×

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!

Apple Removes MySQL From Lion Server

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the well-isn't-that-interesting dept.

Databases 303

sfcrazy also noticed that Apple has officially removed MySQL from Lion Server, opting instead to include PostgreSQL, albeit in command line only form. The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property, and Apple is concerned about IP issues following all the legal issues surrounding Java.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

303 comments

Much better anyway (4, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971152)

I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin.. and I imagine Apple's frontend probably made it even more so. Postgres isn’t as bad as oracle (by a long shot) but it certainly requires a little background reading to use. MySQL you can pretty much throw on a box and start using right away. This made it insanely newbie friendly (and cheap webhost admin friendly) and is probably the reason it became so prevalent.

For the record I’m no fan of Apple and I think using apple as a server is insane but I actually agree with Apple on this one.

Re:Much better anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971220)

This change is probably a good thing even for those of us who don't use Apple servers.

Someone who can't be bothered to do 'a little background reading' before having a go at setting up their own server, probably doesn't know enough to avoid pointing it at the internet outside their firewall it they have one. So maybe now they will buy a Postgres for Dummies book and the first chapter will be about securing the box.

Re:Much better anyway (2)

suso (153703) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971230)

I agree. Been using PostgreSQL since 2004 and only occasionally use MySQL. I could see the writing on the wall when the mysql.com site kept moving the link for their documentation around, making it harder to find. My gripe about PostgreSQL is the same, its harder to admin, especially in a shared hosting environment.

Re:Much better anyway (3, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971362)

I keep hearing that Postgres is hard to admin. Yet Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords, it uses sockets by default so I don't have to worry about networking (unless the SQL server is remote), it provides sane semantics without having to worry about table types...

I like SHOW CREATE TABLE from MySQL and the \-commands could use some aliases, but other than that Postgres is rather nice to admin and use.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971466)

I wouldn't say hard (oracle is hard!) .. just harder.

I agree once you get it up and running (and in my case, write a few wrapper scripts) .. postgres is not any more difficult than MySQL. And it's nicer to use for sure (I like being able to rely on transactions).

It's more that there is that initial learning curve which drives newbies away.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971486)

Add in pgAdmin [pgadmin.org] and Postgres is a snap to administer. It's just the initial security setup that takes some work and that's because it tries to be safe by default.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971612)

I hear this (that PostgreSQL is hard to admin) all the time, and most of the time it's from users who are used to do it in a different (potentially perverse) way. For example I've always struggled with user management in MySQL, I've always found it a bit crappy, enigmatic and error-pronee, but they're used to it. But PostgreSQL is administered in a different way, so it's obviously bad.

I'm not saying it's 100% perfect, but I find it quite sensible.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971724)

Yet Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords

You can also Kerberos Postgres, but not mysql... That will eventually be the death of mysql on my systems. "when I get around to it" I'm going to kerberized postgres.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972018)

So if your setup is using the build in logins and not using remote connects, then yes, pgsql is damned easy to set up.

But for those of us who wants to use usernames/passwords and groups to handle login it's a tad annoying to set up. (To be fair, it's by no means impossible, just annoying - it has some quirks that you need to man your way around).

Re:Much better anyway (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971800)

I've been using PostgreSQL since about 2001, on and off, including administrating a network with a small server that gave about 100 people web hosting with a PostreSQL database. I never understood the 'harder to admin' thing. For each user, you need to run createuser. You then need to run createdb for each db. I'm not sure how much simpler it could be.

Re:Much better anyway (-1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971256)

I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin.. and I imagine Apple's frontend probably made it even more so. Postgres isn’t as bad as oracle (by a long shot) but it certainly requires a little background reading to use

Don't keep us in suspense... I've not used postgres, always mysql, mostly for tradition more than anything else, but I'm told the main difference between installation of postgres vs mysql is

apt-get install postgresql

instead of

apt-get install mysql-server

OK to be fair the real fun is the libraries and drivers.

