Apple to Allow Virtual Mac OS X Server Instances

Glenn Fleishman writes "Apple has changed its license for Mac OS X Server 10.5 (Leopard Server) to allow virtualized instances. VMware and Parallels are poised to offer support. This probably presages a thoroughly overhauled Xserve product with greater capability for acting as a virtual machine server, too. 'Ben Rudolph, Director of Corporate Communications for Parallels, told me, "Enabling Leopard Server to run in a virtual machine may take some time, but we're working closely with Apple on it and will make it public as quickly as possible." Pat Lee, Product Manager at VMware, concurred, saying "We applaud Apple for the exciting licensing changes implemented in Leopard Server. Apple customers can now run Mac OS X Server, Windows, Linux and other x86 operating systems simultaneously on Apple hardware so we are excited about the possibilities this change presents." Although neither company committed to specific features or timetables, it appears as though we should be seeing virtualization products from both that will enable an Xserve to run multiple copies of Leopard Server in virtual machines.'"

Comments

Virtual DRM?

[FranTaylor]

Is that what this means? The hackers are drooling already.

Re:Virtual DRM?

[FranTaylor]

You think I'm not serious? They say the virtual machines will only run on Apple hardware. How are they going to enforce that?

Re:Virtual DRM?

[YukonTech]

Pretty simple really, just make VMware and Parallels check if it is on mac hardware before it will enable the virtual machine.

Re:Virtual DRM?

[AnotherShep]

Huge fines against companies found to be doing it without licenses?

You know, just throwing ideas out here...

Re:Virtual DRM?

[FranTaylor]

I said 'hackers', Any scheme like that WILL be hacked. Maybe I need to be more obvious.

Re:Virtual DRM?

[doxology]

Well, like, you can already run Mac OS X in VMWare (somewhat hacked, and in breach of license) on non-Apple hardware (not sure about Leopard... but certainly with Tiger, and if not yet with Leopard, soon with Leopard...)

Re:Virtual DRM?

[jmorris42]

> Pretty simple really, just make VMware and Parallels check if it is on mac hardware...

Yea, they 'need' Steve's goodwill and blessings. So that leaves Xen, QEMU, etc. Once youy can buy a non-upgrade license 'off the rack' the genie is out of the bottle. Unless they really are stupid enough to pass through the DRM like you suggest, then it will ease the breaking of it and the freeing of OS X Desktop. Which would be hella fun. :)

Nobody cares about the EULA because it isn't enforcable in most states. (Real site licenses often are though since they involve a real contract signed by both parties.)

Of course nobody outside the hardcore Mac Faithful care about OSX Server or the Xserve anyway so it is a dead issue. The Xserve is just a tarted up rackserver the same as a dozen other top tier vendors can sell you with comparable features and support and a better sticker price. And for server duty, except for a few features to support OS X desktops a bit easier, OS X is just another UNIX, but one of the less featured, slower and less scalable ones.....

Re:Virtual DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

The major players VMWare and Parallels who sell VM software to the Mac user market have a vested interest in keeping Apple happy, so expect them to build in enough the same level of casual checks that OS X users to keep from running on a non-Apple branded PC. That's to say, if you truly want to run it, you can. But don't expect to be able to install OS X with just a few mouse clicks.

I personally think Apple let's power users install OS X, because these users, who can easily transition between OSes, are more likely that Joe Windows User to buy a Mac after trying out OS X for a while. More over power users require less tech support reducing costs and increasing profit.

Re:Virtual DRM?

[dynamo]

Pretty simple to get around that, really, just make an outer instance of VMware act like a mac, and then have an instance of VMware running on the virtual mac go ahead and do it's checks - it will think it's running on one.

Re:Virtual DRM?

[vought]

They can read the TPM manufacturer code to do this.

Re:Virtual DRM?

[drsmithy]

I said 'hackers', Any scheme like that WILL be hacked. Maybe I need to be more obvious.

Apple don't care about the 1% of the user base who have the patience and knowledge to "make it work", they care about 99% of people who will be happy to pay a bit of money so it "just works".

Re:Virtual DRM?

[argiedot]

I thought VMware intentionally prevents itself from running in itself?

server?

[FlashBuster3000]

Seriously, what does an apple server offer over linux? Are there any advantages?

Re:server?

[Chirs]

It supports Apple's proprietary server protocols for serving to other Macs....

Re:server?

[ByOhTek]

I don't know, and with this quote, I suspect, neither do they!

Apple customers can now run Mac OS X Server, Windows, Linux and other x86 operating systems simultaneously on Apple hardware so we are excited about the possibilities this change presents.

Seriously - you can already run these on Apple hardware already (sans virtualization). The word "change" doesn't not apply here.

Re:server?

[domatic]

In house Software Update for one. I have one copy of OS X Server installed on a machine for that. Even though I happily serve Macs reliably and affordably with Linux, OS X Server is pretty much turnkey for serving Macs and makes an OK server for Windows. Correctly configured, Linux (or a BSD) can mimic OS X Server (minus the update server) but it isn't all that easy getting there.

Re:server?

[Jeremi]

Seriously, what does an apple server offer over linux? Are there any advantages?

I can think of several possible advantages:

1. Apple's GUIs are (thought to be) better quality and easier to use than those of Linux. People who are uncomfortable running/admining a Linux box (read: don't want to RTFM) are often more familiar with MacOS/X.
2. Apple's hardware is of good quality, and just as importantly it is a known quantity -- when you get an Apple box, you can be sure that it will have all the necessary audio/video/network drivers installed and working. If you buy a generic PC and install Linux on it, you sometimes run into trouble getting the networking to work, or the video drivers to display your preferred screenmode, or the audio hardware to be recognized, or etc. This isn't due to any inherent superiority on Apple's part, it's merely because Apple's OS people work together with Apple's hardware people more closely than the Linux people work together with the various PC hardware manufacturers. That said, it saves a lot of hassle. (yes, even in 2007 -- as I type, our tech support guy is spending a lot of time and effort trying to convince Ubuntu Feisty Faun to display 1600x1200 graphics on a rackmount PC with an Intel graphics chipset... you'd think this stuff would have been worked out by now, but apparently not)

Re:server?

[njfuzzy]

We had an XServe at a previous (small) employer, mostly for testing, but it seemed like a very slick implementation. Things like monitoring, remote configuration, and so forth were all managed very slickly. It meant less time farting around with the server. It also provides Apple's proprietary software and protocols, and a good package of standards-complient stuff set up to be easier to use. Plus it is (when updated) a nice, powerful, well-engineered 1U box, that compares favorably in pricing to the competitors.

Re:server?

[morgan_greywolf]

It supports Apple's proprietary server protocols for serving to other Macs.... Like what? AFP? Linux, *BSD, Windows and even Novell Netware all provide support for AFP. I'm not sure, but I think even OS/2 Server had support for it as well.

Most other things, like the Directory, are based on open standards like LDAP and Kerberos (real Kerberos, not Windows brain-damaged kerberos).

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing. No.

It's just a appliance hardware company on a powertrip. Just before they fade into obscurity in the computer market.

Re:server?

[Andy_R]

Maybe you should pay closer attention to the word "simultaneously"?

Re:server?

[nine-times]

Also, if Leopard server offers Time Machine, it could make for a very good document server. Versioning (via Time Machine) and good indexing (via spotlight).

I mean, ultimately, if you can do it on OSX you can do it on Linux. But sometimes Apple has a nice/slick implementation.

Re:server?

[Knara]

What's the point of caring if a rackmount server runs 1600x1200?

Re:server?

[GnarlyDoug]

Much better GUI, it is vetted as official UNIX while Linux is not, and enterprise customers may have more faith in Apple as opposed to a much smaller company like RedHat to be able to support a massive service agreement. Furthermore Apple is also beginning to come out with integrated, enterprise level software. That makes Apple a more integrated enterprise solution going forward than Linux is.

Re:server?

[znu]

Most other things, like the Directory, are based on open standards like LDAP and Kerberos (real Kerberos, not Windows brain-damaged kerberos).

Yes, but with OS X Server you can set up e.g. network home directories for Mac clients with a couple of clicks, and manage everything through a very straightforward interface. While you can technically do all of the same stuff on Linux with an LDAP server, etc. it's going to take a sufficiently large amount of work that the time your IT guys will spend on it is probably worth more than it would cost to buy a copy of OS X Server (and probably a Mac to run it on).

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

All your points are rubbish and only pertain to desktops. We are talking about servers here. If someone running a server can't be bothered to RTFM then I really hope they consider a career change. GUIs on servers, especially critical servers that need every cpu cycle and free memory on hand, just takes up unnecessary resources.

As for your second point. We are talking software here, virtualization. Whether or not apple hardware is of good quality is moot. Who is going to any sort of video layer higher than the basic vga stuff on a server and sound is an extremely rare case. You are trolling and you know it. Linux and Windows have plenty of drivers for networks when it comes to servers. Most servers are predictable and don't come with much funky hardware. That is unless your idea of a server is running some commodity Pentium 4 from alienware in your basement.

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need a GUI to run a computer, maybe you should leave servers to the people who have a clue?

Re:server?

[MiKM]

If the sysdadmin has nothing to do, he could play a pretty badass game of Tetris.

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's GUIs are (thought to be) better quality and easier to use than those of Linux. People who are uncomfortable running/admining a Linux box (read: don't want to RTFM) are often more familiar with MacOS/X.

The guy plans doing serious stuff and doesn't want to RTFM? That's a great startpoint.

Apple's hardware is of good quality, and just as importantly it is a known quantity -- when you get an Apple box, you can be sure that it will have all the necessary audio/video/network drivers installed and working. If you buy a generic PC and install Linux on it, you sometimes run into trouble getting the networking to work, or the video drivers to display your preferred screenmode,

What you mean as "generic"? A beige box?
I've never had any problems with Linux and IBM, Dell or even HP servers. Actually those are much better machines than Apple's if you want to run anything serious.

as I type, our tech support guy is spending a lot of time and effort trying to convince Ubuntu Feisty Faun to display 1600x1200 graphics on a rackmount PC with an Intel graphics chipset

Your tech guy is:
- Installing Ubuntu in a server (sorry, I don't think Ubuntu is the best choice for this).
- Your RACK server must run X, and in "1600x1200"?!

