Slashdot Mirror
Would You Buy A Mac OS X Server?
waterbug asks: "Slashdot has had recent stories on NeXT, integrating Unix with the Mac OS, OS X and X11, old Macs as terminals, and PPC distros of Linux. While all these stories have elicited scattered comments on the topic, I haven't really seen a good, focused discussion of whether Apple would be a viable manufacturer of OS X-based servers." Do you think Apple will be able to pull this off? I guess only time will tell, but it would be interesting to hear what you think about this right now.
"Imagine the following:
- A real server box with 2 or 4 G4's and easy access to all the hardware
- Mac OS X with full SMP support and all your favorite tools
- All the cool NeXT/OpenStep stuff that comes with OS X
- Redundant power supplies
- Hot-swappable SCSI RAID
- Industrial design that kicked ass, so that you'd want it out in the open instead of hiding on a rack or under a workbench
I'd buy any Mac if I could afford it. Macs in the UK still cost sh!tloads.
Then again, I'd buy a new PC box to replace my antique 486 if I could afford it...
Oh well.
-- Cisk for the Cisk God
Since OS X has a Unix basis, porting applications should be easy (that is, the non-graphical ones). Unfortunately, the money and following will be with the GUI apps.
It all comes down to getting developers and making sure developers to not have barriers when writing their app. MS has done a good job in courting developers. They do a whole lot for developers because they know, the more programs which are written for Windows means the more likely someone will buy a Windows based PC.
MacOS X server certainly has it's work cut out if it's going to succeed. It has two main problems. First is lack of applications. It's in a similar position that of Linux a few years ago. I expect Jobs to push Ellison quite hard to get an Oracle port. Without that, big businesses just aren't going to take it seriously for heavy duty server use. Being BSD based, we can assume ports of Apache and Samba will appear shortly (if they haven't already), but without a heavy duty database (and in the minds of most decision makers, that means Oracle, rightly or wrongly), it'll remain as a niche file/print/web server. Secondly, it has to show significant advantages over the competition, and thanks to Linux, the competition is in pretty good shape at the moment. I doubt OS X will win on performance, and it can't win on cost, so it has to rely on other areas if it's to succeed. The only way I can see it doing well is if it comes with some stunning easy to use remote management software. Getting the UI right has long been one of Apple's strong points, so perhaps it has a chance after all, but it's going to be a long hard struggle...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
The trouble with Apple is that they don't seem to grasp the concept of Customer. The customer (or loyal user in this case) is going to freak when they see UNIX for the first time. IMHO, they care trying to capture a market where there shouldn't necessarily be.
Linux (PPC) should be able to overcome MacOS X by leaps and bounds _just_ because LinuxPPC has more freedom for innovation. The key is education, (soft) marketing, dedication on the Admin part, and a little courage to introduce a Linux solution to the Apple platform.
I say this because I have both MacOS X Server and Linux PPC installed. Linux performs better and though less intuitive, offers much greater flexibility to date.
I guess I'm really soapboxing Linux, but from an experienced admin standpoint, I have to go with Linux.
Now with that, I will challenge the LinuxPPC community to develope a more friendly UI to atalk administration. SAMBA has WASP (I think) an most all of MacOS X Server is admin through the Web.
Curious point... unless they have changed the MacOS X chooser connection, I didn't see the MacOS X Server's AppleTalk name as a chooser item. You had to enter the IP AND have AppleshareIP Client !! A drawback for older systems running >7.6.1 .
Hrmmmmmm.
-Wes Yates
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
>A real server box with 2 or 4 G4's and easy access to all the hardware
my desktop has two cpus. servers need to scale. a 16 CPU machine out of apple MIGHT compete with my 10 CPU E4500 server.did i mention my 10 CPU machine has 64 bit CPUs, fibre channel and 20GB of RAM ? and connects to a hardware RAID array ? is apple 64 bit yet (essentialk for files over 2GB on the filesystem) ? does it support VxFS or equivalent log filesystems ? does it connect via fibre to a RAID array ? does it have 64 bit PCI slots ?
> Mac OS X with full SMP support and all your favorite tools All the cool >NeXT/OpenStep stuff that comes with OS X
a server needs no display postscript thing for a desktop. why should i waste CPU on displaying graphics ? what do i care for tools/GUIs etc as applications like webservers etc which are going to run without an interface anyway as a daemon.
>Redundant power supplies Hot-swappable SCSI RAID Industrial design that kicked ass, so that you'd want it out in the open instead of hiding on a rack or under a workbench
what use is that for a server ? its supposed to be dumped in a corner and forgotten about. redundant stuff/hot swap raid etc is already standard on all the machines i have including my desktop..you mean apple doesnt have that yet ?
methinks you need a desktop and stop trying to wedge a desktop system into server space.
Personally, there are numerous reasons I wouldn't buy a Mac for desktop OR server use:
/.
Performance:
The macs have great performance in a few key areas... I've never seen a better system for video editing. Other than that, I'm sorely disappointed with what they have to offer.
Customization:
The G3 line was a great leap in the right direction; pull a tab, and down swings the motherboard. Aside from these new systems (and even somewhat including,) there's just not enough room to get the parts you really want. Sure, there are a few obscure clones, but they're VERY obscure. Last one I heard of was a company in Germany 4 years ago. Building a PC, you can get every part from a range of vendors, and make something just right from scratch.
