Slashdot Mirror
Recommend Apple, Lose Your Job?
rocketjam writes "While examining whether outsourcing tech work to India is really cost-effective, Robert X. Cringely takes a look at the old conspiracy theory that IT doesn't recommend Apple solutions because they need less support, thus endangering IT professionals' job security." Cringely argues: "Ideally, the IT department ought to recommend the best computer for the job, but more often than not, they recommend the best computer for the IT department's job."
..somebody in India starves because of lack of tech support calls.
Please. Think of the Indians. Buy PC.
as I mentioned in a response to Bob.
It's an issue of comfort.
Everyone is comfortable with windows, even if they don't like it.
Many admins are comfortable with Linux/Unix. It's what has gotten the job done for years.
I have used lots of different operating systems, CPM/TRSDOS/OS-2/VMS/Unix/Windows but have
NEVER used a Mac, so I'm not comfortable recommending it. I expect it to be very different
from the CLI world I'm used to.
In order for me to get comfortable, I'd have to play with it. If MacOS ran on PC hardware,
I would consider setting up a partition to boot it, but that's not the case. It's expensive
to learn, and I have no incentive.
Robert
--- If it's worth doing, it's worth doing in Perl!
This argument makes the assumption that IT is ever properly staffed in the first place. IT people almost universally want to lessen their workload so it falls more in line with their actual [underfunded] workload capacity!
Used to work as a contractor for a major pizza company that used to be in Kansas. They were an entire Macintosh place, had systems for about 700 - 1000 users I think it was.
Then a large soda company bought them and felt that 'they all needed to be the same' even though the Microsoft Offices the platforms ran worked together.
So, we went from the two of us supporting 700 - 1000 users to 18 people.
And the user populace was not happy. The standard rebuild time of a machine went from 'when they got new ones' to once a week. We had device driver issues, and SLAs of getting machines back up and running in two hours so we ended up just ghosting machines over and over to clear up whatever went wrong.
Weird.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
The XServe, although not an x86 machine, can do everything you just said an x86 Linux box can do. Heck, if it becomes impractical to upgrade and you don't want OS X on it anymore, you can - well - install Linux on the thing.
I'm an applications admin. ClearCase and ClearQuest specifically. I also support a host of other engineering applications. Most of those apps were never and probably will never be ported to the Mac and I'm willing to bet that other engineering shops are in the same boat.
Sure, I figure that Macs might have a place in a business or accounting context but not for engineering. Anyone got a counter-example?
Blaze a trail to the New World
Every IT dept I've ever encountered was overburdened to start with. I can't imagine they would not want a break so they could attend to more important things than Windows crashes. Not only that, but the techs _hate_ dealing with this stuff.
Imagine how much money you could save your organization if you had the time to verify all backups and replace old, failure prone disk drives before they crash.
There is always more to do in IT.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I went absolutely nuts updating machines in my workplace for the MS Blaster worm. Take a look of one of my user's desktop for an example of why.
I have to say: updating these machines is a completely and utter waste of my time and skills but it definatly keeps me employed. My boss is so apathetic that he never wants to make changes. I've offered on several occasions of virus outbreaks in the company to switch everyone to mozilla mail so we'd stop getting those Lookout (Outlook) viruses. But no!
I swear if i ever own my own company, everyone will Linux dummy terminals or iMacs, etc -- something ease to remotely update and maintain.
- tristan
This is totally true. Take a look at small offices that don't have or can't afford an IT department and you'll see they normally use Macs. Why? Because if you have a company with 12 people running Macs you don't need an IT department. Look at Vice Magazine for an example of what I'm talking about. I'm moving into the realm of home business and you know I'll be making the switch. Then again, I'm in graphic arts and all the labs at my school are Mac labs.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
First, I think Cringely is great. I mean who else would let us buy video tape of them having a nervous breakdown?
However, I think he's *WAY* off base here as to why Linux is being adopted faster than Apple. If I need a 64-way Linux machine, I can get it. If I need a cluster I can get it (off the shelf). If I want some funky hardware bit, I can get that as well.
My reason for not choosing Apple is vendor lock-in. If I can keep something that allows me to pick and choose parts from a wide variety of sources, I can build solutions that fit the need.