Sorry, what kind of place is that, for real? Your room?

Re:server?

[kithrup]

The tools for administering the system are -- I'm told, by IT people who work on both Macs and non-Macs -- pretty slick. It means one person can monitor, control, and update hundreds of machines at a time.

Other systems have methods for doing this, of course. But the people I know who do this are much happier with the Mac OS X Server Tools than the stuff available for Windows and Linux.

Re:server?

[FlashBuster3000]

I don't get why a server needs nice GUIs (let alone 1600x1200 graphics).
Besides, one shouldn't buy a "generic PC" when it comes to serving businessapplications.
I can get some decent servers that run Linux by every major company.

Re:server?

[ByOhTek]

Oh yes. Had some contractors here with macbooks a while ago. They had Mac OS, with Windows (and I think Linux) running in VMs.

Nope. That word doesn't provide the change between then an now.

Re:server?

[toadlife]

Much better GUI, On a server?

it is vetted as official UNIX while Linux is not Who cares?

and enterprise customers may have more faith in Apple as opposed to a much smaller company like RedHat to be able to support a massive service agreement. That statement makes no sense to me. Why would people have more faith in Apple, who has dropped the ball on (or purposely ignored) enterprise support for it's entire lifetime, over a company like Redhat who has been doing enterprise Linux for it's entire lifetime?

Furthermore Apple is also beginning to come out with integrated, enterprise level software. That makes Apple a more integrated enterprise solution going forward than Linux is. If Apple is just beginning to come out with integrated, enterprise level software, that puts them about 10-15 years behind the competition.

Re:server?

[jsz0]

The big thing OSX Server has going is the wonderful GUI management tools Apple provides. There's nothing like it for Windows or Linux -- it literally takes 2 or 3 clicks to setup something like Apache, SQL, Samba, etc. I'm not switching from Linux anytime soon but I can definitely understand the appeal of OSX Server -- especially in environments where you already have Macs.

Re:server?

[ickoonite]

All your points are rubbish...

I rarely respond to Cowards, much less those who start out as you did, but your post betrays such a serious misunderstanding - that someone who runs a server must RTFM in order to get it to work. Why does a server need a special somebody to tend to it, pamper it, water it every now and then? Why can't one just buy a server, switch it on and let it get on with doing what it is supposed to do? I understand that IT departments have a vested interest in self-preservation, but truth be told, Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use.

:|

Re:server?

[King_TJ]

No... those points aren't rubbish at all, in my estimation.

I work as a sysadmin and yes, I have Linux servers here too.

The fact is, though, many things in Linux involve not only a "RTFM" - but "FTFMS" (as in find the f'ing manuals), scattered all over the net. Because Linux is free and developed by "anyone, anywhere" - you run into the classic problem of developers who aren't very good technical writers. In a commercial business, this is handled by having their writers do the writing. With open-source, it often means the job either doesn't get done at all, or gets done poorly by the developer him/herself. Then, users try to patch up the missing documentation with wikki's, message forums, and other online resources, where you can get piecemeal suggestions and fixes for your issues (with hours of digging).

As just one example, I have a Linux web proxy server set up here. I wanted to add "dansguardian" to it, so it would do filtering of sites people have no business visiting while working. Sure, dansguardian has a "manual" for it, but it goes on and on with minutia about how changing various integer values in the config files increases or decreases the likelihood of it flagging a site for too much "bad content". In reality, all I wanted were some good, real-world "starting values" appropriate for a business environment full of adults. (We're not a school, so we can handle some curse words on our web pages. BUT, we don't want people browsing porn sites either. Blocking as many malicious script type sites as possible would be a big plus too.) To do this (plus downloading the latest blacklists of sites on a regular basis) required a lot more reading, and my best info came from a blog some guy wrote in his spare time.

Time is money, and if I can reconfigure some rarely-modified server setting in a few seconds, rather than hours of poring over manuals and/or configuration files, the GUI wins out. Meanwhile, the overhead of having some GUI menus is really not significant for a server these days.... Maybe back when a 286 processor was "state of the art", that was a valid point. But currently? You don't even need to stay logged in on the server 90% of the time when it's sitting there serving up data, so how can the GUI be affecting much of anything at that point? Even when you do sign on to the server locally, look at your CPU usage. The fact the GUI is there isn't much of a performance hit at all. Moving your mouse around is likely to use more CPU than anything else (sometimes as much as 8% or so in spikes). But you're not playing a mouse-based video game here... You're just clicking through a few screens. It's a brief usage spike, which users shouldn't even notice.

Re:server?

[Constantine XVI]

Going by Apple's website, it doesn't appear that Server supports Time Machine. It does, however, have Spotlight Server.

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Java App servers are certified to run on Mac SERVER? With neither .Net not Java runs (I mean perfectly, not just for demo purpose, for mission critical applications) who is going to use Mac as Servers?
And it is really funny to say enterprise customers prefer Apple for RedHat. At least the most widely used JBoss server runs perfectly on RedHat linux (also PHP, Perl and Python runs seamlessly on Linux rather than on Mac, I mean PHP or Perl or Java is well TESTED on Linux rather than on Mac).
Taking about Enterprise solutions, how many ESB or SOA or EAI application can run on Mac OS X? Very few (almost all supports Windows and Linux).
Nothing can replace Linux in the server market, but there is a great chance that Linux can exceed market share of Mac OS X (even Windows Vista in longterm) on desktop (I think Linux already exceeds Mac OS X in market share).
Also How many really bother whether Linux is an OFFICIAL UNIX or not. I don't. All I care is it should be scalable, secure and supports major application frameworks and databases.

Re:server?

[morgan_greywolf]

Assuming you are serving a lot of Macs, yes. In general, though, most large companies are not, and for the few Macs they have in, say, the marketing department, using one of the pre-canned NAS appliances (most of which run Linux) will get them the exact same thing, and probably in a more cost effective manner.

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was worked out in Gutsy Gibbon! Sheesh...your tech support guy needs to keep up.

Re:server?

[iphayd]

Which is why I generally pull the video cards out of my XServe orders. However, some users have XServes for graphics clustering, which a beefy video card is good for, thanks to all that Core* that Apple lets programmers play with.

Re:server?

[FigTree]

If a GUI makes it simple and easy while staying reliable, why? Your statement reminds me of the argument against compilers... (Yes, I know how to use and do not fear the CLI. However, I am afraid of misrepresenting myself.)

Re:server?

[Knara]

If the boxen are being used as a render farm, for example, having the hardware for the graphics card is probably good, but does it really matter what resolution the card can display?

Re:server?

[mrjb]

Seriously, what does an apple server offer over linux? Are there any advantages? Perhaps if you're doing cross-platform development, it could open up a way to build Mac binaries with a lot more ease than having to install cross-compilers and all.

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well let me clear up that misunderstanding. Maybe the term 'RTFM' seems a little extreme and asshole-ish but I expect that someone who is setting up a server for non trivial stuff, and I assume that if you are running multiple servers in virtualization that that would be the case then I expect that you know what you are doing. No amount of shiny GUIs will automagically prepare for every single case of something breaking and if you don't know what you're doing, you can break things bad. My biggest qualm is the same hackneyed mantra comparing apple on the server to other operating systems on a desktop benchmark. People can do whatever they want on a server, i mean a computer's role dictates what a server can be and what is a desktop but I thought we were talking about serious servers, not personal servers. Audio? Video? rare cases. BTW if you are talking about personal servers, there are plenty of Linux powered server appliances that require little to no configuration from the user besides a nice shiny web interface.

Re:server?

[af_weeks]

This is a very good question. My take is that it depends heavily on company size and resources. A small company with fairly limited IT needs may do quite well with an XServe, as the management is designed to be extremely simplified.

Obviously, if the admins are already comfortable with linux, need customization of services, and want popular extensibility, XServe is probably not the way to go.

I think that if I were to migrate a company from a hosting plan to owning their first server (my actual situation), I definitely prefer the XServe, since when the #### hits the fan, and I don't have a rollover machine, I'd feel more comfortable getting the GUI running and restore the system, compared to desperately working with config files. Again, this has a lot to do with learning curve, and I'm sure a linux user would say the exact opposite! : )

Other recommendation? Thoughts or advice?

Re:server?

[PitaBred]

Well, it looks like Ubuntu has a package for dansguardian, and it seems as if it probably contains a default config file, using reasonable values. Really, that's what the distros are for... setting the defaults and such. If you installed from source or another location, are you really surprised that you have to do a little bit more work to set things up? Besides, how many GUI administered packages give you the same power that dansguardian does?

Re:server?

[teknopurge]

Why does a server need a special somebody to tend to it, pamper it, water it every now and then? Why can't one just buy a server, switch it on and let it get on with doing what it is supposed to do? I understand that IT departments have a vested interest in self-preservation, but truth be told, Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use. :| There go my mod points....

It's not that the server is hard to use - it's the consequences and how all the different technologies work together.

Could you even image JoeUser trying to figure out why the directory service isn't working? Sure he can go to wikipedia and find out what LDAP is, and I'm sure there are pretty preskool-esque browsers he could use that come with Leopard Server, but what about all the things that his "usage" can affect?

JoeUser: Cool, a 'Users' object - that shouldn't be there, I've given myself Admin rights along with everyone else so they can print and stuff. So I'm and Admin, and don't need this Users groups anymore....
*JoeUser deletes the User class from the tree*

Or maybe he tries to remove software through Directory Policies, or delete the "lpd" user account or any of hundreds of thousands of other things. I'm going to take a guess in that the parent has never had users utterly rely on a server providing a service.