Price:
Ye gods! Apple must have a great towering ego to charge THAT much! Maybe it would be better if there were more choices for parts; more competition. For the price of a top-of-the-line Apple desktop, I could build 2 PCs that outperform it ridiculously.
Marketing:
This is a big point for me, and even if I liked the hardware/software, I'd avoid them for this.
It seems that their marketing plan is:
-Mudslinging
From their very first commercial "See why 1984 won't be like '1984.'" all the way through "we apologise for toasting the Pentium in public." and up to the current ads. They're like a newsgroup troll that's latched onto someone and won't let go... like the JonKatz bashers on
-Vague unprovable statements
"Connects to a Microsoft network better than a Windows machine"
"Why do I like Macintosh over Windows? You can put sideburns and a beer gut on a 50 year old guy, but that don't make Elvis." (huh?!)
Also, does anyone have the current official specs on what makes a supercomputer? I'm fairly sure they've raised the bar, but I have no proof.
-Boldfaced lies
When they were claiming the iBook was toasting current Pentium systems on benchmarks, they neglected to say that the test they ran was written in C, and easily affected by compiler optimization, that it beat Pentiums in ONE category, and that other more standardized benchmarks made the iBook beg for mercy. "oops."
-Stats
(Good, useful advertising. Also hard to find. I have no complaint with these, I just wish they'd use them more.)
(If Mac users are going to flame me for this, do the research first. Prove that I'm wrong. I'm writing this from memory so I may have made some mistakes, but "PeeCees suk, d00d!" isn't exactly going to change my mind on anything.)
Mac OS X brings all the reliability and customizability of UNIX together with the usability of a MacOS.
There is a huge market for servers that "normal people" can configure. Right now only Windows NT Server fills the need. MacOS X is definitely better, in every way other than application availability, than the MS offering. That is the real market.
It will not replace serious Sun machines, at least not for a while. But for small deparmental servers and company LAN's this is a serious contender.
Don't post innacurate information
If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
What can you get from an Apple server platform that you can't get elsewhere? Yeah, it'd be cool, but aside from that, what concrete things do you gain? Does cool hardware that no one outside the server room can see really mean better performance?
:-)
I mean, if all I wanted was file sharing, then anything would work. If there's some sort of remote administration, or client-adminstration you gain from the server, like Tivoli/SMS, that'd be a neat add-on. But I'll bet you can buy 2-3 boxes for the price of one Apple server.
My only hesitation is supporting a monopoly, be it Microsoft or Apple. Apple killed off all of their hardware competition, which was a shame, as I think some of their "competitors" were actually making better "Mac" hardware than Apple was (and at a lower price).
But why do you want your server out in the open? People will play with it, unplug it, bump it, spill drinks on it (like the $300 DEC Alpha keyboard I toasted once), and have to listen to the @#!! RAID drives whining and spinning. Get that thing into another climate-controlled room with fire suppression, hidden wiring, and locked doors. If you want to play on the console, then you need one as a workstation, not a server.
Based on the bitching and moaning (and relatively reasonable bitching and moaning) on the MacOS X mailing lists about the fact that Apple isn't selling MacOS X Server or their server systems right now, I'd say yes.
And for those idiots who are claiming MacOS X will not have sufficient applications, I give you
And, for the record, if I got purchasing power in a small- or medium-sized network with UNIX servers after MacOS X is officially out, I'd certainly consider MacOS X as an option. Especially if NetInfo gets encryption like I've been hearing it would.
--Matthew
Mac OS X Server is an existing operating system (about two years old), and would be significantly different than a server running the soon to be released OS X.
Where MacOS X might have a niche as a server is for an organisation that is too small to have a UNIX Admin - I suspect that it's going to have a hugely better learning curve than UNIX, and be easier to do simple administration.
I suspect that if you've got someone who can administrate UNIX well, then you'd be better going with a UNIX or Linux solution. MacOS X (which I assume this discussion is actually about, rather than MacOS X Server which has been around for a while) looks like it's going to be a great desktop and workstation environment, but doesn't AFAIK (I am not a server expert) offer much extra particularly aimed for serving (Web Objects is one such thing?).
> My only hesitation is supporting a monopoly, be it Microsoft or Apple. Apple killed off all of their hardware competition, which was a shame, as I think some of their "competitors" were actually making better "Mac" hardware than Apple was (and at a lower price).
Yes they did (in some ways, although I don't think the quality of many of the clones was as good). That was one of the reasons that Apple (arguably) needed to kill them. The argument as I understand it was that the clonemakers were taking the fruits of Apples R&D (motherboard designs, etc), putting faster CPUs in them (which they could do because they were working with smaller volumes, and were nimbler than Apple anyway), then undercutting Apple. This wasn't particularly sustainable - Apple doing a lot of the work, and others taking the profits.
If OS X Server is what you are talking about and this is just another UNIX type OS without the GUI, then maybe. Lets see the benchmarks. Fact is that Solaris is probably the best thing for a web server around these days. FreeBSD on intel or Linux also works. So why not another BSDish UNIX like OS X.
I think it is great that they are putting UNIX with Macish interface. It will make a stable and easy to use desktop workstation. Here is the thing about Mac. Tehy are and never were ery big on the networking world and it will take them time to catch up. ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
I know this site is slow, but the server has a translucent case.