The one place where he might have a point is on the desktop, but I don't see a lot of Linux migration on the desktop. It's still Windows. People want Office even though they hate it.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
Linux can be used as a file server/firewall/application server/web server/email server/DNS server/database server/all of the above at once without costing you nearly as much as an X-Serve.
:P
You can do all of that with an iMac, if you wish.
Care to give a url of a nice iMac web server to slashdot, and we'll see what OS is superior?
Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
End tutorial. Should all be familiar from there.
Sort of facetious, but, well, not really. Try it. Take a half hour out of your time. If it's not that easy, well, then you now know you're making the right decisions instead of wondering "if".
A Mac is considerably more expensive than a bottom-of-the-line, no-frills PC. (Or, worse, a "kit" PC that you assemble from parts.)
But when you compare apples to apples (heh), you see that Macs are quite price-comparable to mid-range or high-end PC's, feature for feature. On the very high end, Macs are actually significantly cheaper than PC's, apples to apples. Or rather they will be when the G5 starts shipping.
A lot of people make the mistake of looking at the cheapest Mac Apple sells and assuming it's a low-end computer. It's not. Don't make the same mistake of thinking that it is.
The CPU? Don't know yet. The unit is too new to need any upgrades yet.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
- Macs are not that expensive. What you get with a Mac makes up for slightly higher prices. They give you what you need without having to tack on lots of "extras."
- Macs can do everything you need. We use a mixed environment transparently. There is nothing I cannot do with a Mac that I want to do, nor am I prevented from interacting with Windows boxes or Linux boxes. It just works. Transparently.
- Macs don't waste your time. Every security update from Microsoft means the Windows guys are running around updating. The Mac guys just sit there and keep working. The Windows guys keep updating their virus software. The Mac guys just sit there and keep working. And although some people report problems with Apple hardware, and I respect those opinions since any hardware can go wrong, our uptime has been great.
As for the Linux guys, heh, they love Linux and take care of their boxes without any questions or issues coming up. Patch needed? They do it on their own time. Uptime? Forever. Problems? Nil.In short, don't believe those who say that you can't do things with Macs, or it causes problems interacting on the network, or the usual FUD. Although I'm sure there are specific instances where problems might occur on the edges, my real-world experience has shown that the Mac and Linux boxes are the ones that just work in my company. Any problems we have are with the Windows side. I can well believe that you need more IT staff to keep the Windows boxes going. There is very little you need to do to keep the alternatives going, and they interact just fine.
So if you love Window boxes, good for you. But if you hear the FUD about Macs not working well with others, I'm here to tell you that it's just not so.
On top of that, have you ever worked on an XServe? It's a DREAM to deal with!
The thing is incredible, the way that it comes apart, and the ease with which you can change components is sooooo nice.
If I had to deal with upgrading/swapping components as part of my job, I'd LOVE to have a rack of XServes.
Not saying that other boxes aren't as easy/nice, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.
$0.02 (CDN)
Don't kid yourself. Technology choice is rarely, in any organisation, done for purely altruistic 'what's good for the company?' reasons.
Instead, the technology chosen is one of two choices:
1) What people are comfortable with. A lot of people want an easy, safe, predictable decision.
2) Resume fodder. What do the decision-makers want to add to their resumes? What's missing?
Analyse the average IT department's choices and one of those two is almost always the cause. Let's face it, most of us would also be guilty of these; picking what we're used to and what we think would be fun or useful to learn.
Here you go. Give this one a try.
I said iMac, not a convoluted version of Linux running on proprietary hardware.
iMac= small, cute microwave sized pc.. something I would feed an Opteron Cluster for breakfast..
Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
Apple hardware has had horrible design mistakes.. but no Wintel hardware ever has had hardware flaws that ended up biting people in the ass? And don't only look at the price of hardware. The workforce needed to run a Mac network as well as support costs are almost certain to be lower than a Linux network. If you only look at the price of hardware for purchasing decisions, then you are dumb.