It may be that installing from source is hideous, but irrelevant?

A PostgreSQL farm (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971346)

I'm told the main difference between installation of postgres vs mysql is [which package to install]

Is this for one user and one database on a box, or potentially hundreds of databases, one for each hosting customer?

Re:Much better anyway (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971368)

Installation is nothing as you said...

Main different is in managing users/databases/tables.

MySQL uses a dead simple system. You have a username and password possibly linked to a hostname.. and it has some global permissions and some database specific permissions.

Postgres has a much more robust (and as a result considerably more complicated) security setup.Authentication can happen through one or many different means.. most of which require a little configuration and more importantly you need to know they exist/how they work! This also complicates connecting to the database.

Additionally where MySQL has an ultra friendly console app with built in help for creating users and databases.. postgres has a series of scripts. The default way ot creating a new table is to copy one from a provided template (called template1). Again, this is all stuff you need to learn before doing. Someone can run the mysql command, run help, see "CREATE DATABASE" and kinda go from there. To use postgres you need to know that this template exists, how to use it, and what the hell you are actually doing... and then you need to figure out how to control who has acess to it.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971560)

Additionally where MySQL has an ultra friendly console app with built in help for creating users and databases.. postgres has a series of scripts. The default way ot creating a new table is to copy one from a provided template (called template1). Again, this is all stuff you need to learn before doing. Someone can run the mysql command, run help, see "CREATE DATABASE" and kinda go from there. To use postgres you need to know that this template exists, how to use it, and what the hell you are actually doing... and then you need to figure out how to control who has acess to it.

I'm fairly sure that there's a PostgreSQL equivalent of phpMyAdmin or such. All you need is a single user that has full access to the whole shebang (which you need to create new databases/set up their access from CLI anyway), and if you're paranoid about security, do what I do: put it in a non-web accessible directory that has to be enabled by creating a symlink when you actually want it, use .htaccess to restrict access to a single user when it even exists in the web-accessible part of the server, and nuke the symlink when you're done using it. Or if you don't want to go through all of that hassle, still use .htaccess, and set up a namevirtualhost in Apache to respond to an FQDN that doesn't actually exist (on a TLD that doesn't exist at all, like sqladmin.yournamehere) and set up a hosts file to resolve that to your server's IP.

When the tools exist to do it through an easy interface, there's really no point in trying to do it through CLI unless you're trying to prove how leet you are.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971702)

pgMyAdmin (the equivilant you speak of) is actually difficult to set up, due to the way postgres does user auth. phpMyAdmin you just drop in a directory and it works, pgMyAdmin requires a fair bit of configuration.

Additionally pgMyAdmin isn't nearly as straight forward for the same reason the command line utilities arn't. Postgres doesn't have a "just give me a damn database" option .. you have to know what you want, which pretty much requires reading the same documentation, and _then_ learning how to do what you just read through a different interface.

Re:Much better anyway (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971802)

pgAdmin3 [pgadmin.org] is the way to go, it works really well and pretty much has a "just give me a damn database" button.

I started with PostgreSQL and had to use MySQL for some projects later. I find MySQL and its tools to be cumbersome, but that's likely just due to my familiarity with PostgreSQL.

Re:Much better anyway (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971884)

Postgres doesn't have a "just give me a damn database" option

$ createdb myDBName

Now I have a new db. Was that really hard? Well, it only works because I am a valid PostgreSQL user. For completeness, I'd also need to do something like:

$ sudo -u postgresql createuser theraven

Actually, the sudo part of this is not required if I am a user that is allowed to create users, but assuming a fresh PostgreSQL install from a standard package.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971814)

Why do you think the PostgreSQL user management is complicated to setup? Unless needed, it can be just as simple as MySQL, just put the "host" lines to pg_hba.conf.

