that, maybe you can find it cheap.

Scared of CLI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36872964)

IT shops wont be scared of the command line- they'll likely embrace it.

Not surprising (5, Interesting)

Srsen (413456) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872972)

With the elimination of the XServe and now the simplifying of Lion Server, it's clear that Apple has decided to choose a different vector for their server business. To me it seems they are now focused on the SOHO market where the users administer the network and there is no IT department (obviously another reason why IT professionals REALLY do not like Lion Server). This is a very Apple thing to do: turn something complicated into something almost anyone can do. I would not be surprised if they ended up making more money with this approach than they did with the XServe approach - this way has a significantly broader base.

I would never have considered using OS X Server at home before but I an now thinking about using my current Mini for a home server after I upgrade to a new machine because it now seems doable and worthwhile to me.

Comparison? (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36872996)

The author of the article keeps knocking Apple for what they decided to include in the OS. Okay, sure.

But compare this to any Linux distro -- the distro maintainers make similar decisions with every release. Some new packages get included, others get dumped. If you need the ones that were dumped, you just have to install them manually.

Without that comparison, the entire argument is meaningless.

The writer has no clue (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873002)

He got all the installation part wrong. Once you buy Lion from the AppStore you can easily create a DVD without any hacks and there are a couple of ways more to install Lion (including a netinstall). You don't need snow leopard either.

Best of Both Worlds (1)

endikos (195750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873008)

Honestly, It seems to me that the things that are best done in a windowed environment (user management, policy management, etc) have been kept in a nice GUI, whereas the things that have been traditionally configured in text files or via the command line on *nix servers have been kept that way. Quit moaning about having to actually learn how to administer a server. I don't see how IT guys in a enterprise are really going to see this as a bad thing. If they already know how to administer a *nix box, they can administer a OSX box. I can see this affecting shops that are solely OSX Server environments, but those are the exception, not the rule.

Why IT Won't Like Mac OS X Lion Server... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873018)

Hmm, Why IT Won't Like Mac OS X Lion Server.... it's because it... is... a... MAC. *DUNNNN*

Ahh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873036)

Run, there's a command line!

Elimination? (2, Interesting)

smcdow (114828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873066)

... the elimination of advanced GUI administration tools...

Incorrect. Lion does indeed include the most awesome GUI administration tool in existence.

It's called Terminal.

Re:Elimination? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873354)

you do not know the meaning of GUI I guess. Terminal is great but not considered GUI. Terminal is command line dipsh@t.

Re:Elimination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873406)

that would be a CLI you insensitive clod!

Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873100)

You're saying Lion isn't user friendly enough on the GUI side for your system admins?

Here's my advice: get real admins, not GUI certified suckers...

Advanced GUI (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873108)

I know when I do IT I go headless Linux. My question is what IT Professional actually needs to use advanced GUI administration tools. I'm NOT bashing those of you who use them but when I think server I think command line. The desktop has the GUI and the server has the prompt. Much like an embedded system where you want to the power to be available it just makes more sense to go with no GUI. This is why to me Windows based server's never made sense. I know it's a widely used Server OS and I know it's involved in a lot of company's but I just personally have never been a fan. So by OS X Lion saying they have elimination of advanced GUI administration tools I say this is a good thing! I'm not going to sit here and fan boy Linux or anything like that, but on a totally personal belief, right or wrong I'm going to say IT is a command line only world. Leave the GUI for the desktop and the command line for the server.

Feel free to criticize me for this but either way it's is my opinion, right or wrong.

Re:Advanced GUI (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873342)

Then use Windows Server core installation if the GUI bothers you so much.

Re:Advanced GUI (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873352)

I like a command line for my own use too, but it sucks for talking someone through something over the phone and recently I've seen a whole bunch of IT services being devolved to the end users (eg software installation) using a document full of screenshots for users to follow. To my mind, one advantage of GUI over cli is that it is more acceptable to users to be given instructions spanning several pages of color pictures than it would be to tell them to type even a few simple unfamiliar commands into a command line even where the user is a reasonable person. I think that may stem from there being fewer choices. After all once can type any idiotic or misheard thing at a command line especially if at least one person on the call is talking in a language other than their native tongue. User choices are more limited with forms and if you go with forms one may as well have pretty GUI forms as fast/businesslike curses forms.