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
first, i'd have to play with mac in non-critical settings to be familiar with the platform to form my own opinion and figure out the gotchas. now that's going to cost me around $1500. lotta money for playing around. (vs. $300-$400 for a system that'll run windows or linux etc.)
second, once i did bring up using macs instead of wintel for regular users. my boss scoffed at the idea. lesson here is: it's not up to me.
the reason i was successful with linux is i got the 'throwaway machines' after the office went thru a hardware upgrade. i then proceeded to wipe those machines clean, installed linux and has since been running file servers, print servers etc. so eventually i was able to convince buying hardware specifically for running linux. can't do that with a mac (start out with throw-away machines, that is) i even got a mosix cluster of older computers that they were ready to toss out.
so maybe there's more to the CLI than just pure nerd testosterone. evolutionary adoption? vs. the disruptive adoption that a mac would require.
I used to work for that same company .. but in a restaurant I have a similar story to that myself right down the road from where the company you used to work for is now, there lies a building of unspeakable evil wherein I worked with my current roomate for several years. The two of us did teh entire Mac phone in support for the nation within the first 90 days of sale and the paid support afterwards we had one mac to work off of between us and had to enter our calls in on the PCs. Well there were 2 of us and about 80 PC techs but here is the really interesting thing He and I averages 70-80 calls a day each the other side was lucky to handle 1/3 of that each. Nationally there were about the same number of trouble calls per machine ... but our calls to much less time.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Whatever the conventional wisdom or the Microsoft marketing message, Macs aren't dramatically more expensive to buy and on a Total Cost of Ownership basis they are probably cheaper.
Cool! Where are the numbers to support that? Probably isn't going to cut it.
Then a little later....
I am not claiming that every organization should throw out its PCs and replace them with Macs, but the numbers are pretty clear
You mean, those numbers that you didn't include? How are they clear? Once again, Probably isn't cutting it here.
Macs reduce IT head count while Linux probably increases IT head count, simple as that.
AS PROBABLY SIMPLE AS THAT!!
There's that probably word again! Ok, so it's obvious he's a Mac user. I'd probably take him a lot more seriously if there were a lot less probablies and a lot more proof and information. I'm PROBABLY going to stick with Linux for my IT needs for now.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Know the whole world knows! All of us IT types are really all sitting around in a room filled with exotic dancers, pool tables, video games, and food. We don't really do anything. And it all gets so boring that we go LOOKING for systems to give us more work to do!
In reality, 99% of the IT people that I know would practically sell their left arm to have systems which required less of their time.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Let us be realistic for a moment. How often is one going to do anything to a rackmount other than add ram and perhaps add more/larger drives? Rackmounts are kidna meant to live on the rack until they outlive their usefulness. Besides that, do you really think its a good idea to upgrade the CPU in a 1U rackmount unit? Lets consider. A rackmount unit really has to worry about airflow and cooling, A hotter CPU may cause unreliable performance. And speaking of unreliable. You dont buy a rackmount system to putz around with it. Often they are mission critical units. You wanna upgrade a cpu on a mission critical mail server for fun?
Assuming the OEM even makes a model that has a faster CPU and you can stick in yours, why didnt you buy the faster one anyway? By the time you woudl get around to 'upgrading' your rackmount the net gen technology would have already rolled out the door.
Recommend apple, lose paradise!
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
You ignore two factors that also go into TCO. One, how long can you use each box? Hardware quality aside, at what age would you retire a PC compared to a Mac? Two, for how much can you sell the old box?
I can't answer the first question for you, because that has to do with usage patterns. Many people do claim that a Mac stays usable longer than PCs.
The answer to the second question is clearer, though. Macs are worth a lot of money in the resale market, while PCs aren't. Browsing on eBay, I see a 400 MHz iMac receiving 18 bids at $325 right now. On the PC side, a 1 GHz Pentium III is at $102. Now, I'm not saying these two are equivalent computers. I'm saying you should factor that difference into the TCO.
Two years of labor will cost you about $100,000 (for the sake of argument). For that you can buy 250 CPU upgrades.
People are so much more expensive than hardware that the whole argument about saving money with Linux is ludicrious if you can find another system, such as Macs running OS X, that can do all of the same things as Linux and reduce head count by even one or two people.