And have you seen pgadmin (http://pgadmin.org)? That's a very nice console app. And just like there's phpMyAdmin, there's a phpPgAdmin with about the same functionality. So you don't have to use the scripts at all.

And the stuff about template databases is complete rubbish. PostgreSQL had "CREATE DATABASE" command just like MySQL and other databases (and CREATE USER, CREATE SCHEMA, ...). There's no need to mess with the template databases directly, you don't even need to know about their existence.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971946)

Postgres has a much more robust (and as a result considerably more complicated) security setup.Authentication can happen through one or many different means.. most of which require a little configuration and more importantly you need to know they exist/how they work! This also complicates connecting to the database.

For me that's a feature not a bug. Let face it, mysql has had kerberos as a todo for bout a decade now.. its just never gonna happen, and mysql is the only thing I have left that doesn't use kerberos...

One agony is mythtv absolutely does not and will never support postgres, according to the flames I've read from the developers, so I must keep a vestigal legacy install of mysql at home. Everywhere else, work and home, I can flush mysql.

Additionally where MySQL has an ultra friendly console app with built in help for creating users and databases.. postgres has a series of scripts. The default way ot creating a new table is to copy one from a provided template (called template1). Again, this is all stuff you need to learn before doing. Someone can run the mysql command, run help, see "CREATE DATABASE" and kinda go from there. To use postgres you need to know that this template exists, how to use it, and what the hell you are actually doing... and then you need to figure out how to control who has acess to it.

OK now I'm getting confused. Most of my apps do the rails thing or the Perl DBI/DBD thing, so I'm getting conflicting responses both here and in google searches WRT to ye olde fashioned "rake db:create:all". either that works transparently with postgres just like mysql, or using postgres means I have to go back to something like JCL card decks on my old MVS DB2 box. Or occasionally both, depending on bugs and failure modes.

I am absolutely not able to use a web or graphical interface... I don't want to make over 5000 non automatable non documentable mouse clicks that can never be stored in a VCS and can never be reviewed nor backed up nor deployed to new servers at a keystroke. That's a complete non-starter, both at work and home. Admining the DB with a mouse is right up there with submitting my data on punchcards... no thanks.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972056)

I've used PostgreSQL for years and never used templates the way you described. To create a database I've always used:

        CREATE DATABASE mydatabase;

or the createdb command-line utility. Similarly, creating tables:

        CREATE TABLE example ( myfield CHAR(16) NOT NULL );

The only things that are tricky by comparison are related to user authentication and authorization. At the server, level, there's host-based authentication rules and mechanisms that don't exist in MySQL, and in the database you have the concepts of groups and roles that don't exist in MySQL.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

slartibartfastatp (613727) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971394)

for me, I never found a tool like mysql query browser for postgresql. I'd rather use a db with some kind of UI tool to deal with than use it directly on console all the time. and that's why I go with mysql.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971470)

Replacing MySQL query browser is not the problem, you can use DBVisualizer (http://www.dbvis.com/). It's not great but it gets the job done. The issue is the admin side, near as I can tell there is no UI for admin at all. Now, setting up a database and a couple users isn't a problem CLI, but when you have a large database, dozens or hundreds of users and lots of different permissions, it becomes a nightmare to keep track of what's currently in place.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

e70838 (976799) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971968)

When you have serious work with many users, ..., you should NOT use a GUI. You should have procedures and/or scripts. You must keep a log of all your administrative actions and be able to automate actions in order to improve processes. With good administration practices, the workload of the administrator does not increase much with the number of users or servers. Having a good GUI is only good for casual users.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971500)

There actually is a postgres equivilant of phpMyAdmin (or atleast, there was...). I seem to remember it being "ok" .. if you are into that sorta thing ;p

Re:Much better anyway (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971366)

For the record I’m no fan of Apple and I think using apple as a server is insane but I actually agree with Apple on this one.

