Slashdot Mirror
Why Consumer Macs Are Enterprise-Worthy
cyberkahn tips us to an article in Computerworld that makes the case for Apple's consumer machines moving into corporations. (The article dismisses Linux desktops in the enterprise in a single bullet item.) With the press that Vista has been getting, is Apple moving into a perfect storm? Quoting: "There is no comparison between Apple's 'consumer' machines and the consumer lines of its competitors. All of Apple's machines are ready to move into the enterprise, depending on the job at hand. The company's simple and elegant product line, which is also highly customizable, will be Apple's entree to the business market — if IT decision-makers can get over their prejudice against equipment that's traditionally been aimed at consumers."
I do find it very interesting that these stories are all over the place lately. "Apple is ready for the enterprise". This makes what now, 5 or six in the past month alone? They always open with "IT managers are tired of spyware", as if spyware was a problem in large corporations (the targets of these articles), they always proceed to dismiss Linux as an alternative... could it have something to do with the release of Vista? Naaaah. Now if this were articles targetting Apple then of course Microsoft would be behind them.
Maybe it's just a big coincidence.
And just how is a Linux desktop different than a PC desktop (e.g. Dell/HP) different than an Apple desktop. While this article seems to talk about the hardware, the real answer is: THE OPERATING SYSTEM! With Apple, when you talk about the line-up you can't really separate the hardware from the software, yet Linux and Windows are run on current Macs, and OS-X is successfully (albeit illegally) ported to Dells. So what is special about Apple? The hardware, or the software, and why would Linux even be mentioned in any discussion of the hardware -- except that it runs on a lot more hardware than OS-X, and costs less. All this makes this article, and generally this whole discussion, hard to take seriously.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well I do. And the rate of failure is just terrible. Without exact numbers at hand, I can definitely say we've sent over 30 iBooks to the local Apple service partner.
Being an enterprise customer you definitely dont have to wait in line for consumer service, we just send the computers directly for service. Otoh, you definitely won't get 4hr onsite like all the major pc vendors offer.
As for group policy and manageability, Apple got in the game late and will definitely catch up. The question is when (and what decade).
They are not. just from trying to get them configured for the uni ldap, autofs, nis, it's a pita. We have to manually make changes in the nfs script because it makes 1000's of symlinks in 2 different directories. Many of the settings that can be modified with nss_ldap don't even exist on osx, for example loginshell overrides. There's no newgrp, we have to roll our own. It's going to be real fun transferring all our users from nis to open directory (slapd) when we start configuring that. Will padl's migrationtools work, I doubt it.
..wtf? we had to use fink and install 2.0.something (the apache2 monolithic build provided by serverlogistics.com has cgi bugs). The configuration files are all over the place /etc/hostconfig, /Library, /System/Library, netinfo gui while on more posix systems it's just /etc . The perl that also comes with osx is buggy (try installing Net::LDAP and all its prereqs using perl -MCPAN -e shell).
OSX server comes with apache 1.3
How do I login to an xserve with ssh -C -Y or ssh -X and run gvim or an xterm or any X app, can't have to use vnc. Then there's HFS which we have to use to support all those nasty meta files. I guess Xsan will be nice when we use it but that's after we get all the data off our huge raid array just for a couple of mac clients.
We haven't even started migrating postgres, mailman, request tracker, and sendmail yet. If it's anything like the way it has been already we're probably going to have to use fink again.
And no I don't want quicktime on my headless Xserve, thinking differently is difficulty.
(As a note - I _am_ an OS X (and Linux and Windows) user and admin. I have dozens of Apples ranging from G4s, G5s, Mac Pros, Powerbooks, MPros, and Xserves.)
The learning curve and disparity of Linux distributions is too high for easy general office use.
As someone else noted already, dismissing Linux with a single line is a little silly. Ubunutu is starting to gather desktop momentum. But I'll ignore the Linux factor. There is also a learning curve for moving from Windows to OS X, some of which Apple refuses to deal with. Many users are very used to AND prefer keyboard shortcuts to access pulldown menus, for example. The lack of consistancy for what the green window size button does is fustrating. Even Apple's own software fails to consistantly follow their own UI guidelines. Again, for example, a few applications quit entirely when you close the window while the majorty close the window but the program continue to run.