The xserve is decidedly NOT enterprise-grade hardware. It uses cheap, desktop-quality IDE hard drives and doesn't come with basic options like redundant power supplies and hot-plug PCI slots. Not to mention the sluggish G4 processors, the same ones as used in desktop machines. And the memory only goes up to 2GB. Excuse me, but that's not an enterprise server. That's a low-end server. Perfect for a small department server or maybe for hosting a small website.
Dell Optiplex GX270: Celeron 2.00GHz, 256MB, 80GB HDD, combo drive, 17" monitor, USB WiFi adapter, v.92 modem, XP Pro: $1,352 after $50 rebate.
Apple eMac: G4 1.00GHz, 256MB, 80GB HDD, DVD-R/CD-RW, 17" flat CRT monitor, Airport Extreme, v.92 modem, OS X 10.2: $1,398.
I guess it depends on your definition of "significantly."
And if you thought the Microsoft OS costs were bad, looks at Apple's. OS X launched in 2001, and, if you were a 10.0 buyer, while 10.1 was a free upgrade, 10.2 wasn't, and 10.3 is coming fast! And from the end user perspective, these have all been largely mandatory upgrades -- many apps now won't work unless you are running 10.2, for example.
Windows ME and Windows 2000 were released very close together, if not at the same time, yet you were expected to pay again to go from one to the other. Every machine sold until the release of 10.2 still could run OS 9, and there are plenty of applications available there.
2) Usability. While there are a lot of things that work smoothly under OS X, there are still some issues, ESPECIALLY with Windows interoperability -- and any company of size is going to have a significant overlap. So you'd have to train IT folks (or hire new ones), and still have some userland issues.
Actually, I've found OS X to be easier to integrate into a Windows network than even Windows 95/98. People at my company who come from OS 9 and Windows alike find it very easy to log on to servers use printers. If your users don't like it, OS X can be scripted onto servers just as easily as any other workstation.
The biggest plus is that you don't have to join a domain to access its resources. I had a Powerbook on a Windows-only network for 6 months. Not only was I able to log on to all of the Windows servers, I could administer them with Microsoft's terminal services client for the Mac, and still work through Outlook. Nobody had any idea that there was a Mac on the network--it was that compatible.
Another serious concern for IT has been how quickly Apple has outdated machines. Didn't we just see today that a number of machines aren't going to have proper functionality? Again, this is on fairly new machinery!
The people in my office who are still working away at their Beige G3's would probably disagree. I seem to remember the jump from the 286 to 386 to 486 caused the same issues (and complaints.) My 2000-vintage Pismo Powerbook was the machine I mentioned above. Not only was it able to be quite productive in a Windows-only environment, it has plenty of speed for what most people need it for.
Concerns have to be that Apple is quickly going to invalidate the G3 and G4 (over the next 24-30 months).
Why's that? I seriously doubt that they would shut out machines that are selling even now so soon. In fact, with the G5 becoming the new "high end" processor, it's likely that the G4 will become the new "low end." I expect eventual phase-out of the G3's because of new Altivec-ready applications released down the road, but those who need those applications will upgrade, and those who don't can continue to work with 10.2, or even OS 9.
Cost I'm willing to bet is more the case than some grand conspiracy by the IT world. Sure they cost less to support, and increase productivity, but when the initial outlay is more than a compatible x86 box, the people in charge of budgets start screaming. No one thinks about the saved cost in the future, it's all about now.
IE: Should I spend $3k (CND) to buy a swanky new apple powerbook (or more for a new g5?), or should I spend $1000 and upgrade my current x86 system to be a pretty kick ass gaming box, which can also act as a high powered linux server? Pretty easy choice if you see my bank account.
Sure in a year or so I'll want to upgrade again, or I'll have a MB or DIMM or hard drive go and will have to buy a new part, but that's ok. Because the cost is down the road, and therefor, doesn't exist.
Note: the last sentance was intended to be sarcasic or ironic, depending on your view.
Ten years ago, nothing beat appletalk from a user's prespective. Finding printers was easy and straight forward, as was finding servers. It was easy to share your work with others. And at the time, there was (and still really is no) equivilent in the Windows or Unix worlds.
