Apple Will Demo Mac OS X Server At WWDC

epec254 writes "According to MacCentral the next new version of Mac OS X Server, based on Panther, will be previewed at the WWDC session 'Apple Solutions in Enterprise.' Maybe they will get file permissions right this time."

Comments

Re:...from the oxymoron dept.

[chrispy666]

I tend to disagree.
OSX server has its place on the market. Some people simply don't want to hire a whole IT dept. just to get a mail server or filesharing. In this case, since the server will be operated by non-unix-gurus, it has too look friendly to administer too. there you have it, OSX server.

Plus, those blinking lights are simply coooooooool.

Re:Aqua Lite?

[SandSpider]

You don't even need to run it headless, just don't do anything in the GUI. I have a dual-processor XServe that runs with no blue lights unless someone's accessing something, and a couple blue lights on one processor if they are. That's logged in, with the monitor on, and top running continuously in a terminal window. I'll be adding various services to it that'll increase the processor load, and yeah, running, for example, a matrix-style screen saver will eat up a decent amount of the processing power, but windows just sitting there and not being moved about use no processing power.

Now, using it as a server and a workstation at the same time might use some of the spare cycles doing pretty graphics, but if you're going to do that, you deserve what you get.

Now to add extra processes until I can get the server nice and properly loaded.

Re:...from the oxymoron dept.

[Llywelyn]

A couple of years ago I was hired to put together an LDAP server for a major university. It had to hold student records, give them the option to change them, and do a few other nice things along these lines.

We used RedHat Linux in a Penguin Computing Rackmount, it is ashame one of these things was not available then.

It didn't need to have a 1337 processor(s), it needed to never crash and have protection and backups in case it did. It didn't need a fast hard drive, it did need to be easy to configure and nearly brainless to maintain or use.

This would have been perfect for that task.

It must be more complicated than this

[PDubNYC]

I may not be the smartest man, but to make a statement along the lines of "Apple didn't understand the concept of permissions" seems a tad simplified, arrogant, and wrong. I have to believe that they had a very good grasp of what they were doing, but perhaps ran into problems in the implementation. Not trying to be a dick, but I think you have to believe that the engineers working on OS X understand the concept of permissions, even if they ran into a problem with them. I am sure they are under tremendous pressure to get things out the door. That said, the problem you mentioned was a huge one, and I look forward to the continued improvement of OS X, client and server, even as I pray for a new hardware architecture based on the "G5" or whatever.

Re:It must be more complicated than this

[Anonymous Coward]

This has got to be a failed troll. No-one in their right mind would respond so defensively about a simple engineering hiccough as if Apple were a dear sick relative.

Remember, corporations are there to make money, if they fuck up it just means their managers won't be able to buy a fourth seafront property that quarter. Demand only the best from them, and for goodness sake don't ever stick up for them as if they cared one iota for you.

Re:...from the oxymoron dept.

[Hard_Code]

"the server will be operated by non-unix-gurus"

Follow that to its conclusion: if it does the same job (with the same reliability, security, features, etc.), and does not need to be operated by unix gurus, does it even matter if it is Unix? No. Unix is great mostly because of the years and years of solid implementation (much of which is due to "openness", e.g. open source), I don't think it has much to do with design (as you can witness by modern features having to be bolted on).