Slashdot Mirror
Will Apple's Lion Roar For Business?
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has long had a troubled relationship with IT departments. Any creative professional will testify just how hard it can be to convince IT managers to allow the use of Macs in Windows-dominated environments. And, despite the fact that the Mac OS is now quite a well-behaved client on Windows LANs, Apple sometimes does little to help its own cause. The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server. There are rumors that Apple will, itself, run a virtualized version of Mac OS under VMware as part of its iCloud product. Allowing OS X to run as a guest on non-Apple servers, and even on the desktop under VDI, would bring enormous administrative benefits to companies using Macs."
"Any creative professional will testify just how hard it can be to convince IT managers to allow the use of Macs in Windows-dominated environments."
You mean, any creative professional who uses a Mac.
One of my IT guys came in to ask what time I downloaded Lion on Wednesday. The time I downloaded the OS and the time a colleague downloaded it correlated with times our network traffic was pegged and he couldn't access the Internet.
Allowing OS X to run as a guest on non-Apple servers, and even on the desktop under VDI, would bring enormous administrative benefits to companies using Macs
Apple would never allow this. As has been often noted, Apple is a hardware company. Allowing OS/X on non-Apple hardware would only cut into their hardware business. Besides, no one can make their servers "pretty" enough to meet Steve's artistic tastes (except Apple's engineers of course).
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.
before reaching a coclusion, read a better researched article, written by someone who really knows macs firts: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.ars (warning, 14 pages article)
lion can be burned to a DVD after download, also, in the near future, apple will ofer lion on thumb drives for $69.
the EULA also mentions virtualisation. the hypervisor probably needs to run on a mac OS host, but it is supported as guest, if the EULA is true.
What ? Me, worry ?
But I thought the whole point of Lion was to bring the mobile OS market and the desktop OS market closer together? Isn't Apple's general strategy to be a complete unification at some point? That's certainly what it seems like to a lay-person...
That being said, I don't see how that would be compatible with administrative requirements in the business world. Apple seems to be moving towards being completely focused on the consumer aspect where people are shopping on the App Store for all of their software, the bulk of said software being Angry Birds-esque games and ways to consume mass media. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not in the industry at all, but it just seems like they're moving away from any real "nuts and bolts" business use outside of the Point of Sale market.
Why would it? OSX-virtualization is still limited to fruit-hardware by license. And the available server-hardware? Mac Minis and Mac Pros. Yeah...
Just copy the downloaded Lion to a thumb drive and install it on all the corporate computers. If anything, it's easier than windows. Complaining about each person downloading it is retarded. You only need to download it one time, copy it to a drive and use it all over the place. IT, once again, showing ignorant and lazy they can be.
Apple is a company that makes its money primarily through the sale of boutique computer and electronics equipment. Their equipment happens to need an OS. Sure, there are some higher end applications for video and music that have created a niche market, but at the moment they make their money on selling trendy computers and electronics to trendy people at trendy prices.
Enterprise IT is different. Computers stay in use until they're depreciated or until they're nonviable. IT departments aren't interested in upgrading, and do it in waves, usually skipping entire generations of hardware and OSes because they don't fit the support model. IT departments also don't like variation and work hard to buy literally one model of computer for as absolutely long as possible, again, skipping generations of machines until latching on to the next long-term purchase model. It's the ONLY way to make support over a large number of machines (sometimes as much as many as 5000 to a technician like where I work) even close to possible.
Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. Got that iPad six months ago? Come get the iPad 2! Got that Mac Book? Come get the Mac Book Pro! 10.5? That's ANCIENT! Come buy 10.7!
Apple's business plan is highly successful, but only in the market they've built for themselves. They have no interest in licensing their OS out to run on hardware not their own, and with their upgrade strategy, they can't make significant inroads into Enterprise IT.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
First, it's possible to create your own disc or USB stick containing the Lion installer, so that's hardly a problem. Secondly, if you absolutely need some blessed install media, Apple will be selling an official install on a USB drive in a month. This is something that has been discussed on Slashdot so I don't see why glaring inaccuracies like this should get through.
Apple has pretty good enterprise tools, directory support, image deployment. What I have noticed in my organization is that Windows admins simply don't want to investigate. We have an Apple rep (engineer) that gives free classes on anything we want and still the Windows admins complain Lion needs a 3rd party (expensive) full disk encryption, special programs to integrate with Active Directory and can't be imaged.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
When, for instance, did apple fix their OS to use windows server print queues without locking the AD user account when their password changed? 10.6, that's when.
Please, this issue was over ten years ago - where is the apple equivalent of AD, or group policies? They've had ELEVEN YEARS. And that's just three examples - so please slashdot, enough with the fanboy ignorance articles.
1. Lion is not download-only; there is a USB stick version.
2. Lion can be virtualized; the license explicitly allows it (Obviously, you still need Apple hardware on which to run the VM; Apple still wants to make money.)
Apple can run their OS X based iCloud infrastructure on top of VMWare all they want, using INTERNAL ONLY builds of OS X that will happily boot and run within a VMWare virtual machine, and being the owner of OS X, they are not subject to their own licensing terms. For all we know, Apple already does this to support its online presence and existing services infrastructure. There is no reason to think that Apple has any interest or intentions of bringing to market an OS X license that allows it to be a guest on non apple hardware.