/. users (preceived costs, lack of apps, unfamilarity, high cost of experiment, vendor lock, ...).
I've heard administrators horror stories of dealing with apple talk, but they don't seem to much worse than other horror stories. And even if they were the cause of a little more pain, isn't that the price of providing a good network solution to the users.
At my former company, when it was time to move away from appletalk, the network adminstrators jumped as fast as they could to replace it. But they didn't have horror stories of having to patch thousands of users computers, or bringing down entire networks as reasons for their JOY of seeing appletalk go away. Instead, it was that appletalk "slowed down the network".
So, we got a new network where we had to remember the IP address of any printer we wanted to use and any server we needed to access, and to share our work we had to tell everyone our IP address and hope that they wrote it down or you'd be telling them again, and again, and again... We went from a user centric network to a faster IT centric network.
Although I am a big Mac fan, I don't agree with Cringley on this issue. There are other reasons that Macs are being used in most businesses besides IT looking out for their own jobs. And most seem to be outlined here by
But whenever I think about the lose of AppleTalk, and now see it being blamed for Apple's shortcomings, I really wonder who IT thinks they work for. Always thought the user, but maybe not...
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
Who sold you that one, Bob? Did a bridge come with it?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The XServe RAID has redundant power supplies, so it's likely the next XServe will too.
You might, from the fact that I quoted a line that said exactly that, conclude that I know that. I'm adding factors to the original TCO equation, not denying the factors that have already been mentioned.
Let's put a box together. The $799 eMac has an 800 MHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 40 GB hard disk, 32 MB video card, ethernet, firewire, modem, etc. A $599 Dell Dimension 2400 has a 2.2 GHz processor, 128 MB RAM, 80 GB hard disk, on-board video, and apparently no ethernet or firewire ports. The most important point here is that whether these two are equivalent computers depends on what you use it for. It should be clear that for a certain range of purposes, we can assume the two are equivalent.
Further assume that the eMac will be used for 3 years, and the Dell for 2 years. Finally, assume that the eMac will resell for $400, while the Dell will resell for $200. Doing the math, the Dell costs 55 cents a day over its life with you, while the eMac costs 37 cents. Therefore, the TCO of the eMac is actually less.
Now, note all the assumptions I made. The truth of the conclusion is dependent on the truth of the assumptions. Check the numbers out for yourself, because I just made up the usage years and resale value for this example.
C'mon. Is /. run on a single 1 GHz PC?
I don't think so.
So Apple has a "benchmarking" page:
http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html
Which shows Apache Web Serving performance -- where it's faster than a Dell 1650 (not sure if it's running IIS or Apache). Point is, even allowing for a little marketing hyperbole, OS X + Xserve is a fully capable web server.
Assuming of course you think Apache is up to the job?
That's a low-end server. Perfect for a small department server or maybe for hosting a small website.
s e/story/0,10801,83783,00.html
Also perfect for high-end applications by the United States Navy, ala nuclear attack submarines.
http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/defen
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
To all those who insist on putting the price of a PC up against the price of a "comparable" Mac...
Let's get something out of the way right up front: a Mac is a Mac and a PC is a PC. Sure, that's obvious, but it surprises me how little it's acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. $1500 worth of PC hardware won't give you a Mac no matter what you put on it. The same goes the other way; Mac hardware and software will never get you a PC no matter what combination you use. In the end, a PC is still a PC and a Mac is still a Mac. Play with numbers all you want, it won't change a thing. Folks who want a Mac will not be happy with anything but a Mac, not even a comparably spec'd out PC, period. The reverse is just as true.
Comparing Apple computers to PCs is like comparing Palm devices to ring-binder planner systems (nothing should be implied by the order in which those items were listed, by the way). Both serve similar purposes, and there are folks who use each who would never think of ditching their choice for the other. So would it be safe to say that all Palm users should ditch their Palm devices for ring-binder planners purely on the basis of a price tag? I think not. Palm users love their expensive Palm devices and binder planner users love their slightly less expensive binders, and neither is going to be wrong for sticking to their preferences.