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, c'mon you're being over dramatic here. We are talking about serious servers here, not personal NAS. Yes, a server shouldn't have to be hard, but also Yes a person setting up a server should really know what one is doing. What many may call arcane is actually robustness. A shiny GUI may make things streamlined but what if you need to do something non-standard. In my experience a lot of GUIs don't offer every feature imaginable in the GUI and in many cases it is actually MUCH easier to just change a setting in a file rather than poke around at radio buttons and check boxes. Is reading a manual so hard? Learn once, admin for your career. Perhaps I was a little too hasty about rejecting the notion of a GUI but depending on the job, a gui is an unnecessary layer. How about the points on Audio/Video? Do you need a 1600x1200 display to run a server? How about 5.1 surround sound. The GP is comparing desktops to servers and not even mentioning the topic of virtualization. I believe in the best tool for the job but I think using OSX for a couple of setup wizards is a horrible waste of time, but this is just my opinion.

Unless you're doing something totally weird such as trying to use linux to talk to some proprietary mac or windows program protocol, a lot of the standard linux server packages are well documented, well supported, and are industry backed. I am pretty sure if someone really wanted it bad, they could write a apache front end in pyGTK.

One more issue, you act as if Linux is this software package just thrown at you where "no support" is mandated. There are many companies that provide support contracts for issues when something is broken or not working right. This is Red Hat's bread and butter. I suggest (without assuming too much) that you pick a distribution that is well supported and has a commercial backing. Linux being free doesn't mean you don't have to go and get support for it. Any sane administrator would opt for that, no matter how skilled, and I assume you do too but are just bringing up points that don't belong.

Re:server?

[ickoonite]

JoeUser: Cool, a 'Users' object - that shouldn't be there, I've given myself Admin rights along with everyone else so they can print and stuff. So I'm and Admin, and don't need this Users groups anymore... *JoeUser deletes the User class from the tree*

Point. But my point - that servers needn't be that complex still stands, I think. And the market is moving in that direction anyway. Consider Windows Home Server, or whatever it's called...

:)

Re:server?

[tdknox]

Most, if not all, of Apple's "proprietary" protocols are open standards. Which particular proprietary protocols are you referring to? I can't think of anything.

Re:server?

[illumin8]

(yes, even in 2007 -- as I type, our tech support guy is spending a lot of time and effort trying to convince Ubuntu Feisty Faun to display 1600x1200 graphics on a rackmount PC with an Intel graphics chipset... you'd think this stuff would have been worked out by now, but apparently not)

Go fire your tech support guy and ask him why he needs or even cares about running X windows on a rack mount server? Most real sysadmins run all of their servers at runlevel 3, and X doesn't load until runlevel 5. He's probably installing Compiz and Beryl right now and crashing your webserver with eye candy...

Re:server?

[ZachPruckowski]

If you're a shop that doesn't have a massive IT department, an easy-to-learn GUI on a server for administration can be a boon. That way, the intern can handle it, while the command-line junkies can work on other things. On the low-end, an easy to configure server beats the crap out of "hire a contractor to come in and handle things 10 hours a month" On the other end of the spectrum, UNIX certification means assured compatibility with some apps, and also meets some standardization prerequisites, which can be a big deal in big businesses.

Re:server?

[falcon5768]

if you have even 60 macs (which most large companies who use macs have more in the realm of 200-300) spending 500 on a unlimited seat licensed server OS that works with Mac, Linux, AND Windows network protocols is a heck of a time saving (and ultimately money) over trying to get it to work with Linux... or /snick 2003.

Re:server?

[jay-be-em]

But let's face it, a GUI with 2-3 clicks can only set up the most basic apache, sql, samba, etc
server. We're talking about applications with 100s of configuration options, and a GUI
with 100s of checkboxes is not the most usable way to configure an application. This is why in
general GUIs are useless for server applications.

Re:server?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> Linux box (read: don't want to RTFM) are

This sort of comment annoys me to no end.

At various points over the years I've had do do something server-ish that was new to me.
On the Linux side, assuming I could find "the manuals" for what I was doing, they were often incomplete, out of date, didn't apply to my environment, and had a nearly endless list of other manuals that needed to absorb/understand at the same time.

More often the "manuals" were half documented notes or abandoned discussion threads on forums that may not have even existed at the same URL anymore.

And now that you've got that covered and you're testing your new server, it turns out that there is something peculiar in your environment that just doesn't get along very well with it because whoever developed your thing didn't think that was important enough to include for them. (Sure, I could contribute, but I really just want to solve this problem and I've already a couple levels of complexity beyond where I wanted to be)

Sometimes I just want something that works and move on to real work

Re:server?

[erroneus]

Not to be contrary, but while most of what you say is generally true, the "hardware of good quality" assertion isn't always the case. The first releases of just about everything I have ever touched was messed up in one way or another. So when it comes to Apple hardware, I usually wait for the second release at the very least... they usually have all the kinks worked out by then.

Re:server?

[Jeremi]

What's the point of caring if a rackmount server runs 1600x1200?

Well, since several people have asked, I'll answer: in this case, it's connected to an LCD monitor with 1600x1200 native revolution, and the customer wishes to be able to administer the server via GUI on that monitor. Currently the monitor is allowing 1024x768 resolution only, which is really ugly and unprofessional looking.

Of course, the other point is: does it really matter why the users want the system to work right? The system needs to work as advertised, period -- not just "sort of work as long as you don't care about certain less important features like graphics". It's not like local 2D graphics are some kind of esoteric rocket science -- this is the sort of thing thing that ought to "just work" in a modern OS.

Re:server?

[COMON$]

Ya, because running Shadow Copy on server 2003 at a quarter the price just isn't worth it.......

Re:server?

[morgan_greywolf]

Hence the reason I'm talking about pre-canned NAS appliances. Many NAS appliances support Mac, Linux, and Windows network protocols right out of the box. These also save time and money over Linux or Windows servers and even over OS X server.

C'mon your argument isn't even original and is obviously the thinly-disguised statement of a fanboy.

Re:server?

[Knara]

That's unfortunate that you have a customer who is dumb. Tho, it's *native* resolution is 1600x1200? Talk about cruisin for a bruisin. You sure the videocard even supports that video mode? Sure it, should, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.

I stand by my statement, though. Getting a monitor to work at high res on a server should be waayyyyyat the bottom of the "things that matter in any way whatsoever" list, since any reasonably smart admin is going to be utilizing a remote connnection anyway.

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

start automating things and fire the admins...

things are getting more automated and no longer need expensive system admins to maintain them

IT is getting more automated and not the best industry to get into

Re:server?

[warrigal]

If you mean Appletalk, NT does that.

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah the same morons who have been saying that for years still can't get things right and need some IT monkey to fill that void. Remember the number one detriment to a computer is the user. You have to balance power and ease of use. Sure all of a sudden with OSX server all the fan boys who can't for the life of them put their iphones in their pocket but hold them in their hands to act cool stand by the idea that OSX can some how be your admin. We're talking about serious servers here, not Windows Media Server or iTV. We're talking about things actual people outside of the household need to use.

Re:server?

[VGPowerlord]

Linux can't be vetted as an official UNIX because it's just a kernel. It's only an entire system (GNU/Linux) that can be vetted because it contains all the necessary APIs to be an official UNIX.

Apple didn't intend for Mac OSX to be a certified UNIX, but when the Open Group dragged them to court over misusing the UNIX trademark, they weren't given a choice.

The Open Group wants Apple to have Mac OS X undergo testing to certify that it complies with its standards for software bearing the Unix name; it also wants Apple to pay a fee. The Open Group says the costs to license the name are reasonable, based on the size of the company and the rough number of copies of the software Apple sells. In any case, no company is required to pay more than $110,000, said Graham Bird, vice president of marketing for The Open Group.

Marketing has turned this into a positive thing, but that's their job!

P.S. I think you're underestimating Redhat's size by an order of magnitude or more.

Re:server?

[EdelFactor19]

you are comparing apples to oranges. You should compare running Linux on a Mac to running osX server on a mac; not to a pc. We are talking abuot a software change here, not hardware. Hardware on mac is also a known, as they are all pretty much the same...

my larger question is how many people running rackmount servers even put video cards or X servers on them. Since your example mentioned rackmount servers i thought i would speak to that. But lets say that you did, why do you care what resolution the display is on that machine? It's a server, you can always log into it from a workstation to perform the maintenance right? I guess if you dont allow ssh or vnc/rdp for root you run into a problem, and I cant say I'm familiar with ms server at all.

Intel graphics chipsets have some known resolution problems even on laptops for widescreen resolutions and although you arent in a widescreen problem, you should have him check out i915resolution as you can use it to override video modes :-). I'm sure there are reasons for it but to me it seems counterintuitive to put or need such a high res display on a rackmount server... I'd assume stash it in a rack in a lab (or closet lol) and go connect to it from your desk via the network. I thought ubuntu server didn't even install X or kde or gnome by default.

One place I used to work used osX servers a lot becaused back then they were still Power based, and our middleware product was for an embedded realtime os running on you guessed it power chips (multiple per node, multi node per system of course), and it was handy to be able to actually run and debug locally on some machines. most devs werent going to switch to macs, but it made sense for some of the servers for this usage, and you might as well kill two birds with one stone and get the same Xserve's to use for actually being server servers i suppose.

I'll get more excited when i can run regular osX in a virtual machine. at that point ill slap together a mac / xserve system for personal use with physical partiosns setup as vms for linux/winxp/macosx so that no matter which I boot into (probably linux, possibly osx, probably not xp) i can access any of them as a VM and see the same hard drive and files :-)

Re:server?

[GrahamCox]

I completely agree with the sentiment you express in your post - servers in many cases should be a box you buy, switch on and it works. IT people are afraid of this possibility. However:

... truth be told, Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use...

While Xserves may be as close as you're going to get to this at the moment they are not quite as simple as the desktop version to set up. We bought an Xserve recently to serve a small business and it took about three weeks of scratching through the manuals and a lot of fiddling and experimentation to get it set up how we needed. That may have been complicated by the need to serve a lot of Windows computers but nevertheless it wasn't as easy as I was led to believe from the marketing and from a OS X server course run by Apple that I attended. That said the day-to-day admin, which is in fact a once-a-month sort of thing, is now very easy.