I think there are many that have been using mac minis as SOHO servers for businesses and that's why Apple offers a server version of that hardware. I do know that some colocation companies have used them because their small form factor made it possible to pack them densely.

Re:Much better anyway (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971690)

This is on the borderline with respect to counting as the daily Steve Jobs bowel movement post of the day.

Both the original article and your Jobbo suck-up ("dead simple to use and admin.. and I imagine Apple's frontend probably made it even more so" - really, did it generate relevant indexes automatically or something?).

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971812)

I hate apple mainly due to the way they do business and their "we control all" approach and rampant fanboy-ism. I can however admit they do user friendly software quite well.

For a newbie learning how database work, they don't (initially) care about relevant indexes .. they just want a database they can start creating tables in and running queries on. I've not seen the GUI frontend for MySQL .. but if it has a "create user" and "create database" button.. it succeeds in making MySQL even simpler.

Re:Much better anyway (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971752)

Apple Servers are just for the Ultimate Fanboi's or for the small Mac Only shop.
They really don't offer much of a real advantage. You can get a standard server with Linux and it probably will run much better.

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972036)

Apple Servers are just for the Ultimate Fanboi's or for the small Mac Only shop.

You couldn't pass up the opportunity to use "Apple" and "Fanboi" in a comment, could you?

They really don't offer much of a real advantage. You can get a standard server with Linux and it probably will run much better.

How is this relevant to the topic of Apple choosing PostgreSQL over MySQL? Qualifying your analysis with the word "probably" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.

Re:Much better anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971774)

I just wish it was a little more user friendly

That's putting it mildly, i hate apps that "decide" for me that it's bad practice to start em as root.

Re:Much better anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971788)

Agreed. After all, who wants to actually know something about their RDBMS before they start playing DBA? God forbid!

Re:Much better anyway (1)

Cutting_Crew (708624) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971846)

postgres also supports geospatial operations, in case you happen to be in that sort of work and don't want to pay silly license fees to people like ESRI.

I'm not a fan of Apple but... (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971204)

Good choice.

Re:I'm not a fan of Apple but... (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971300)

No doubt. Anything with the Oracle logo I tend to want to back away from. That said, I like Virtualbox and I will be sad when Oracle finally pulls some stunt where I will have to quit using it and return to pirating VMWare Workstation -- I really don't like VMWare Workstation any longer -- just not as easy to use as VBox. (There was a time when VMWS was easier than VBox, but VBox matured greatly with Sun at the helm... fortunately, there is an OSE but it doesn't have the USB support as far as I know... or is it USB 2.0 support... whatever the case, it's still free and I will use it until it's not... and pray that the features of VBox OSE catch up with the main product.)

But backing away from Oracle in a highly public and visible way speaks volumes to the rest of the business community and should serve to make people think a little more about their views on Oracle product usage as not only is it insanely expensive, it is also a bit toxic.

Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971348)

Is it though? Why would you buy an Apple server for open source software that you could install yourself?

Re:Buy Apple Server Get Open Source Software (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971568)

Makes sense for home or small business use especially for all-Apple shops. Apple's big on using open source where it makes sense (and where the license is compatible), it permeates OSX.

I am a fan of postgresql but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972030)

... i wonder if the switch could have been done in a more gradual way. I use debian so I guess I had this kind of problems covered :D

Samba has also been removed from server (1)

klubar (591384) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971234)

SAMBA (Windows file sharing) in no longer included with OS X Server. This is a mixed blessing, as the version of SAMBA that Apple included was very old--and had a number of bugs and vulnerabilities, but it did make it eash to use the Mac as an sever in a PC environment. Although, I never used the frontend others report that Apple put a slick GUI on SAMBA to make it easier to use.

Instead of supporting SAMBA, Apple is going there own way with a competitive solution. I don't know what license Apple is using for their version of Windows file sharing, nor how compatible (or supported it is).