Many corporate applications have been ported to W3-compliant Web services that are OS-agnostic
Um... yeah. Sure. Which Enterprises are these again? Most Enterprises run tons of legacy software that's connected to via local software (often written in VB) or IE only frontends. Part of being an Enterprise level business is that you have years and decades worth of IT cruft that's built up.
Because Macs work with Microsoft's directory, enterprise administrators can now more easily manage Macs alongside Windows machines.
OS X works with _some_ parts of AD. There is still no viable replacement for Outlook on OS X. Whether you like Outlook with Exchange or not (I don't), there's very little that can do everything it can, and most Enterprise scale businesses are wrapped around it. Remember, it's not just a mail client or a personal scheduler, it's a foundation that many other companies have built on top of the scheduling features.
Yes, you can add virtualization, but then you're back to the problems of running Windows, plus now you have additional administration overhead of running and managing two OSes on each system plus additional user training and problems.
I'm also unaware of a way that I can push updates and settings to OS via Group Policies without using third party software. This is a key factor to Enterprises. A huge factor in deciding whether to shift OSes is the fact that the IT staff must be trained and experienced in what they're going to move to. If they've put years into developing internal tools to manage and deal with Windows, the cost of moving to OS grows.
We find that most PCs that are sold as enterprise desktops are actually stripped-down, lightweight versions of the computers the same companies sell to home users. These machines lack the basic technologies needed in the modern enterprise. Apple, on the other hand, simply doesn't sell a minimalist computer whose predominant 'feature' is its price point, aimed at businesses or any other market."
For instance, you can't buy a Mac without at least 512MB of RAM, Bluetooth, 802.11g Wi-Fi networking, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire and even a remote control..."
My last big batch of Windows desktops were purchased nearly 3 years ago and have 1GB RAM, gigabit ethernet, and have been just fine.
Firewire? Why do enterprise desktop users need firewire? The only reason you need it is for digital video and audio or extremely fast file transfers. Not desktop use.
WiFi? I don't want desktop users using WiFi. That's why we have millions of dollars of copper and fiber infrastructure with security features and VLANs. Wireless is great for some things, but it does not scale and it is inherently less secure than hardwire. Even just having 802.11 means that every single desktop is a potential rogue WiFi station letting people inside the firewall. Great.
Bluetooth? Sort of neat, but again, desktop users don't need it and it opens up security issues.
And I can't believe they even tried to cite having a remote control
You are all WAY off base. Looking at the total cost of ownership- anti-virus licensing, the cost of expensive deployment solutions for PCs versus the low cost of built in deployment solutions in Macs, the constant registry problems, driver issues, built in multimedia tools on Macs versus commercial solutions for PCs..all of these point to a MUCH lower cost for Apple hardware and software in the long run. I work in a dual platform environment and I have DOZENS of PCs in our repair area. I might have one or two Macs a month with a software problem, and maybe a Mac ever other month with an actual hardware problem. And the best part is we have way more Macs in our organization than PCs. Get your facts straight.
...for moving from a Windows office to an xNIX office. And by xNIX I mean Macs and Linux boxes side by side. I mean FreeBSD and/or Solaris too serving up your data. Mac OS X has a few advantages Linux does not have and never will: Microsoft and Adobe software. Adobe is even reintroducing Premiere for Mac OS X, something that the platform lost when Apple put out Final Cut the first time and Adobe got their noses out of joint over it.
I hate MS and Adobe as much as the next geek, and will gleefully point out F/OSS solutions like OpenOffice.Org, Kino and The GIMP, but let's face it, what will someone completely unhip to F/OSS rather have in front of them: the F/OSS workalike or the reassuring name-brand? Will MS and Adobe ever port to Linux? When pigs fly.