One thing still puzzles me however, and that is Apple's choice of form factor. For big-company server rooms, its 1U box probably makes sense - you can sneak one in somewhere wihout too much space needed. But for its real market, which is small businesses, the very long 1U case is stupid - you need to buy a huge rack cabinet to house it (900 or 1000mm deep) and then most of the space is then wasted. A 2U case with half the depth would find a home much more readily in a typical switchgear cabinet and that would make a lot more sense for small companies, that usually already have such a thing. In this regard, I'm afraid Apple have once again gone for impressive styling over practicality.

Re:server?

[Jeremi]

That's unfortunate that you have a customer who is dumb.

No, we have a customer that would like to use the bog-standard equipment they paid for. That's not a lot to ask.

Tho, it's *native* resolution is 1600x1200? Talk about cruisin for a bruisin. You sure the videocard even supports that video mode? Sure it, should, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.

Why is 1600x1200 such a difficult requirement in 2007? As far as whether the video card supports it, the same hardware was working fine at 1600x1200 under SUSE 10.x several months ago, then we decided (for various unrelated reasons) to upgrade to Ubuntu, and now we have this problem.

I stand by my statement, though. Getting a monitor to work at high res on a server should be waayyyyyat the bottom of the "things that matter in any way whatsoever" list, since any reasonably smart admin is going to be utilizing a remote connnection anyway.

This server won't have a "reasonably smart admin" available, that is the point. The server will not be connected to the Internet for security reasons (it controls audio at a theme park), so any administration will be done by the customer, possibly with our tech people answering questions over the phone. If the server was an Apple machine, our job would have been done several days ago because everything would have "just worked" out of the box. It doesn't much matter whether YOU think it's important or not, it's important in this application and while Linux should be able to do handle this application easily, it's currently not doing so.

Re:server?

[vought]

If you mean Appletalk, NT does that.

AppleTalk is quite dead.

AFP over IP isn't proprietary. Sad to see how many people here still think there's something "different" about Macs on a network.

Re:server?

[Knara]

It doesn't much matter whether YOU think it's important or not, it's important in this application and while Linux should be able to do handle this application easily, it's currently not doing so.

Ubuntu, you mean. Apparently SUSE was working fine, and is also Linux. Furthermore, the video driver is also not Linux, so...

Really what you're saying is that you have a beef with the drivers for a videocard, and really this has nothing to do with Linux at all. At most you have a beef with Ubuntu, not Linux itself.

Re:server?

[ickoonite]

One thing still puzzles me however, and that is Apple's choice of form factor.

Interesting point. The system requirements do permit installation on desktop Macs as well (including, by implication, the Mac mini), and I myself have successfully installed it on a PowerBook G4 in the past. But you're right - a half-deep 2U unit would be far more appropriate. I'm not sure whether you can call that style over practicality though - I am sure Apple would be able to make a 2U server look beautiful as well!

:P

Re:server?

[unicode]

Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use.

If your definition of 'normal' is IT geek then yes they have demonstrated this. Apple IPv6 was simple IT administration. Administrating and updating a moderately complex Mac OS X Server requires considerable geek knowledge.

Re:server?

[atrimtab]

On Linux you figure out how to do it once and then deploy it throughout the organization free of any more license fees. Xserve is only economical for small installations where only one server is needed. Once you get to 2 servers or mixed use cases of Macs, Linux and Windows clients then a Linux server you can replicate freely makes a lot more sense than any Windows or Apple server.

Re:server?

[seabasstin]

(also PHP, Perl and Python runs seamlessly on Linux rather than on Mac, I mean PHP or Perl or Java is well TESTED on Linux rather than on Mac).

What the hell are you talking about?

PHP PERL PYTHON and all your linux and most Unix server software has been running perfectly in OSX since the day it was released.
every single mac install comes with apache, php, perl and python installed by default.
Mysql is one click away as well.

Furthermore most software that needed to be recompiled to run on the power architecture doesn't need to be anymore as an apple server is just another x86 server.

Most developers who I work with on major web projects using PHP/Mysql/postgres/Oracle/Python/Ruby do all their work in OSX, with some compatibility testing on windows, not much on Linux. (iVillage, BlackPlanet, VH1, MTV, Coke, L'oreal, Nickolodeon, Scolastic, etc) This is to their advantage because they can use all vi or emacs on the command line, they can use all opensource tools, as well as subetha, bbedit, etc, but then they can have MSword, excel and all the garbage that production managers/account execs send them as well, without using some clanky converter software.

further down your post:
How many really bother whether Linux is an OFFICIAL UNIX or not

Why should it matter if its an official Unix?
Well for starters because it means that most applications and application frameworks from any other Unix system can run on osx, either with a recompile or directly if from another x86 based Unix; again obviating your ignorant argument about Linux being the ONLY server.

Second because any Unix admin can open an osx command line and will feel at home, as he would on Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Unixware, etc.

All I care is it should be scalable, secure and supports major application frameworks and databases. Exactly, which is what OsX does. its scalable, you can form a grid system in a few clicks or command line commands, it supports every major framework as all the other Unix systems do, and it runs mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, DB2, and any other unix compatible open source database .

Nothing can replace Linux in the server market, but there is a great chance that Linux can exceed market share of Mac OS X
OsX might not be the most popular server for sure, but Linux market share in that market is DECLINING, not increasing:
http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/28/the-server-market-share-battle-microsoft-gains-2/
http://www.geekpedia.com/news193_Linux-server-market-share-plummeting.html
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/184429419
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/48999.html

on desktop (I think Linux already exceeds Mac OS X in market share)
Hugh, dood... come on alright:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/techhardware/10385313.html
and the money is showing the opposite as well here:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/22/apple-q407-financials-triumph-of-the-steve


how did this post get a 5 -- are you kidding me? what is informative about it?

Re:server?

[drsmithy]

Seriously, what does an apple server offer over linux? Are there any advantages?

Same thing a Windows server does. Ease of use and better integration, *especially* if you have a network full of Macs.

Re:server?

[drsmithy]

I rarely respond to Cowards, much less those who start out as you did, but your post betrays such a serious misunderstanding - that someone who runs a server must RTFM in order to get it to work. Why does a server need a special somebody to tend to it, pamper it, water it every now and then? Why can't one just buy a server, switch it on and let it get on with doing what it is supposed to do?

Because IT infrastructure - due in no small part to the industry's immaturity (although that's far from the only reason) - is _complicated_ once you move outside of trivial environments involving a few dozen clients, a few servers and basic services like email and file/printer sharing.

Your question is akin to asking "why do I need to go and see $SPECIALIST_DOCTOR ? Why can't my GP just fix me up ?". Well, the answer depends on what's wrong with you, but if it's more than something relatively common and simple, a GP won't be much help.

I understand that IT departments have a vested interest in self-preservation, but truth be told, Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use.

No, Apple demonstrates that simple environments don't need complex management (tools or people) - but they're not doing anything special in that regard, as Microsoft have been doing the same thing for a decade, in particular with products like Small Business Server.

If you've got a network full of Macs, an Xserve is a good investment. For anything else, it's rarely a good choice - Windows will do a better job in a primarily Windows environment, and Linux *BSD offer much more flexibility and compatibility (and potentially much lower costs, depending on the requirements).

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot the all important 3!

There is a vendor from which to seek hardware support and if need be to sue! With linux on a generic box you rarely have that luxury as it is just you and your gonads swinging in the wind.

Re:server?

[falcon5768]

Thats all great for file storage, but for one box that does everything a NAS appliance is useless. If all you needed was network storage you wouldnt be buying a Xserve so your argument is idiotic.

Re:server?

[Jeremi]

At most you have a beef with Ubuntu, not Linux itself.

Sure. But nobody uses a kernel alone; to get useful work done you need the entire package. And that was my point: that Apple ships a complete product that is a well-known quantity, whereas Linux is not. When someone buys a Mac, it's a Mac, and it "just works". There are only a few versions of the software and hardware in existence, and they all work well. When someone is running Linux, that could mean any of hundreds of different things and we end up running around in circles trying to work around problems (or, less productively, arguing about what is or is not "Linux"). This uses up time and energy that could be better spent on productive work.

To sum up: if we had chosen a Mac for our server, we would not be having this discussion because we would not have encountered this problem. (and I say that as someone who uses Linux as his primary OS, 8+ hours per day, so it's not that I don't like Linux; I just know from experience that Apple's combination of technical excellence and monocultural coherence does provide some advantages in the field)

Re:server?

[GnarlyDoug]

Okay, yes it would be a specific distribution that would have to be vetted, not Linux itself. Sorry for not being specific in my statements.

I didn't know about Apple being dragged to court. That's interesting to know. Thanks for the info. In the end I think it will turn into a windfall for them however.

As for Redhat's size, it has a market cap of $4 billion. Apple is $163 billion, Microsoft is $347 billion, IBM is $158 billion. Redhat is not a small company, but it isn't even close to playing in the really big leages yet. Even Sun is 5x larger at $20 billion. Let's say you're Wal-Mart with a market cap of $180 billion. Redhat is probably smaller as a company than your own IT division is. You're going to have faith that they can provide support, training, and service to your enterprise needs when they're such a tiny fraction of your size and you're not their only customer? You might in the end, but you'll have to think hard about it.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do these virtual Mac OS X server instances run Linux?

The problem VMware and others might face...

[anss123]

The problem VMware and others face in getting Mac OS X up an running in a VM is that the OS might not support the hardware they're emulating. Work that out an they'll have to OS up and running in no time.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face...

[Major Blud]

I'm not sure I follow you on this. Apple is only licensing Leopard to be run on an OS X host. Are you suggesting that VMWare won't be able to support Mac hardware in an OS X virtual machine running on an OS X host box on Mac hardware?

Re:The problem VMware and others might face...

[anss123]

The OS running in the VM can't directly access the host hardware (except the CPU) so to run Linux, Windows, etc, VMs emulates a SVGA card, a network adapter and such. There's no guarantee that Mac OS X supports these emulated devices out of the box (I don't know). That's the biggest hurdle with running OS X on current VMs. With that solved they'll probably also want to add some 'vm tools' before releasing Mac OS X compatible products.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face...