Advances GUI Administration Tools (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873134)

Is the IT world nowadays really full of incompetent losers who are lost without GUI tools? Damn it. Stop to behave like stupid and lazy fat fucks and use the terminal instead.

People use Mac servers for more than a hobby? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873152)

I am honestly surprised there are even enough people running Mac servers to have an article about it. Other than hobbyists or tiny proprietary shops, I have never seen a Mac server in use. What role does it serve that isn't completely covered, and done better, by a Linux distro or Windows Server?

We're planning on moving away from OS X Server (1)

metallic (469828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873260)

The writing was on the wall as soon as Apple announced that the Xserve line was going away and nothing would be replacing it as a rackmount option. The sad thing is that everything works remarkably well together (we've had 6 servers attached to 6TB of storage using Xsan for years now with no problems) but it's simply no longer a supported solution. And Apple's suggestion to replace the servers with Mac Pros or Mac Minis is simply ridiculous for a handful of reasons. In the mean time, we're looking at hardware from IBM and Oracle and weighing our options.

Just fits in perfectly with the (0)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873276)

Rest of Lion.
Lion so far has been Apples Vista, it is less the bugs, but they downgraded usability to a big degree.

a) Icons which are gray in gray which basically destroy what Finder hat left of usability
b) Autosave which cannot be turned off (causing havoc among people who work things out and sometimes drop the working without saving
c) Replacing the save as with a clone and save functionality for nothing
d) New SMB implementation which is way worse than the old samba based one causing problems among people with NAS
e) Mission control which is half finished and omits function from spaces literally everyone was using
f) half finished launch pad without and search functionality
g) iCal and address book got the user interface design from hell treating

The list goes way further but those are the ones top of my list

Re:Just fits in perfectly with the (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873520)

First, this article is about Lion Server and you seem to be talking about Mac OS X Lion Client, but what the heck...

I've installed Lion on my client machine and I got to say, that I love it. It installed on my system with ease and didn't muck up the way I had my Snow Leopard environment setup. Everything is snappier, seriously. My iTunes used to show the little beach ball anytime I tried to move to another library or click on a new song. Mail, same thing.

Your beef with the icons, it doesn't bother me as much as it apparently bothers you, but I like it. The content seems to stand out more and the "interface" just blends in with the background.

Mission Control, Launchpad, etc... I never used any of those features on Snow Leopard (Spaces, etc) and I'm not really using them on Lion. I could see how new switchers coming from iOS might find it comforting, but as a long time Mac OS X user I just choose not to use them and they are easily avoided.

Now, as for Server... I spent 8 hours and did 3 clean installs trying to get that thing working this weekend, but it's extremely buggy and I was quite disappointed. I finally got it working to find and after I set up my cert, I discovered that it forced every web connection to be "https" on my web server. I couldn't figure out how the heck to set up a normal server and a secure one. I think apple has a lot of work to do on this thing (if they have plans to do so), but as a small business user trying to just set up a development environment, it was not fun. I gave up.

Anyway, Lion Client rocks, Server seems to suck. That's my 2

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36873382)

I always think it s funny how someone classifies a product as "pro" or "consumer" based on the price.

Stop using the GUI... (1)

Roogna (9643) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873480)

Honestly, having used OS X Server for years, I long ago stopped using the GUI tools for anything that it wasn't required for. Simply because it was always happy to blast away any advanced changes that might have been made by hand. Nothing like having to restore backups of httpd.conf simply because Server Admin or System Update decided to just write over the existing one. Hell, I've also had System Update simply write a blank virgin setup over our LDAP setup. So if 10.7 looses half the GUI and in return (I'm hoping anyway, haven't installed the server version yet...) will simply leave files alone that are already configured, I'd consider that a welcome trade.

Another Sad Day For Mac IT (1)

not_hylas( ) (703994) | more than 3 years ago | (#36873538)

This is truly a major disappointment - right on the heels of the discontinued xServe.
I couldn't be more sad for the direction and the position Jobs & Co. has put Mac IT in. It's like a nightmare. Here we had the best stuff, server and Server OS-wise and they wreck it all within the span of a year.
I'm starting to get pissed off, and I'm a long time FANBOY. I fucking love the Macintosh. There's nowhere to run.
What the hell are they thinking?
They deserve whatever comes their way now, they've demoted us to what used to be vicious lies about what the Mac was.
This is a nightmare, God, wake me up.
Bloody-Hell.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?