Last time I looked, there are no pre-built SAMBA downloads for the Mac. Perhaps someone will chime in if this is because no one wants one or it is hard to do.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (4, Informative)

Henriok (6762) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971292)

Apple stopped using SAMBA after SAMBA moved to GPL3 and Apple don't want to use such a license.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971354)

Last time I looked, there are no pre-built SAMBA downloads for the Mac. Perhaps someone will chime in if this is because no one wants one or it is hard to do.

Using the internets? You fail it. [finkproject.org]

P.S. I haven't even touched OSX in years...

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (1)

klubar (591384) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971492)

Sorry, I should have said recent and pre-built. The versions you referenced are older versions of SAMBA and not binaries.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971508)

They build themselves, though, so the objection that they are not binaries is fairly irrelevant. The oldness, of course, is an issue.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (4, Informative)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971740)

It's not prebuilt but Macports [macports.org] has ports for samba 3.2.15 and samba 4.0.0tp5. Installing from Macports isn't difficult for anyone with a modicum of unix savvy.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (5, Insightful)

pieterh (196118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971410)

Yes, the reason here seems to be GPL-related, and nothing to do with Oracle and Java. Postgresql uses an MIT/X11 style license. MySQL is GPL. This is a trend at Apple.

The reason, ironically, is probably the GPLv3's anti-patent clauses. My hypothesis is that Apple's lawyers have picked up on this and it's now company policy to avoid GPLv3 software in their stack, at any cost.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971576)

GPL3 is in response to companies that found a way to make money and secure a market using GPL2 technology. I would have been happier if GPL3 stated that if you put your patented code in a GPL program you are agreeing to allow you patent free and unencumbered use in all GNU/GNU Compatible code.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (0, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972046)

GPL3 is a horrible license and the fact that the hippie communists don't want people making money on GPL software, even when they comply with GPL2 licensing. The whole TIVO clause is nothing more than "I don't like what you're doing with my software I said was free, so I'm making it less free, and calling it more free".

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971776)

There's also a big security push in Lion with encryption, sandboxing, etc. Since there seems to a consensus that Postgresql is more secure that might also be part of it.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (1)

fuzzytv (2108482) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972026)

MySQL is not just GPL - there are two licenses, MySQL and GPL, and they can drop GPL whenever they want. Although that could cause more trouble with the EU, because they've done some promises regarding the free version.

Anyway the promises were quite unclear so there were rumors the free version won't get the fixes as often as the commercial version, some of the features will be missing etc. And AFAIK there are parts that are not GPL-licensed at all, so the sources are not available (most notably unit tests, which makes forking much more difficult), but I may be wrong.

Re:Samba has also been removed from server (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971564)

You can get pre-built binaries of virtually every OSS server software for MacOS, and certainly for every remotely popular OSS server software. Fink [finkproject.org] is good, and I like it because I've used it a lot over the years. MacPorts [macports.org] seems to be more popular these days though. Since OSX is essentially just a POSIX compliant Unix variant with a fancy GUI, ports are extremely trivial to make. I will warn you that X-windows based software from these sources are a bit flaky sometimes, mostly becasue Apple's X overlay for Cocoa is a piece of crap; but the command line and server tools are dead solid.

Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (2)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971244)

Why pay Mac premiums for a server? Macs are great for carrying around (my preference) but I'm not sure why I'd put one in a rack.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971302)

Why pay Mac premiums for a server? Macs are great for carrying around (my preference) but I'm not sure why I'd put one in a rack.

The capex is pocket change compared to the labor expense, unless you're doing something absolutely huge or crazy. The "mac premium" is somewhere between one days salary for me, and one days consulting fee. Its to the point where "how quickly you can unpack the shipping box" is a major portion of the labor expense differential between apple vs PC.