[Major Blud]

I understand that part, but not all VM's work this way....doesn't VMWare actually access some physical devices directly (or maybe this is Xen, not sure)? Regardless, Apple did release a VMWare image of 10.4 to developers when making the Intel transition, so I'd imagine that this wouldn't be too difficult.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face...

[anss123]

Some VMs do give hardware access, but that's for stuff like CD-Roms and USB devices. If Mac OS X already runs in VMs then I guess you should see VMs with Mac OS X support sooner rather than later.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face...

[jwthompson2]

Parallels is in the better position on this one since they are now part of SWSoft. The Virtuozzo/OpenVZ team could likely look to implement OS Virtualization for OS X that would bypass the hardware emulation concerns. Sure it ain't as flexible as full-stack virtualization but it would work for many just the same and would provide better performance than hardware emulation to boot.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face...

[TheRaven64]

Any half-decent server virtualisation tool will use emulated devices for booting at most. After that, it will switch to using paravirtualised devices. These will use device drivers written by the VM provider with an interface designed to have very low overheads. OS X has had a stable driver API for some years, so this really shouldn't be a problem.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face...

[MikeFM]

I've had OS X running in VMWare for about a year. It requires a couple tweaks, mostly to turn off Trusted Computing, to make it fast enough to use properly but thats about it. Now that VMWare can legally support OS X I expect it'll become a lot easier to setup OS X really soon.

Xen and non-Apple Hardware

[PowerEdge]

I think it would be just as well if Apple ported the kernel to Xen and allowed it to be run on a Dom0 and additionally was allowed to run on non-Apple hardware.

Before you get too excited...

[kebes]

Note that this change means that you can run multiple copies of OS X server on a single physical machine... as long as that machine is Apple-branded hardware. They are not permitting you to run OS X Server in an arbitrary virtual environment on arbitrary x86 hardware. The new license reads:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the "Mac OS X Server Software") on a single Apple-labeled computer. You may also install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer, provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software.

(emphasis added)

That having been said, I have to wonder whether people will attempt to side-step this restriction. Once OS X Server and virtual solutions (like VMWare) are tweaked so as to allow easy virtualization, one would imagine it would be easy to move the virtual image to different (not Apple-branded) hardware. Then again, perhaps part of this collaboration with VMWare and Parallels is specifically to have hooks that will allow OS X Server to verify that the physical hardware is a genuine Apple machine.

Or maybe it's not a major concern, since the target market for OS X Server is large-scale businesses that typically abide by software license agreements. (Or am I being naive?)

Re:Before you get too excited...

[PowerEdge]

Is there going to be an ESX variant specifically for X-serve systems? And why? Otherwise, how is the proposed solution any different than Zones?

Re:Before you get too excited...

[domatic]

I've never seen any reason for Apple to disallow virtualization on their own hardware. There's been times I could have used it myself. I used to run Linux on a Pismo Powerbook and used MOL for those times I needed OS X. It ran really well too. But no soap doing that with an Intel Mac. It just takes hooks so that even a virtual OS X can make the Apple hardware checks. They really need to extend this to the client OSes as well. I have and like an Intel MacBook but would rather mimic my old Pismo setup. It isn't an option currently and no I don't want a VMWare hackintosh under Linux I like things like Software Update working correctly.

Re:Before you get too excited...

[Scootin159]

Apple-labeled computer? So I only need to put an Apple sticker on my computer?

Re:Before you get too excited...

[2nd Post!]

No, you just need Apple to label your computer for you :)

Re:Before you get too excited...

[statusbar]

The reason I have been wishing for mac os x support in vm's (but not server support!) is because I hate that when I bought a new laptop it came with tiger and panther would not install on it. So if I wanted to sell a program that is validated to work on panther, I had to keep old hardware around that would run panther. Same issue now with leopard and tiger. If I could run the o/s in a vm like I do with windows 2000, xp, and vista, then I'd be able to validate the software for all the o/s's easily. Even win98 if I had to, even without an old computer that could still run it.

jeffk

Re:Before you get too excited...

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

No no no. You need a label gun and the ability to spell "Apple" in horrible raised letters.

Re:Before you get too excited...

[that this is not und]

I have a bunch of old Apple Labels. And now I hope I don't regret that I didn't save the labels off all that old Mac hardware I scrapped a few years back. In any event, I boxed up and saved all the CDROM drives out of the machines, and they all have Apple labels on them. They're SCSI drives, but I suppose as long as I bolt them into whatever x86 clone I want to run Apple's MacOS on, I am okay. Or I could peel the labels off the CDROM drives, stick 'em on some release paper and sell them on eBay to other people who want 'Apple labeled' hardware to run Apple's MacOS on.

There could soon be a growth industry for Apple Labels.

Re:Before you get too excited...

[TheRaven64]

Great! My copy of Leopard came with two Apple stickers!

Re:Before you get too excited...

[javaxman]

Plenty of *very* small business use ( or could afford ) an XServe. Now they're giving a business the chance, via VMware, to run, on one easy-to-admin XServe, any number of x86 Unix or Windows Server ( or non-server ) instances. Instead of buying some Dell server to run that one windows-only ( or Solaris-only )service or app, we can buy one XServe, virtualize the server OS we need, and run/maintain everything on that one XServe. Is that attractive to small businesses and small IT departments? Heck ya.

Of course, part of the collaboration will be to verify, as much as possible, that the actual hardware is genuine Apple stuff. Also of course, that restriction will be hacked around by a very small minority of folks who simply think it's fun to do so.

What I'd really like to see out of this is virtualization of *non-server* OS X instances being allowed. It's nice that I can have WindowsXP and Solarisx86 in VM on my MacBook, but if I could also run a copy of OS X that could be a 'test' environment for server apps, without having to worry about keeping my actual environment clean? That would be nice, too.

Re:Before you get too excited...

[Anonymous Coward]

i've got similar thoughts at the moment. the command line tools have been updated in leopard and are a little more strict than they used to be and it's causing troubling compiling a project im working on. eventually I'm sure it'll get fixed but for now i have a tiger partition i need to boot in order to compile the project. im thinking about getting one of the hacked copies of tiger and trying to run it in vmware on my macbook so i can get rid of the tiger partition and lose the reboots

Re:Before you get too excited...

[ofdan]

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the "Mac OS X Server Software") on a single Apple-labeled computer. You may also install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer, provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software. Hopefully that doesn't mean paying again for additional licenses

Re:Before you get too excited...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple includes 2 Apple stickers with every Mac they sell. I'll sell you one of mine (never used) for only US$100.

Re:Before you get too excited...

[hawk]

cool! I knew those three Apple //e 's up in the attic would come in handy for something!

hawk, who wants a plain ][

still forcing hardware

[WrongOne]

seems this is only allowed on MAC hardware.... Mr. Jobs. please stop tieing your software to your hardware.

Re:still forcing hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, if you don't like the product that Apple builds, buy something else. The fact is that Apple has and always will tie their software to their hardware. This is for many technical reasons.

Move on.

Expected

[MBCook]

I've been wondering if they would allow this for a while. My idea was Apple would allow it, but only when the host system is Apple hardware (possibly running an Apple OS as the host OS). That way you could run 10 copies of OS X Server on your XServe, that would be OK with them. But you couldn't run copies of OS X Server on your Dell.

That seems like the Apple solution to the problem to me. You can do what you want, but under our slightly restrictive policies that wouldn't be a problem for many people (but others won't like).

Statement in article is incorrect

[FranTaylor]

In the story John Walsh says that virtual machines are more important in Windows. It's just as important with Linux. Much commercial Linux software requires a distribution that you probably don't want to run on your machine. With virtualization, it's no problem.

It's not clear to me what problem is being solved by having virtual OSX.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[vux984]

It's not clear to me what problem is being solved by having virtual OSX.

Same problems as virtualization has always solved.

The ability to deploy different versions of the same services on the same ports without deploying a new box.

The ability to run different versions of OSX on the same box.

Server consolidation.

Testing/debugging environments.

etc, etc.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It's not clear to me what problem is being solved by having virtual OSX.

Availability

Imagine having an instance of an OSX operating system running on a rack of XServers. Now imagine that particular XServer getting bogged down by another OSX instance, or worse beginning to show signs of failing. By having instances of OSX running on virtuallized servers (especially on identical hardware), that particular instance of OSX can migrate to a better performing XServer within the rack without the software or the users of the instance realizing that a change has been made. Other than some latency due to the migration.

Wow I talked about migrating virtual operating systems twice in one week, this is an omen...

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[ArbitraryConstant]

> It's not clear to me what problem is being solved by having virtual OSX.

The change to their license only applies to OS X server, so it it applies to their server product. I run my domains on a $20/mo VPS service. This is fine for dns, web, e-mail, moderate database, etc. A server like this is more than enough for a small business.

Without support for virtualization, I'd need to buy and colocate an XServe, which would be around an order of magnitude more expensive. This pretty much rules OS X out without even getting into a discussion of the pros and cons, it just can't participate at a price that's interesting.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

buzzword compliance, apple has to keep the fanbois happy

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[FranTaylor]

If I have to buy a license for each instance, it's going to get expensive fast.

Is the license for instance copies, or running instances? How about suspended instances? Do they count? What if I copy an instance and it's running in two places at once? Even if I suspend one as soon as the second unsuspends? Running a licensed OS in a virtual machine is an exercise in ambiguity.

Right now there's only one version of OSX that will support this, so that's not interesting.

Just about anything you can do on an OSX server, you can do faster, cheaper, etc. on a Linux server. Different story on the desktop, I'm not going there.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[ThosLives]

I still amuse myself from time to time thinking, "Heck, if we virtualize OS software, why don't we go one step further and virtualize virtualization software! A whole new untapped market!"

Seriously, though, if applications and OSs were structured differently, there would be no reason for "virtualization".

(After all, isn't the OS supposed to be the "virtualization" between applications and hardware in the first place?)

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[vux984]

I still amuse myself from time to time thinking, "Heck, if we virtualize OS software, why don't we go one step further and virtualize virtualization software! A whole new untapped market!"