I find the whole Mac vs. PC debate silly for the reasons described above. I use both, although I prefer my Macs to my PCs. That's just me. My wife loves her PCs and despises my Macs. Life goes on.
1) Pricing: Mac's are significantly more money. And if you thought the Microsoft OS costs were bad, looks at Apple's. OS X launched in 2001, and, if you were a 10.0 buyer, while 10.1 was a free upgrade, 10.2 wasn't, and 10.3 is coming fast! And from the end user perspective, these have all been largely mandatory upgrades -- many apps now won't work unless you are running 10.2, for example.
Now, your other points might be valid (though there are several companies that specialize in mac upgrades), but an unlimited license for OSX Server is what? $1000? Even at 10 times that, it pays for any hardware disparity with commodity PC parts with any significant installation.
How much is a 5000 seat WinXP contract? How many IT to support that, and how much do they make?
The Xserve only has one power supply... in a similar price range Compaqs and Dells come with redundent power supplies.
I realize this is a minor thing, but from the initial research we did at my company (a less then 100 person firm), we just didn't get the feeling that Apple really knew how to deal with the corporate market (e.g. redundency, dependability, interoperability, snapshots of drives, etc). More like they were counting on the 'cool' factor that makes them a good desktop machine, but not server.
Now on the flip side the group who designed thier RAID box does seem to understand...
The better question is who sold you on that BS that it takes a smaller number of admins to maintain a Linux network?
I am one of two admins where I work and we have a network of about 15 Windows servers, 2 HP N-Class systems, 275+ desktops and all the associated network equipment. We have absolutely no problems handling everything. The important thing to know, however, is that the primary reason that there are even two of us is for redundancy. My employer is willing to pay for the peace of mind that comes from not having to call the admin back from vacation early because something happened. Someone is always onsite. Neither I nor my partner have had any problems maintaining the entire network with the other gone.
I would be surprised if a web site ran on an iMac because of their screens.. it takes up a bit of space for nothing in the server room. We used to run part of our website on 6 iMacs but we switched things around so the things that used to run on iMac now run on older G3/G4 towers and the iMacs are in the field. The towers are more easy to stack in a rack and have more CPU power per unit volume. Especially the dual processor macs.
That being said, I can think of no technical reasone you couldn't do the same with iMacs. Kidda a waste with that nice LCD, though.
Okay, first:
The password hashes are HASHES. Not encrypted. There's no way to get the original back, no matter how much CPU you have. Agreed that it's still not a great idea to let anyone at them, and I have to admit I was stunned that you could do it. I'll have to see if they use a different salt on each machine though, it adds a small measure of protection (if the passwords aren't simple). Download a copy of john and see how long it takes. My imac (running Linux) has been working on guessing a password to match my pw hash for more than ten days. The users on my system who used insecure p/ws were cracked in minutes.
Now you wanna talk security holes: by default, any DHCP server can send a URL of an LDAP server to OSX, and it'll authenticate users from that LDAP server. Yuck.
Second, you state that "OSX is much harder to work with," but don't explain how. Personally, I've found it much easier to learn than Linux was: I've never felt the need to compile my own OSX kernel, but I've had to do that repeatedly to Linux over the years. The distributed directory stuff in Jaguar rocks, and it integrates with LDAP, AD, whatever (and all of the above, simultaneously). See the macdevcenter at O'Reilly.
Agreed about Cringely: he's an idiot, IMHO. Can you name ANY profession that would recommend a change in their workplace that would remove themselves from being qualified to work there? Sheesh!
Well, since you seem to be gunning for a response from a Linux/x86 person for some reason, I'll bite.
Your argument is well taken, and in fact I think it is an excellent point to use when debating Windows vs. Mac as a desktop machine. Apple has a beautiful UI, can run MS Word for those who need it, and is built atop BSD so I would expect it to be very stable. The extra purchase price of a suitable Mac with OSX for daily desktop use and as a network client in an office setting is more than offset by the smaller number of tech support people required to maintain it, resulting in a net savings vs. Windows. I wish Apple would make OSX available on x86 so it can run on the legacy x86 hardware that most places already have. Apple's currently exhibiting their biggest market miscalculation since they priced themselves out of the personal computer market in the '80s, by not releasing an x86 version! Heck, Longhorn and DRM and Trusted Computing and Subscription-Pricing and all that is an open invitation for someone to come in and eat MS's cake. If the option existed on existing hardware, I'd recommend migration to it as a standard desktop ASAP. I might well be running it at home right now instead of Linux; I'd at least give it a try for sure.