I assume the local apple store provides fantastic support to server buyers just as they do for everyone else; for a small business owner this is vital.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971444)

Didnt apple stop selling the x-serve though? The only option for a (new) server running OS-X would be either minis or mac-pro's (only an idiot would be something with an expensive integrated screen for a server), both of which are consumer hardware and miss features which are pretty much a must once you get into serious server stuff.

a mini/mac pro as a fileserver for a small business might not be bonkers, but beyond SOHO use, why would anyone bother with a mac server?

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

stickystyle (799509) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971586)

a mini/mac pro as a fileserver for a small business might not be bonkers, but beyond SOHO use, why would anyone bother with a mac server?

SOHO / SMB is their target now. A mac mini with RAID-1 drives is more than sufficient, and many times more capable than what I see a lot of small business using.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971908)

Yes. RAID drives in a box that isn't really meant to be serviced by the end user.

That's exactly what a small business needs.

That's about the dumbest approach you could take. There are much better ways of going about this even if you choose to fixate on Apple products.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971606)

I think Apple stop making the XServe for practicality. Businesses that wanted rack-mounted hardware were getting them from Dell, HP, and IBM. Businesses that needed SOHO servers would be fine with a MacPro or Mac mini. So rather than continue to make a product few wanted, they tweaked it to where they could have far more sales.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971984)

The XServe never had a business case, it existed just because Steve wanted Pixar to be an Apple-only company. Now that Pixar is owned by Disney, this is less of an issue. It was just a marketing tool so that people couldn't say that even Steve Jobs has to use non-Mac systems.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971632)

Minis can be densely packed in a rack, making them pretty popular for some types of HPC applications and such. A few years ago, when I still had my hands a bit deeper into the HPC and simulation areas of computation I was also starting to see people use them for video clusters. I've been out of that game for a few years though (2008 was my last Supercomputing), so I dunno how any of that worked out or if it's still common.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971876)

Exactly. Apple's looking at serving the small-business and home server market, not the enterprise. They aren't pretending otherwise. Of course you aren't going to put a bunch of Apple-branded servers in your data-center as the center of your multi-national enterprise. You may, however, put one on the shelf in your real-estate office, or a closet at your catering business.

It's the 21st century. There's school-kids putting up servers for their scout troops, and servers in flower-shops, and print-shops. That's the sort of thing Apple's going for. The majority of the people that could use a server don't need enterprise-scale and cannot accommodate racks and data-rooms.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

Cronock (1709244) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971964)

a mini/mac pro as a fileserver for a small business might not be bonkers, but beyond SOHO use, why would anyone bother with a mac server? OTA iOS device management? Golden-triangle support for mac management in an enterprise? Wiki Server? But you do realize your saying "but beyond it's primary purpose, why would anyone want it?". SOHO is currently their target market for the mini server. It really makes for an awesome server for somebody like me who's self employed and using it for web, email/webmail, calendar, address book, VPN hosting. Setting all this up requires little knowledge of anything underneath the GUI, but a knowledge of DNS is fairly helpful. And most sysadmins, whether they like macs or not, could have one up and running most all services in less than pizza delivery time. IT consultants are expensive, so getting something a child could manage has serious financial rewards for a tiny business.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971666)

I assume the local apple store provides fantastic support to server buyers just as they do for everyone else; for a small business owner this is vital.

You don't want consumer grade support for a server. When your server fails, you don't want to wait a week or two to get it repaired and shipped back. For a business, " a week or two" is a lot of money.
I assume Apple has a better support for their server than what they do for everyone else but I could not tell. I have never used any Apple server, don't know anybody using them or having used them and I never even heard about them. I thought they didn't exist until today. I thought people bought Macs because of the high quality GUI, but you don't want that on a server. The GUI is actually a security risk, sucks your RAM and highen your electricity bill. What is the advantage of OS X over *BSD? Is it about graphical administration tools? Are they any good?

