Slashdot Mirror
Large-Scale Mac Deployment?
UncleRage writes "I've been asked to research and ultimately recommend a deployment procedure for Macs across a rather large network. I'm not a stranger to OS X; however, the last time I worked on deployment NetRestore was still king of the mountain. Considering the current options, what methodologies do admins adhere to? Given the current selection of tools available, what would you recommend when planning, prototyping, and rolling out a robust, modular deployment scenario? For the record, I'm not asking for a spoon-fed solution; I'm more interested in a discussion concerning the current tools and what may (or may not) have worked for you. There are a lot of options available for modular system deployment... what are your opinions?"
Is there even such a thing in this world? Folks like to disparage Windows, but it really is the only OS built for very large enterprises. Linux solutions don't really compare to Windows solutions - there, I said it...
Guess what? It would be you, not the Macs. I'd have fired you for wasting the time needed to tear a display apart instead of sending it to the manufacturer to be repaired.
Taking it apart yourself is worse than paying somebody else $400/hr to take it apart for you?
Try asking this on serverfault.com. Lots of advice can be found there.
I have had great success out of both DeployStudio (http://deploystudio.com/) and LanREV (http://www.lanrev.com) in K-12 schools with 200+ machines.
wow the only real answer this guy is gonna get...
Spoken like someone who's obviously never seen, much less used, OS X Server. OS X server is built around standards based enterprise tools like Apache, LDAP, CalDAV, and IMAP. You know, ISP grade stuff like this:
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html
What standards is your Windows Server / gaming platform, based on?
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
"Ever replace a backlight in a fucking Apple Cinema Display? That's 3 layers (and a thousand assorted screws and layers of tape)"
Sounds like replacing a backlight in every LCD monitor that has ever existed.
We have an OS X server.
It really does suck.
It's kind of like a crippled BSD server with weird management utilities and a lot of buggy modified utilities.
You might as well just use a normal Linux server, since all the same daemons are available, and much easier to manage.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The only problem with Mac OS X Server (and this is speaking from 10.3-10.4 experience; maybe 10.6 server is better) is that if Apple's grand vision for your network doesn't fit your own vision, then Mac OS X Server is next to useless. The problem is that Apple has preconfigured a number of built-in services, and changing them causes major headaches.
/etc/smb.conf. What's worse is that Apple often runs old versions of this software. If, say, you want to go out and run the latest Samba, nothing is stopping you, but expect parts of Apple's system to break. Sure, I admit, lots of people go this route and have many workarounds for Apple's stuff, but for us, we figured: if we're going to do all this work to circumvent Apple's packaged stuff, why not just run Linux? So that's what we run on our backend now. We even run Netatalk, which has to be the simplest daemon I've ever configured-- it basically worked with PAM+winbind right out of the box, and so we're able to authenticate our AFP clients against AD, too.
For instance, in 10.4, any change to the GUI would overwrite your
If you're a very small shop, and you want a simple drop-in fileserver, Mac OS X will probably work for you. If you want a simple Open Directory, and don't have an existing directory system, Mac OS X will probably work for you. But get any more complex than that and you might as well use something else.
Yes.
The fact that this is modded Funny is really shitty.
A new PowerBook hmm? It's clear you're well informed on the subject of Apple computers, given that a "new" PowerBook has to be at LEAST 3 years old at this point.
Sorry but no.
Based on your anecdotal example...bla bla bla. Buy you readily say you're buying sub-par equipment. So i'm not sure how you can compare "good" equipment. If i bought a $300 clearance PC and compared it to a $800 enterprise-class PC i'm sure i'd see more failures in the cheapy one.
Moving on...to the smaller end of 'large' business - 2500 users and ~4000 computers in my enterprise. Similarly configured Macs cost us about twice what a PC does. Apple doesn't give on hardware unless you're buying them by the truck load and even then it's not nearly as much as other large suppliers.
Go negotiate pricing with 7-figure yearly spending and Dell, HP, etc. will give a LOT more than Apple. Yes, Macs are pretty but we're talking about enterprise. Pretty takes a back seat.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Similarly configured Macs cost us about twice what a PC does.
The last actual study I read on this, Macs cost about 20% more than the average PC on the market. That put them right in line with Sony and several other reputable computer manufacturers. Apple systems also rated best in the industry for hardware failure rates both DOA and within the first 2 years and had the best rating for support solutions to both hardware and software problems. That pretty much justifies placing them in the premium hardware category don't you think?
When you say Macs sot more than PC's you're simply wrong. Mac's cost about the same as good PCs. They are better than and cost more than crappy PCs which are a lot more likely do die on you. If you buy a PC with the same level of reliability and quality components as a Mac you'll spend about the same. On the other hand, when you buy a Mac you will probably spend more money than when you buy a comparable PC. I know you're scratching your head at this point.
The problem with buying Macs isn't that they cost too much for what you get. The problem is they have fewer models than the combination of all reputable PC makers, so you're less likely to be able to get exactly what you want so you often end up buying something that exceeds the requirements. The end result is a buyer spending more, but it's due to lack of selection not overpricing. I wish people on both ends of this stupid argument would actually look up the numbers and comprehend the situation, so we could stop having this discussion over and over again.
Does price matter in enterprise, where the hard cost of the machine is maybe 10% of it's 3-4 year cost in IT labor, software, upgrades, and downtime?
Fact is, and NOONE argues this, the PC simply costs 2-3 times the amount of time investment anually, plus requires additional software and agent licenses not required on the mac side (and no, I DO count AV for both Mac and PC, I'm refereing to image software, central management agents, and extras like PDF writers, etc that all come free with a Mac).
Even if the Mac was 3 times the cost, $500 to $1500, at $50 a hour (low for internal IT costs, all inclusive of salary, training, tools, desk cost, space for the emplyee, etc, industry norm is considderend $70-100 per hour for helpdesk staff costs), it would only take a 20 hour differnce in IT investment, even if all other costs were the same software and upgrade wise (the Mac makes out better there too), for the Mac to be cheaper than the PC. This also doesn't count resale value, or tax incentives, which favor the Mac as well.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.