Where I think your argument breaks down a bit is in the server room. OSX is beautiful, and all that, but there is no reason to be running a GUI on the server. When it's loaded up with connections and is busy being a server, then you start opening windows with those flashy effects, it's going to bog the whole network down once the CPUs peak out. Your phone will start ringing off the hook with users helpfully telling you that their spreadsheets are taking forever to load. Unix GUIs have historically been so clunky and ugly to save clock cycles for more useful things, like serving up files and SQL data records to clients. When GUIs were used at all. This is part of why *NIX is eating MS for lunch in the server space (leaving security aside).
Being a BSD beneath it all, I'd expect there's a way to boot OSX into a command line and not use the GUI. If you do that, I'd expect it to be similar to running BSD on any other machine. As a server, OSX should require no more and no less of a knowledgeable maintenance staff than any other BSD implementation. Once you're underneath the GUI what's it matter whether it's Apple's BSD or OpenBSD or any other flavor BSD?
Now, given Apple is a sole-source outfit, if their stuff is well integration-tested prior to release, it might save a little bit of time, but that cuts both ways - I'm currently stuck with a used Beige G3 that I picked up (after consulting apple.com) last weekend intending to give OSX a spin, and now they've decided it's not going to be supported after all. The moral is, any savings in support staff must be weighed against the risk of getting locked into a marketing-driven, sole-source vendor for both hardware and software. So far, OSX looks very promising, but the very nature of Apple's business model presents the risk of Microsoft-style lock-in and a similar forced-upgrade treadmill without the benefit of commodity hardware pricing. Remember to take that into account. Given how much babysitting a Windows box requires, it might still pay off to switch though!
Additionally, Apple has very little of a track-record with enterprise servers. It wasn't until a few years ago that they managed to properly implement multitasking and multithreading, and to do it, they basically admitted to themselves they weren't ever going to figure it out so they copped the BSD kernel instead. I commend them for the decision, but it still leaves a seed of doubt as to their ability to follow through at the enterprise level. I've seen Apple change direction, suddenly drop product lines, and almost go bankrupt more times than I can count; you'll have to forgive me if I adopt a wait-and-see attitude for a while before I recommend bet
Care to give a url of a nice iMac web server to slashdot, and we'll see what OS is superior?
:-)
Here you go, as requested, an iMac server. This one happens to be an older G3 iMac running OS X, so......Do your worst, but know that all IP's are logged.
This little iMac get about 30k hits/day and is rock solid. One of the best $600 I ever spent.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
To all those who denegrate Apple.
Feel free to express your opinions about Sun, SGI, or any other System V Unix. Wait, let's throw in BeOS, OS/2, OS/2 Warp, xBSD, or GNU HURD. Oh, wait, you've never used those platforms? Oh, well I guess you are an expert then.
As for those that have used the current Mac platform and like to spew vitriol for it, whooptie freakin doo, you are apparently clueless enough not to be able to learn something _different_. It's called adapting, humans are supposed to be one of the best of breed in that realm, but it's not happening for you. I guess Darwin didn't think about you with his theory of evolution. Oh, wait, he did, it's called WEAK!
Yes, Apple has issues. The OS has some things that work really well, others that need work. I can say the same thing for Solaris, Windows, HURD, xBSD, and most definitely Linux. Got any other nuggets of wisdom to drop on us?
Crigley is meerly making a statement about things that he notices. He notices that there are companies using Macs successfully and asks the question, "Why can't other companies do the same and be successful? Maybe because they don't want to be."
You know why Apple has such poor support, or fewer applications, or any of the things that Windows or other platforms has that Apple does not? Because of a smaller user base, smaller funding, and smaller demand. It's that simple. If they had even double the userbase, they'd have twice as many applications, twice as many features, and maybe even quadruple the support options. The reason they suck is that they _are_ small. Deal with it. Sun, in all it's glory, is small. Everything is small compared to Microsoft. Linux is tiny. HURD doesn't even show up on the map.