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971870)

Wasting money is still wasting money, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

Trivializing money is a mentality that just doesn't end well.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

seebs (15766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971384)

I've been running OS X Server for a couple of years now. Got a Mini, put Server on it, and the time it's saved me compared to doing my own admin on more conventional systems has totally been worth it. I like it.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (1)

Henriok (6762) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971414)

As a Office with about 100 Macs a Mac server is a good and cheap way of getting many services. One neat feature is Spotlight as we have millions of files across 6 TB of data, that is automatically indexed and reachable within seconds. File Sharing, IM, print, VPN, DNS, Directory Services, NetBoot, NetRestore, Package deployment, Software Update server, Calendaring server, Address book server, iOS device management, roaming profiles, wiki, mail. We use it all, and its only 50 bucks. If you value your time, it's a pretty sweet deal.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971832)

Good to see someone finally explain what makes Mac OS X Server better than a Linux or Windows server in an all Apple house.

Re:Will anyone use Lion 'server'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971868)

For such an unusual configuration, maybe Mac server is just the thing. As an experienced UNIX/Linux admin, I would want nothing to do with Apple for my servers. I do want Apple (or MS) proprietary strong-arming. "Freedom" is not just idealistic, it's practical. MS, and Apple, play all kinds of games to force their other products, and services, on end users. I like my Apple iPods, no way do I want Apple in the data center.

MySQL can still be installed (5, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971248)

To be clear, MySQL can be installed on Lion; it's just no longer installed by default.

Re:MySQL can still be installed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971304)

Why is any RDBMS installed by default?

Re:MySQL can still be installed (2)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971654)

To be more clear, the server version of Lion can still have MySQL installed, but the server package doesn't include it by default.

Re:MySQL can still be installed (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971816)

Why not, as long as it's not started up by default what's the harm ? Disk space isn't exactly at a premium these days.

Not understanding the concern... (1)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971316)

"The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property, and Apple is concerned about IP issues following all the legal issues surrounding Java"

Okay, but isn't MySQL open source? Are they bothered that Oracle might bring forth a patent war against them? Surely Apple need only point out that these things have existed in MySQL for years before Oracle acquired it..?

Also, couldn't Apple simply say they are supply an open source database for free with the server and therefore get away with it? Or doesn't it work that way?

I'm starting to get really bugged by the number of patent wars flaring up right now. It's like watching a load of spoilt children fighting in a playground about who gets to go on the swings first...

Re:Not understanding the concern... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971480)

If it's true I'm thinking Apple is trying to avoid any conflicts with Oracle. Yes, the user can install MySQL after they buy an Apple, but since Apple doesn't install it for them they don't have to deal with any of Oracle's demands on them in terms of licensing, etc.

Re:Not understanding the concern... (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971538)

I'm starting to get really bugged by the number of patent wars flaring up right now. It's like watching a load of spoilt children fighting in a playground about who gets to go on the swings first...

And I'm LOVING it. While the average Slashdot reader is more than familiar with how thoroughly fucked-up the American patent system (and IP law in general) is, the average Joe hasn't a clue as to how our own backwards legal system is helping turn us into a third world country. It's exactly these kinds of range wars that are going to bring it to the general publics attention. Further, when big business, like Google for example ;) start coming out AGAINST our IP laws because they can no longer do business in this ridiculous environment, then they'll start to pay to see some action from our fucktards in Washington.

Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971342)

simply because mysql is frankly shite compared to postgresql and someone noticed?

Re:Or... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971686)

I Prefer postgresql over MySQL myself... However having used both MySQL isn't bad, it is just different... MySQL does have some nice commands that makes doing some rather common actions much easier. But Postgresql has a lot more raw power, and customization. I have worked with people who are Die Hard MySQL Fans and you hear complaining when using Postgresql that it doesn't do this or it doesn't do that, and I need to write a stored function to do this...

A big one that is popular is the Replace INTO command in MySQL where it works as both as an Insert or an Update. You can make fare arguments against it, but there are a lot of cases where the REPLACE INTO feature is really nice. And not having to make your own is useful.