Actually the above is likely to happen.

Seriously, though, if applications and OSs were structured differently, there would be no reason for "virtualization".

Not really. It would look different but we'd still need it.

Consider if the hardware abstraction provided by virtualization had been there all along, and was standardised, so you could install a HAL, and then an OS, and then your applications. In theory, the HAL could support multiple OSes, so the HAL would have to provide more than basic 'memory management', and decisions would have to be made on how to provide each OS a 'video' card, while still allowing hardware acceleration, etc.

Such a HAL would look a lot like VMWare ESX, except that instead of providing virtual hardware to the OS on top, it would provide a standardized HAL API.

Of course, over time, we'd improve the HAL, and different OSes would require different HALs, and we'd need to have a HAL that could host the different HALs...

(After all, isn't the OS supposed to be the "virtualization" between applications and hardware in the first place?)

That's just one small facet of operating systems. Other facets are thread and memory management, common libraries and services including everything from providing an api for user interface (the windowing system, and window widgets like buttons) to providing encryption services, and network stacks like TCP/IP.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[ThosLives]

Interesting points, but I feel there is more discussion:

...and decisions would have to be made on how to provide each OS a 'video' card, while still allowing hardware acceleration, etc.

How is that different than simply providing each application with a graphics context? Sounds the same to me, just with a different flavor.

Other facets are thread and memory management,...

A VM today has to do this between the various OSs. OSs already do this today. I don't see any difference, other than an OS wants to have more control than applications typically.

common libraries and services including everything from providing an api for user interface (the windowing system, and window widgets like buttons) to providing encryption services, and network stacks like TCP/IP.

These are just software abstractions and I agree they are not the same as "accessing the hardware". A TCP/IP stack is just a common interface to Ethernet hardware. These are things that I understand are fine to be part of the "OS".

Of course, over time, we'd improve the HAL, and different OSes would require different HALs, and we'd need to have a HAL that could host the different HALs...

In my mind, this means we're doing it wrong - we don't have the correct view of abstraction. Any time you can increase something infinitely without bound, that's a good indication that somewhere your method of thinking about it is wrong - it means you should have taken out some of the middle layers.

That said, I think the only legitimate use of virtualization is running different operating systems on the same hardware because of the differences in libraries and APIs as mentioned above. That's mostly interface preference, though, and shouldn't have anything to do with a need for virtualization.

A single operating system should never have to have multiple instances running in virtual machines on the same hardware - In my mind this means that operating system cannot appropriately manage hardware resources, or applications aren't written to behave nicely with other applications. All throwing two instances of the same OS on a VM on a single piece of hardware means is that the OS (and/or applications written for it) can't handle the desired multiple applications that you'd want so some other meta-manager is required to keep things in check. Any "good" application should behave nicely with any other applications running in a single OS instance, be able to pass control to another instance of that application on other hardware, etc. A "good" OS should be able to survive rogue programs and keep them sandboxed and isolated so one program dying won't cause others to die.

So, if anything else, I agree that

It would look different

But I still think that virtualization, as it is currently used today, is just a patch to a class of more serious underlying issues with design philosophy.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[mosch]

This pretty much rules OS X out without even getting into a discussion of the pros and cons, it just can't participate at a price that's interesting.

At a price that's interesting to you.

For me, it'd be a cost saver. If I had an acceptable way to host OS X Server, I could install that and reduce the maintenance and problems associated with running my own jabber and imap servers. I might be able to ditch my kerberos and ldap servers as well.

This would be such a fantastic win that a few thousand dollars in licensing fees wouldn't even make me bat an eye. I'd order it today, if it was available as a supported product.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[vux984]

You made so many points worth responding to, but let me just say this.

An OS is big and complicated. The more services, interfaces, options, libraries, etc that it provides the harder it becomes to ensure its defect free.

And you are suggesting making them even bigger (allowing applications to move from one to the next, allowing multiple windowing systems to run at once, allowing multiple applications to bind to the same port number on different ip addresses even if one of them is ill-behaved and assumes it can bind to all of them, with management tools that can resolve/allocate hardware to applications, etc, etc, etc.

Yet simultaneously you are insisting that they have no defects to ensure sandboxes can't be escaped, etc.

Its a beautiful dream.

But virtualization solves the problem more elegantly:

1) They are small. So defects are easier to contain.
2) They don't require operating systems and applications to live up to your standards of 'goodness'.
3) They are backwards compatible with everything we already have.
4) They work today, your 'dream' would take years to realize.
5) They are future proof - even if we came up with a standard, how would we cope with competing standards, proprietary extensions to the standards, updates to the standard...

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[ArbitraryConstant]

> For me, it'd be a cost saver.

Sure. Now that virtualization is supported. That's my point. My post refers to the advantages of virtualization.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[MikeFM]

I run OS X in VMWare on Linux and Windows so that I can test software on all three platforms regardless to what I'm actually running as my host platform at a given time. Before Safari was released for Windows it was the only real way to test websites on Safari if you didn't have a Mac handy.

I haven't actually run OS X in VM on top of OS X. The only reason I can see to do so would be to test software against different versions of OS X.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[random0xff]

You could run 2 or 3 (or more) on one machine to save on hardware. And depending on the product, you can save the state and move the image to another machine.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[Pfhor]

If you want to spend the time to setup and maintain a custom LDAP directory solution to manage mac workstations, you could under linux (or use active directory, you just have to tweak the schema). The big value of OS X Server is that it integrates and manages mac workstations really well. Also, AFP, apple's native network filing protocol, isn't half bad and works best hosted on a mac server.

OS X Server licenses are 1 grand per instance (or $500 for 10 simulatenous file sharing users, no cap on web connections). No processor license, no connected user licenses. From a practical stand point, it only looks for local machines on the same subnet who have the same serial, so you could have multiple installations for testing, as long as any two were not on at the same time.

In a lot of cases I would imagine you have an xserve, or a vmware based boot loader, running OS X Server in one instance to be a lightweight file server, email server (kerio), doing open directory for the mac workstations, and then an instance of Windows 2003 Server hosting that one app you would have dedicated another box to in the past, like a web based time keeping software that requires IIS.

Still only on Apple Hardware

[GoRK]

It would be important to note in the summary that they seem to be allowing virtualized 10.5 server but still only if you do it on Apple-branded hardware and only if you buy licenses for each instance. It is kind of strange considering that the users who need this sort of thing are also the users who are quite good about being license compliant. A lot of these people who are asking for this are ready to deploy virtual Xserves right on top of existing VMWare ESX clusters today if it were simply ALLOWED. I can't really see the justification from a piracy concern standpoint or honestly even from the standpoint of losing hardware sales on the Xserve line.

What they really ought to allow is desktop OS X to be virtualized on top of apple hardware (ie run OS X VM's on xserve clusters) and allow OS X server to be virtualized on top of non-apple hardware. Not allowing this is really going to hurt their server business over the next few years I suspect. I also think that virtual desktop instances of OS X would be a very appealing way forward for the education market. I think Apple is enjoying its last days of lock-in in schools and having really NO computing product that is purpose built for education will probably make them slip soon.

Re:Still only on Apple Hardware

[YukonTech]

I'm a network specialist for a department of education, and I can say apple is no where near their last legs in education. Infact nextyear we will be removing 2 of our 3 remainging windows labs and replace them with iMacs. This last year we rolled out 300 new iMacs and it went fantastic I'm not sure what your talking about when you say NO computing product for the education market. Apples education discounts are very aggresive, Apple remote desktop is an incredible tool for education deployments, management, and even for classroom management. Price: Take the cost of an educational iMac and compare it to the price of a dell computer, add on deepfreeze, ghost, and antiviurs licences and you will find that the iMac is actually cheaper. Factor in the fact that our macs have at least a 50% longer life before they need to be replaced and you can see why apple is still king in education. As for running a windows lab without ghost / deepfreeze to save money we found we spent far more time on repairs, re-images, and RIS issues, than the cost of those two prodcuts. Without them it takes about 30 seconds for a grade 10 student to fry a windows install, to the point of the machine not booting. Disclaimer I am not a fanboy I will never get rid of my gaming PC at home, but when it comes to Education computers OSX really does provide the best user experience, management capabilities and have a very competitive total cost of ownership.

Re:Still only on Apple Hardware

[Minupla]

Sorry this is a huge OT, but since you don't have your email listed, I can't send this out of band.

Judging by your name and your language I'm going to assume you're working for YTG Education. In which case, congrats, you're doing the position I did in 2000. If Jay or Vivian are still there (or if you're one of them!) say 'Hi' from Dale. Feel free to drop me a line at my listed email if you feel like it.

Dale

Re:Still only on Apple Hardware

[GoRK]

I didn't say they were on their last legs and I didn't mean to imply that you will see any changes within the next several years, even. I'm also not trying to compare macs to PC's on the magical "TCO" number either. I'm trying to compare $200 thin clients that can take the abuse in schools for a solid 10 years to $1500 iMacs that can barely muster 4 and require maintenance besides.

However, the ENTIRE industry is gravitating to virtual machines for servers at a (rather insane) pace and virtual desktop/thin cient is getting adopted faster than I think anyone ever expected. Swallowing the iMac and xServe pill along with the labor to replace and manage the individual machines (you know you don't even NEED deepfreeze/ghost et. al. to manage VM's right?) will get harder and harder to swallow. And so here's the problem:

If Apple isn't already giving virtualization companies/projects the incentive to work on the technology to properly virtualize OS X server and OS X on the desktop TODAY, they aren't going to be ready to do it TOMORROW when you suddenly realize that, hey, you'd really like to have it because it makes your job a lot easier. And unless you want to trust Apple to work on it internally and stay competitive, I still think they aren't moving agressively enough into this space.

But still only on Apple hardware

[TheDrewbert]

It would be more interesting if I could run virtualized OSX server on my quad-processor AMD boxes alongside Linux and Server2003.

Damn! Almost excited...

[Penguinisto]

Now if only they can rug up a means to run OSX (Not the server version) on Non-Apple hardware... such a tease!