Feel free to correct me with conjecture and commentary about how you _know_ Windows is better because the majority uses it. The majority thought the world was flat in 1400. Does that mean the majority was right? Oh. Sorry, you didn't pay attention in geography because you were too busy being cool. Well, in that case, feel free to walk off the edge of the world...
Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
Ok, I have tried to read as may of the moderately rated posts as possible. What I have found was (sorry about the length):
-Many of the negative comments are based on issues / biases that have been resolved for several years. (Pre Mac OS 10.2 at least, most pre Mac OS 10.1)
-There was a post that complained about the difficulty of using Mac OS 10.2 Server. I personally find it extremely easy to use and manage. Mac OS 10.3 Server is making advances on that including adding the ability to act as a primary domain controller thanks to the inclusion of Samba 3. For the poster that did not like the management apps they have been completely rewritten as well as being able to be managed via the command line. On the documentation side yes it is a little light. That too is supposed to change in 10.3 Server. For more information on 10.3 Server go to for information on the currently shipping 10.2 server Oh and one more thing. Mac OS 10.2 Server received Product of the year from NetworkMagazine.com () that has to be worth something right?
-Cost. While Linux and BSD systems cannot be beat for cost. The amount of dedicated support and liability that they have can be. Microsoft on the other hand can be beaten in the per user license realm. Both in desktop OS and server OS Apple's Macintosh licensing fees are reasonable and flexible. The general single user licenses are free with purchase of a machine and $129 standalone. Apple can be flexible on this with large or educational purchases. The server version of their OS is even better priced $499 for a 10-user license and $999 for and unlimited user license. They also provide a plethora (sorry you never get to use that word enough) of support options all reasonably priced.
-Reliability and Stability. The one thing I absolutely love about Mac OS X is the stability it offers. This is part due to the OS and part hardware. The key thing here is that Apple controls them both. I don't have to worry about the hardware I'm running being compatible with the OS and vice versa. Apple has already done that for me. The result uptime. Which at the end of the day is worth the extra dollar for me. For instance the PowerBook, which I am writing this on, has had uptimes on the order of 80 days (I just put it to sleep when traveling.) The only time I have to reboot is when an update requires it.
-Major OS releases. When Apple releases a new version of its OS for example the to-be-released before the end of the year Mac OS 10.3 and Mac OS 10.3 Server add several new features and improvements not just "bug fixes." And the nice thing about the releases is that Apple takes feedback about its products and if the demand is high enough put it into its next release () for the client version and () for server. I want to see that from a major commercial OS.
-Open Source. Mac OS X is built on open standards, and open source. You can download and tweak Darwin, upload changes. The same features that you get with all open source projects. The exception to this is the GUI interface. Most other commercial operating systems do not give you this ability. Also check out Fink a package manager (based on the Debian package manager) for ported open source projects.
-Security. Mac OS X abandoned telnet in favor of the more secure SSH in 10.1. Apple has a quick response time to up coming security threats and releases an update to fix them (). Apple provides easy and efficient methods of applying the updates via "Software Update". The OS ships in a secure fashion with all incoming ports closed. There is a good paper on securing Mac OS X available at () There are A/V solutions from all of the main companies (Symantec, Sophos, Virex.) Tripwire has been ported for host based IDS. You can run snort, nmap, nessus, etc.
-Expandability and performance. The Power Mac G5 can handle up to 8GB of Ram. Show me a desktop PC that can handle that much memory. The G5 processor has a half speed front side bus so the Dual 2Ghz has two 1Ghz FS
my xserves have never failed. redundancy doesn't mean shit if the product isn;t good to begin with. I got lucky with super micro and in fact the latest 2000 cpu cluster at my company is super micro too. but frankly the other copanies on paper were actually better.
the only reason I dont buy more apple xserves is that as long as I can get lucjy the linux boxes are cheaper. but if I had to pay anybody the same as an apple i'd rather have an apple since I know it will work. you can have your redundant power supplies.
the key if finding a good vendor and sticky with them.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.