Oracle running on MAC hardware? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971378)

The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property

Can't Oracle fix this problem by offering Oracle on mac hardware?

Re:Oracle running on MAC hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971550)

The article speculates that the change is because MySQL is now Oracle property

Can't Oracle fix this problem by offering Oracle on mac hardware?

You can still install MySQL, it's no longer the default option.

They most likely won't (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971634)

First of all, there are no serious apple servers sold at the moment. Second of all, Oracle is currently stopping support for several of it's competitors hardware platforms. I doubt they will add OSX if they just dumped HP-UX.

Re:Oracle running on MAC hardware? (1)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971684)

You can run Oracle's products on Mac hardware already. That's not the issue.

The article is speculating that Oracle, who bought MySQL, may sue Apple if they start including MySQL as a packaged and preinstalled part of their OS X server distribution. Silly, you say, because there's still an open-source branch of MySQL free to download and distribute. Apple certainly hasn't stated that they are worried about the possibility, it's just speculation in this article. However stupid it may seem, keep in mind that Oracle is suing Google over using Java technology in Android - OpenJDK being open-source and Oracle explicitly receiving an OK to do so from Sun before Oracle bought them, Google is still suing. Perhaps it's not stupid.

That said, PostgreSQL has a lot going for it and it's probably a much better suited default database for the most part. The only thing that PostgreSQL really has against it is that it doesn't have as much mindshare. There's all sorts of GUI front-ends and toolkits that talk to MySQL but fewer that talk to PostgreSQL.

Re:Oracle running on MAC hardware? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971970)

If patents are really the issue then it doesn't matter what RDBMS you choose to install by default.

That is kind of the whole problem with patents in general. They don't just relate to a particular product. They interfere with your ability to use or build a type of product in general.

People seem to be misunderstanding the scope of patents here.

Installation of MySQL server on Mac OS X Lion (5, Informative)

psergiu (67614) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971512)

http://www.djangoapp.com/blog/2011/07/24/installation-of-mysql-server-on-mac-os-x-lion/ [djangoapp.com]

1) Download the latest 64-Bit DMG Archive (Apple Disk Image) from MySQL Site (http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/). Current latest version is 5.5.14 which I’ll be using to install on my machine.
2) Mount the Disk Image (I mean open/double-click the DMG file) and install MySQL server by double-clicking the PKG file (in my case mysql-5.5.14-osx10.6-x86_64.pkg) and follow onscreen instructions. ( It will ask for Master password, as it installs MySQL server in /usr/local )
3) Add /usr/local/mysql/bin to your path by editing .profile file. (Optionally you can create alias to mysql and mysqladmin as mentioned in README File)
4) You can start MySQL server by running “/usr/local/mysql/bin/mysqld_safe &” from terminal but Disk image you downloaded also consists of Startup Package & Preferences Pane which allows you to start/stop MySQL server from System Preferences and even Automatically Start MySQL Server at Startup.

Probably a wise choice (1)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 2 years ago | (#36971672)

Oracle seems intent to milk other companies for "passive" revenue instead of continuing to innovate. They've added "lawsuit trolling" to their business model. Congratulations--your company has completed its transformation from industry-dominating innovator to a complete-joke.

Suprisingly.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36971898)

Im suprised they havent replaced it with iSQL

Tap Tap Tap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972054)

One more nail in the MySql coffin - not dead but Oracle behavior on stuff it "owns" tends to do that

Jobs & Ellison : Best Friends (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972084)

I don't think this is about Oracle. It's more likely security and licensing as some posters have mentioned above. Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison are big buddies and I doubt Apple is worried about lawsuits from Oracle over Oracle's free software product.

What about Maria DB? (1)

bahface (979106) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972090)

http://mariadb.org/ [mariadb.org] - I watched a google tech talk on this. Looks quite good. Might be worth a look for those who would like to remain in familiar territory but not have to worry about Oracle.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...