(I know, I know - but while I'm dreaming and all, I'd like a pony).

/P

"greater capability as a virtual machine server"?

[SuperBanana]

This probably presages a thoroughly overhauled Xserve product with greater capability for acting as a virtual machine server, too.

Huh? The current Xserve supports 3 SATA drives, 32GB of memory in 8 slots, and redundant power. Oh yeah, and 4 processor cores. Far as I know, all recent Xeon processors support intel virtualization features.

Regardless- I don't think you'll see Apple kowtowing to the virtualization fetish. Beyond the usual desktop virtualization needs, I don't think Apple's target audience for the Xserve needs this capability.

Let's all take a step back and realize that the current base Xserve is THREE GRAND and pretty damn bare-bones for that price-point; that does include OS X server unlimited, but yeeeeeesh- that's still almost $2k. I'm the first to argue that Apple's hardware isn't as overpriced as everyone claims, but this is one notable exception. It doesn't even include basic hardware RAID capabilities- you have to buy a (inserts pinky into mouth) ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR proprietary raid card to do hardware raid! Jeeeeesus christ, even the cheapest 1U boxen support BASIC raid, typically, or it's a $100-200 option...

Mr Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't want you to call his support number when your hodgepodge computer doesn't work because there are no OS X drivers for your hardware.

This could be good...

[BUL2294]

While AAPL wouldn't allow it, it opens the possibility of running OSX in a VM on a PC.

There's a new marketing plan that Apple should consider... Offer OSX to PC owners with a stripped-down version of Linux and an emulator, and Apple could get away with not having to support a myriad of hardware & their associated drivers...

But, alas, Stevie J. is too full of himself to consider what the consumers want...

exciting license

[lordholm]

"We applaud Apple for the exciting licensing changes"

Is it just me? But I hardly find a license change exciting, not even the the slightest bit. They should really send the PR person who wrote this to a shrink or a psychiatrist.

Re:exciting license

[myz24]

Well, it's exciting for them because it means $$. They'll have a larger pool of customers now that it includes Apple hardware as well. Really, it represents probably the best choice for a place that wants/needs to run multiple OS's as Apple hardware+vmware (or parallels) would be the ONLY way to run all three at the same time.

Re:exciting license

[commodoresloat]

"We applaud Apple for the exciting licensing changes"

Is it just me? But I hardly find a license change exciting, not even the the slightest bit. They should really send the PR person who wrote this to a shrink or a psychiatrist. Is it just me? But I hardly find a difference between a "shrink" and a "psychiatrist," not even the slightest bit. They should really send the poster who wrote this to the Department of Redundancy Department.

*cough*

[msimm]

Okay, I might concede point 1 depending how robust their server management tools are. But point 2 is stupid. While the quality of hardware/drivers argument might hold up with commodity PC, *if* you're going to compare server hardware to server hardware I think you're moving into more even footing. Sun, HP and even Dell's mid-range and up is solidly built and adequately tested to provide reliability on par or even surpassing anything cooked up in Cupertino.

As for your relatively irrelevant point about the problems your admin is having 1) why isn't that server headless anyway 2) and why would he be running what should be considered a beta server distro outside of testing/sandbox?

Wouldn't help...

[argent]

Without hardware OpenGL you wouldn't get the performance, and with pass-through OpenGL they'd have to support all the video drivers anyway.

I'm sure someone can come up with a feature list..

[argent]

I'm the first to argue that Apple's hardware isn't as overpriced as everyone claims, but this is one notable exception.

I'm sure someone could come up with a feature list that would make an XServe look competitive to a straw man "equivalent" box. Let's see, dual dual-core woodcrest plus *3* drive bays? Most 1U servers only have 2 bays, so that'll narrow things down... and don't forget, when you're comparing Mac and PC you don't worry if the PC is overspecced: you gotta have every feature of the Mac solution in the "equivalent" PC but the Mac never has to match up.

Apple's hardware has nice big margins, and PC hardware has razor-thin ones. That's reflected in the price.

The Mac Tax is the price you pay to get OS X. It's been worth the price for me, so far, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Yes, Apple servers are Cheap

[Macrat]

I agree with you. Considering all that you get out of the box, Apple servers are pretty cheap. Especially compared to the Dell "frankenboxes" that you constantly have to babysit.

Re:Yes, Apple servers are Cheap

[Slashcrap]

I agree with you. Considering all that you get out of the box, Apple servers are pretty cheap. Especially compared to the Dell "frankenboxes" that you constantly have to babysit.

So what exactly are the differences between Apple servers and equivalently priced Dell servers which make the Dell ones so inferior and in need of babysitting?

I suppose that the Apple servers come fitted with RAS cards allowing full out of band remote diagnostics and OS provisioning while the Dells don't, right? Please reply with real substantiated facts instead of any old shit that you think you can get away with just because this is in the Apple section.

Re:I'm sure someone can come up with a feature lis

[Macrat]

The Mac Tax is the price you pay to get OS X. It's been worth the price for me, so far, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

How is this different from the Microsoft Windows tax imposed on all OEMs even if they ship Linux?

Hella?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Which would be hella fun"

The only people who use "hella" like that anymore are named Cartman in a 3 year old episode of SouthPark making fun of people who say "hella".

Re:I'm sure someone can come up with a feature lis

[argent]

How is this different from the Microsoft Windows tax imposed on all OEMs even if they ship Linux?

1. You have to pay the Windows Tax even if you're not buying a device made by Microsoft (such as an XBox).
2. You don't have to pay the Mac Tax unless you're buying a device made by Apple (such as a Macintosh).
3. If you're not interested in running OS X, why the hell are you buying Apple's grotty kit?

still ignoring that $1k raid card...

[SuperBanana]

I'm sure someone could come up with a feature list that would make an XServe look competitive to a straw man "equivalent" box. Let's see, dual dual-core woodcrest plus *3* drive bays? Most 1U servers only have 2 bays, so that'll narrow things down

Not really, considering there are many 4-bay choices out there; ALL of the 1U NAS boxes are 4-bay. The Xserve used to have 4 bays, and they cut it back to put in cooling ducts. The third drive is largely useless considering that all most people want to do in that market segment is have a pair of mirrored drives.

Have you actually spec'd out rackmount gear in an enterprise setting? Everyone's got "dual core woodcrests". In fact, you have far more processor options from other vendors; HP offers almost a dozen processor choices for 1U machines, and that's just on the intel side; they offer another slew of choices from AMD. Apple only offers intel, dual-core xeon processors, while everyone else offers everything from celeron/Pentium-D to quad-core, dual socket solutions. I'm sure that's coming- in 6 months or so, Apple will have a big press event where they offer Xserves with a pair of quad-core processors. "Whoop de doo, welcome to January 2007", everyone else will say.

Dual power supplies, dual network, two [PCI/PCI-e/PCI-x] slots, dual processor slot, etc- it's all available from IBM, HP, Dell, etc. All the other vendors also offer superior iLOM features Apple doesn't, like virtual floppy/CDROM images and full virtual KVM emulation; the best Apple offers is a serial port and software-based remote control.

Most of them also support hardware raid- again, something the Xserve doesn't- unless you pony up another thousand bucks. Everywhere else, $1k will buy you a raid controller with gobs of on-card memory, battery-backup capabilities, and a lot more than three ports.

Mixed platform environment...

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming you are serving a lot of Macs, yes. In general, though, most large companies are not, and for the few Macs they have in, say, the marketing department, using one of the pre-canned NAS appliances (most of which run Linux) will get them the exact same thing, and probably in a more cost effective manner. OS X sever is perfectly capable of providing network services to Windows or Linux clients in a mixed-platform environment. I seriously doubt that Linux is somehow vastly superior in that regard, especially if you factor in the administration effort involved.

still has its downsides

[Anonymous Coward]

for one thing you'd have to run OSX, and the other problem is that you'd have to run Apple hardware. Seems like a couple of deal breakers to me.

Re:still has its downsides

[Bill_the_Engineer]

for one thing you'd have to run OSX, and the other problem is that you'd have to run Apple hardware. Seems like a couple of deal breakers to me.

Haha, you're such a jackass...

Seriously...

Out of all the expenses involved with running a data center, the so call extra cost of OSX and the Apple hardware is in the noise level. I think it's time for you to get back to playing your XBOX.

cheaper OS X Server hosting perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this mean cheaper (virtual) OS X Server hosting? I'd rather see OS X than
Linux running my webapp... I'm always a little nervous with Linux that I'll bork
something up ...

Re:cheaper OS X Server hosting perhaps?

[waferhead]

I'm sure someone would be glad to provide that service for a 1000% premium or so.

Liscense cost of adding another Linux/BSD VM:$0
Stick in on any beige box.
Admin cost for provider---~zero, provides common image, your problem after that for the most part.

Xserve OTOH...

They are missing a very big corporate boat...

[bhsx]

Apple could, along with AT&T, dominate the enterprise cellular market with the iPhone, if they'd just do one thing:
Add iPhone Enterprise Server to OS X Server. I've been saying it since the iPhone came out. The only reason BlackBerry is such a huge player is because of BES. The Bbs themselves are OK, but the iPhone blows them away. Give the iPhone a simple address book app that can query the iPES and phone, email, IM and status are all available on a corporate-wide level.
It wouldn't be that difficult to code something like that up; the people at RIM have pretty much proven they're not the rocket scientists people originally gave them credit for. Apple is poised to take-on that market, if not just completely take it OVER!
So, c'mon Apple, show us your corporate quality. You'll not regret it.

Not very good for a document server.

[MikeFM]

I can't see OS X being very good for a server. It's considerably more expensive than Linux and prone to wasting resources on UI. I use a tiny copy of FreeBSD for my file servers and it works very well.

Versioning filesystems aren't that new or impressive in the server world and aren't that complex to use anyway. The one I use on Linux simply has a .fs_history subdirectory in every directory that offers a read-only versioning view of the directory's contents. Each file is presented as a directory of the same name, with different versions of that file inside named by their creation/modification time. Any program read old versions and it'd be quite easy to make a modified file dialog for the system.

