Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
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?)
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).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
Seriously - you can already run these on Apple hardware already (sans virtualization). The word "change" doesn't not apply here.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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.
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.
I can think of several possible advantages:
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Pretty simple really, just make VMware and Parallels check if it is on mac hardware before it will enable the virtual machine.
It would be more interesting if I could run virtualized OSX server on my quad-processor AMD boxes alongside Linux and Server2003.
http://www.CelloFourteGroupie.net
(I know, I know - but while I'm dreaming and all, I'd like a pony).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Most other things, like the Directory, are based on open standards like LDAP and Kerberos (real Kerberos, not Windows brain-damaged kerberos).
My blog
Huge fines against companies found to be doing it without licenses?
You know, just throwing ideas out here...
I said 'hackers', Any scheme like that WILL be hacked. Maybe I need to be more obvious.
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...
Please help metamoderate.
Maybe you should pay closer attention to the word "simultaneously"?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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.
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...)
sigfault. core dumped.
What's the point of caring if a rackmount server runs 1600x1200?
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.
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).
This space unintentionally left unblank.
"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.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
If the sysdadmin has nothing to do, he could play a pretty badass game of Tetris.
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?
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.
> 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.....
Democrat delenda est
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.
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.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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?
Quack, quack.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
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.
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.
Without hardware OpenGL you wouldn't get the performance, and with pass-through OpenGL they'd have to support all the video drivers anyway.
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.
Going by Apple's website, it doesn't appear that Server supports Time Machine. It does, however, have Spotlight Server.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
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.
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.
My blog
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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?
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.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
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?
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?
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.
Please help metamoderate.
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?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
Website Hosting
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...
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.
Did you know that gullible is not in the dictionary?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
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.
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
> 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
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.
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.
put the what in the where?
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.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
.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.
/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.
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
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
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Ya, because running Shadow Copy on server 2003 at a quarter the price just isn't worth it.......
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
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.
My blog
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.
If you mean Appletalk, NT does that.
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.
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.
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.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
> 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.
Democrat delenda est
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...
:-). 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.
:-)
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
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
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
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.
Luke, help me take this mask off
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.
They can read the TPM manufacturer code to do this.
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.
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.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
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.
One thing still puzzles me however, and that is Apple's choice of form factor.
:P
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!
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.
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...
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.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
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.
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".
(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?
Content + Container; Content = Container; Content â Container... which is the question?
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.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
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).
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.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
The notion that Apple (or any software vendor) has any say in this whatsoever is disgusting.
http://outcampaign.org/
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.
I thought VMware intentionally prevents itself from running in itself?
like the number of people wanting to do that is going to hurt apple.
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
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)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
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.
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.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...