With Mac OS X, you have an xNIX under the hood, and a friendly face out in front. Give the office folks Macs, and use Linux or FreeBSD on those servers that used to run Windows Server. Heck, basically Mac OS X Server is Mac OS X plus ports of stuff like Samba and CUPS. Save your money you would have spent on an XServe and repurpose some PCs with Linux or FreeBSD.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
[quote]1) Linux is not a desktop OS (if it has changed in the last couple of years perhaps I should take a second look)[/quote]
Really? Tell that to my parents. The learning curve was so "bad" that not only did they accept Linux nearly instantly, but it has now been almost a month, and I haven't heard a complaint, nor request for help.
The samba part really confuses me. I'm trying to figure out how Apple screwed up samba support so bad. I had an OS X box copying 80gigs of photos to a Windows file server. It was going to take 30 hours. After 20 minutes watching it consistently go that speed I said screw that, pulled the hard drive out, popped it into a Knoppix box and copied all the photos using Linux and it took a little over 2 hours. That's insane! Both gigabit nics into a gigabit switch. Plus there is a weird subnetting issue I run into every now and again where it won't connect to a samba box if its on a different logical subnet. Of course sometimes it works so it's even more baffling.
I think Linux and Windows are definitely better options in the corporate world. Of course our corporate Intranet is fully accessible in Firefox because I didn't want to make my Mac users have to run Windows in addition to OS X which they are more comfortable with. It's all just crazy! There is no way Apple is ready for the big time. Perhaps in a few more years they'll get a clue but I doubt it, no one wants a single supplier of goods, it's dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket.
Yeah, its funny. I work at a major Oil & Gas company in Calgary. We're a Novell/Windows 2000 shop primarily, and a pretty conservative one. We DO have several engineers on Linux workstations, however.
We're toying with upgrading to Vista clients down the road, and dropping Novell entirely (not my decision!). Linux workstations and Solaris VMWare servers aren't going anywhere. No one has seriously considered doing Mac anything, though... and lots of us run them at home.
Jeremy
My question is why would anybody run MacOS X as a UNIX distribution when there are other UNIXes out there that are a lot cheaper to buy, such as BSD, Solaris, and Linux.
That really wasn't the point of the original post. The original poster complained, in so many words, that OS X was isolationist and did everything its own way. That's wrong. Whenever possible, OS X does things how other modern *NIXs do things. Aside from Quartz, Cocoa, and Carbon, most everything in OS X is built off open technologies. OpenGL, LDAP, CUPS, NFS, SSH, etc are all part of the core platform.
Not to mention that running UNIX programs in OS X is more trouble at first as OS X doesn't natively use X11 and it will include none of the standard Qt or GTK libraries, X11, or GCC in a standard installation.
X11 and GCC are on every OS X installation CD. Yeah, it doesn't install them by default, but then again, Ubuntu doesn't install GCC by default either!
I bet that any CIO worth their Mountain Dew ration will feel the same way.
Again, we're not talking about buying OS X to get a UNIX, but buying OS X and getting a UNIX as part of the bargain. You don't need to have OS X to get a machine that uses UNIX standards, but if you do buy OS X machines, they can integrate into your environment much like any other UNIX.
Oh, and Linux does not necessarily have its own disk format like Solaris, OS X, or Windows do. Linux will install on ext2, ext3, ReiserFS 3, XFS, and JFS.
Of those, only XFS and JFS weren't especially designed for Linux. And it took several years to port XFS to Linux, reinforcing my point that filesystems are by and large closely tied to their host OS. Also, ext3 is the de-facto standard Linux filesystem. Every major distribution ships ext3 as the default, and its the first one to get improvements like the low-latency work and fine-grained locking.
And to be fair, OS X installs on UFS just fine, though some apps don't like the case-sensitivity.
And with the exception of ReiserFS and ext4, all of the Linux filesystems are fully read-write in at least one other OS. For example, Windows can read-write ext2 and ext3 via the IFS driver.
And both Linux and Windows can read-write HFS+. However, Windows won't install on ext2 or UFS, Linux won't install on NTFS, UFS, or HFS+, so why is it a surprise that OS X won't install on NTFS or ext3? The original poster asked "why does OS X use its own disk format", and the answer is: "almost every OS uses its own, preferred disk format". There are exceptions, and Linux is particularly flexible in this regard, but even on Linux there is a de-facto standard that is the most well-supported.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...