Now for the desktop I think most users have not yet experienced versioning so it'll probably be a nice feature. I don't know why no Linux distro, to my knowledge, has a versioning file system as the default file system for /home as it's such an obvious useful feature. More proof that distro maintainers are more interested in creating new wallpapers than in adding useful features. Since FUSE became commonplace it's been extremely easy to create useful file systems like this.

Re:Not very good for a document server.

[mrchaotica]

It's considerably more expensive than Linux and prone to wasting resources on UI.

Is it really wasting any resources on UI when no local (i.e., admin) users are logged in, as should normally be the case?

I don't know why no Linux distro, to my knowledge, has a versioning file system as the default file system for /home as it's such an obvious useful feature.

Space, probably, especially since it sounds like your filesystem (what's it's name, by the way?) stores whole copies rather than diffs.

Unfounded

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do you really know about OS X? If you claim it's one of the "less featured" I'd like some examples, please. And what is the basis for your claim that it's "slower and less scaleable"? In fact I believe OS X is actually really good at scaling. If not why would they use it build supercomputers?

Re:Unfounded

[mrsteveman1]

I know quite a bit about OS X architecture, and I also know there's a reason only a few Xserve clusters exist: it's a novelty.

Re:Unfounded

[jmorris42]

> If not why would they use it build supercomputers?

Probably the same reason our school system has to pick a school to hand out Macbooks at even though they haven't had an Apple product deployed for a decade and have zero infrastructure to deal with them. Politics.

Ommmm, OS Sells Hardware, Ommmm....

[cmholm]

What they really ought to allow is desktop OS X to be virtualized on top of apple hardware (ie run OS X VM's on xserve clusters) and allow OS X server to be virtualized on top of non-apple hardware. Not allowing this is really going to hurt their server business over the next few years I suspect.

I dipped into the comments for this article *knowing* that someone was going to make something like this comment... but I gotta ask, if you're gonna ask to virtualize osx server on non-apple hardware, why not go all the way and ask for it with the desktop osx as well? I mean, where's the rationale for going half-way? Obviously, the point of wanting to host osx on non-apple hardware at all is to cut costs by either using servers you've already got, or some cheap, no-name 1U crap you plan to pick off of eBay.

And, just as obviously, by this time you *know* that Apple still considers itself a hardware company, and that the os is bundled to move the iron. Anyone other than a troll still making the unbundling the os argument hasn't been reading the business section in something like, oh, three years.

Re:Ommmm, OS Sells Hardware, Ommmm....

[GoRK]

Well, honestly it's a point of compromise. If you want to virtualize Desktop OS X you want to get rid of a bunch of apple desktop hardware. If you want to virtualize OS X Server, you want to get rid of a few Xserves.

Considering what enterprise VMWare licenses actually cost, there is no way in hell you are going to slap them onto no-name 1u boxes. It's simply not done. But neither are you going to install your ESX licenses on Xserves -- it's not cost effective for other reasons.

Considering how Desktop OS X is very GPU dependent and remote viewing protocols are currently extremely inadequate for OS X thin client computing, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to push their own virtual desktop platform that can solve these problems. I'm talking Apple-made thin clients (and/or apple licensed thin client specs) and apple hosted virtualization -- perhaps their hardware will need GL compositing in the clients, for instance? Or maybe they will want to have vector processors in the Xserves to assist with this kind of work for theVM's server-side?

Apple is about delivering a better experience using both software and hardware. I would sure like to see OS X on non-apple hardware too, whether virtualized or not, but I am just trying to be realistic with a request. I think it would be very difficult for Apple to attempt to actually release and support an OS X for generic x86 and I don't expect that they have an economic incentive to do that right now.

That's not how the game is played. :)

[argent]

The third drive is largely useless considering that all most people want to do in that market segment is have a pair of mirrored drives.

Aha, now I get to abandon the devil's advocate side! Thanks for the opening, I really appreciate it.

This is how they got to tell me that I couldn't beat my Macbook Pro with a "comparable" thinkpad, by taking three or four features of the Macbook Pro that I don't actually care about (or that I would prefer not to have) and "discovering" that only the top of the line Thinkpad that costs almost as much as a Macbook Pro also has those features. If I come back and point out that it also has a mini-PCI internal slot so I can replace the Wifi with a second gigabit ethernet, and a Smartbay so that I can install a second hard drive, a floppy drive, or an additional battery (instead of the DVD-RW) I'm not allowed to count that as valuable.

If that kind of argument is "fair play" on the laptop side, then it's "fair play" on the server side. I don't get to say "I'd rather have a fatter laptop with a better keyboard" then you gotta accept the jet-engine nozzles and the extra drive bay as "requirements".

The fact is, Macs cost more for *genuinely* comparable generic hardware throughout the product range. There should be no mystery about that, or about why it is, or why people still buy them. Their servers are not particularly out of line with the rest.

Pity, no good for developers

[Craig Ringer]

This - alas - doesn't solve the need for developers to have access to Mac OS X for testing and porting their apps. Especially OSS developers, who may not want to fork out for a mac just for testing.

With luck Apple will at some point release a developer-only Mac OS X client OS (perhaps one without all the apps it normally comes with etc, just a barebones OS) for testing apps. They'd still face some risk people would use it for other things, but people who do so are likely to want to jump to real Apple gear anyway.

I'm not holding my breath, of course, since I value my life.

Go tell it to Apple

[maggard]

I am SOOOO sick of folks being so sure that Apple should bless MacOS X on generic PCs.

Do you all honestly think that the folks at Apple are entirely congenital idjits?

(I know, it wouldn't be /. if 99% of the posters weren't convinced their 30 seconds gloss on any random topic didn't give them profound insights those investing their professional careers on a subject astonishingly oblivious to...)

Perhaps, just perhaps, Apple has run the numbers.

Indeed, possibly, Apple actually HAS the numbers to run and so, after looking over their numbers, and considering their financial model, and the state of the market, they've managed to determine MacOS-on-* might NOT be in their best interest?

Because going on (and on, and on) about your deepest fanboy wishes on /. & like sites doesn't seem to be impressing the folks at Apple.

So, instead of telling the rest of us this again & again how you think Apple should do things how about putting together a nice presentation for them and see how far you get. Now, to be honest I don't think J. Random Know-It-All is gonna tell them anything they don't already know (probably better then you do) but please, go ahead, stop blathering on about how you're right and they're wrong and try and convince THEM.

'Cause saying it over and over again here is just a waste of electrons.

Re:Go tell it to Apple

[Jaxoreth]

Because going on (and on, and on) about your deepest fanboy wishes on /. & like sites doesn't seem to be impressing the folks at Apple.

I hate to admit it, but you're right. They still think Mac OS 9 is "dead".

So, instead of telling the rest of us this again & again how you think Apple should do things how about putting together a nice presentation for them and see how far you get.

Ooh, good idea. I'll fire up HyperCard as soon as my desktop finishes rebuilding.

Ludicrous

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The notion that Apple (or any software vendor) has any say in this whatsoever is disgusting.

apple isn't serious enough about server

[sentientbrendan]

I think this (not allowing virtual servers on non apple hardware) demonstrates clearly that apple isn't serious enough about making inroads with OSX server. Apple has little to gain by forcing users to buy apple branded hardware for servers. There is no market to support such a thing, but there is a huge market for a good server OS on commodity hardware, which would be possible with virtualization.

As it is, there's just no good reason to do anything with OSX server. It just doesn't stand up to the competition price wise if you have to buy it in conjunction with apple's extra pricey hardware. Apple's server platform is a real "me too" effort right now. They might as well discontinue the line, I have a real hard time imagining anyone is buying OSX servers.

hackers? running OS X server?

[RMH101]

like the number of people wanting to do that is going to hurt apple.

Re:"greater capability as a virtual machine server

[cthulhu11]

Hardware RAID is a bad idea anyway. You get some proprietary layout that probably isn't transportable, and the monitoring/admin utils suck bigtime. The x4100 eg. has some flinky hw RAID but it's not worth using.

They've been burned.

[argent]

I am SOOOO sick of folks being so sure that Apple should bless MacOS X on generic PCs. [...] [It] might NOT be in their best interest?

They certainly have evidence that attempting to become a software company instead of a hardware company is a rocky road. Both Apple and NeXT tried that in the '90s, and it didn't work then... NeXT didn't have the user base to launch it as a software platform, and Apple was stuck with a product that required their licensees to build completely custom hardware that wouldn't run any other software, so they couldn't possibly charge enough for an OEM license to make up for the lost hardware sales.

I don't think either applies in this case, and I've seen figures that indicate that they'd be able to break even pretty quickly, and would probably do better over the long term. But I don't expect Apple to really believe that they can make the third time a charm, not without more incentive than that.

then

[Anonymous Coward]

if the cost of the OS and hardware is in the "noise level" range, then where are all the real costs? Maybe with software that you'd run on it, or with the administration, and in that case why run some oddball stuff that nobody else does? I mean why would you run OSX when you'd rather run linux, a normal bsd or even a microsoft product? Apple doesn't even lay their filesystem out normally, and thus you lose the advantage of getting standard unix knowhow that you'd retain with linux, bsd, or a commercial unix. Really, there is just no advantage to Apples product line unless you're an image concious metrosexual, and thats just not a sales pitch you'd want to make to enterprise customers, ie., "our servers are color coordinated."

Re:then

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Really, there is just no advantage to Apples product line unless you're an image concious metrosexual, and thats just not a sales pitch you'd want to make to enterprise customers, ie., "our servers are color coordinated."

I know this guy is being silly, but for others who may not don't know the correct answer.

Labor costs, utilities, Labor, building costs, Labor, Telecommunication charges, Labor, oh did I mention labor.

So what does Apple offer? Turn Key solutions.

I use linux servers for most of the GSE and development support, but there is a healthy market for turnkey servers. This why Dell, HP, Sun, Apple, IBM, etc. make tons of money selling very high priced servers.

So while he may be projecting his masculinity issues on others, I hope he relaxes, educate himself more, and don't spend too much time playing his XBOX.