This whole story summary is a 1 cent rumor wrapped in a thin layer of unrelated truth.
about businesses? Apple is a consumer electronics company. This topic comes up every few years. It's like Apple is supposed to care about businesses when the majority of their revenue comes from consumers. The notion is entirely misplaced. At best Apple accommodates business customers or perhaps more accurately Apple tries to make it easy for their customers, consumers, to do work too.
You do not have to download a copy for every machine. There is not a serial number in the OS, so download it once, burn to DVD or thumb drive, install everywhere. Apple still relies on people to do the right thing, and it works. They also will sell OS X on thumb drive very soon. Do not look for Apple to allow businesses to run virtual copies of OS X, it would break their business model. They are a hardware company.
I work at a professional association that is Mac-based. We have one Linux box and a couple of people run Windows thru Parallels.
I can't speak for our IT dept, but I've heard comments echoing the need for AAPL to step it up in the small-business department. I'm seeing too much focus on iShit and not enough on the business environment. I've got a couple of iPods around the house, but they get far less use than my desktop machine.
And don't get me started on the walled garden of iPhone/iPad. I'm Android all the way in that respect.
Easy AD integration.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.
before reaching a coclusion, read a better researched article, written by someone who really knows macs firts: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.ars (warning, 14 pages article)
lion can be burned to a DVD after download, also, in the near future, apple will ofer lion on thumb drives for $69.
the EULA also mentions virtualisation. the hypervisor probably needs to run on a mac OS host, but it is supported as guest, if the EULA is true.
Shhh! Don't go getting your "facts" all over the PC fanboiz Two Minutes Hate. ;)
I detest that phrase. What profession doesn't require a certain degree of creativity? Graphic design and journalism require it, sure, but so do engineering, medicine, and law.
all the hardware is made by a handful of companies in China like FoxConn.
the problem with letting non-apple hardware run apple software is that it hurts their brand.
Since I haven't had the time recently to dig into the details of the Lion's upgrade, but it does feel more of a consumer upgrade than anything that is necessary to upgrade to this time around. Snow Leopard will still have security updates for sometime and I'd rather see where Apple goes with their next OS then jump into Lion on anything but a Macbook Air.
Well-behaved LAN client != Managed client
Until OS X takes on or even implements active management of clients at even a fraction of the level Windows does, it will not be viable in corporate/enterprise enviornments.
With Active Directory and Windows management capabilties, Microsoft has always focused on enterprise/business customers and an increasingly seamless system. Windows client/server environments self maintain, and offer a vast number of features that it is impossible to even replicate on OS X.
The world is no longer just well-behaved clients that work well with file shares and printers, and hasn't been since the early 90s, when Novel didn't grasp this evolution either. The transition was first to application server technologies, then centralized technologies that allowed computing power to stay local and offer a lot of features to the users/client and yet behave with the ease of agnostic terminal computing.
apple needs to make some hardware changes for business use like.
* Needs to have some kind of hardware / software road map
* Mini and Imac's need to easy to open at least being able get to the HDD
* Let Business send in systems for warranty work with out a HDD in side
* Better pricing VS dell and others at least for big orders of hardware
* allow some OS downgrades on new hardware
* App store for business
* smaller OS update downloads
* some kind of desktop mid tower or at least a easy to open mac mini system
* Let MAC OS server run on ANY VM
But I thought the whole point of Lion was to bring the mobile OS market and the desktop OS market closer together?
No, that's not the point at all. The point was to learn from other platforms ideas that they can bring back into the desktop. That's why the WWDC Lion theme was "Back to the Mac" not "assimilation".
Apple has always maintained people want different UI on a desktop vs. a mobile device, and they are absolutely staying there with Lion. Yes they have a full-screen mode (and a real full screen mode too, not just a Windows style Maximize button). But that lives off in a separate space (virtual desktop) and is a full parter with all other running apps. They also have got rid of permanent scroll-bars (which you can re-enable if desired) but that's only in the case where the pointing device you are using support gesture based scrolling.
Indeed, Apple has stated repeatedly they thought touchscreen desktops made no sense. It's Microsoft that is showing us new Windows versions oriented to using a touchscreen, Apple is keeping Mobile and Desktop UI separate and distinct.
That being said, I don't see how that would be compatible with administrative requirements in the business world.
Even if that were true you would be wrong here too. Businesses LOVE devices that are more locked down because they introduce fewer paths to user security issues. Lion has a lot of new features to appeal to IT security that are brought back from Mobile devices - like whole disk security (that is actually reliable unlike FIleVault of old) and real application sandboxing (though that will take a long time to get picked up by the larger applications).
Apple is moving in a direction IT security departments love, not hate. And really that is better for overall user security too, because users at home have no IT department to worry about a system being secure so it has to do as much for the user as possible.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources.
Uhm, except that instructions for creating a boot disc from the first download are all over the 'net? And in one month or less Apple will be selling thumb drives with boot system & Lion installer preloaded? So what was the point of this post?
Yes, I would like to virtualize OS X on non-Apple hardware, and would be willing to pay good money to do so. But that's not enough to redeem this worthless piece of shit post.
Apple's focus is on the consumer market. Period. I've met with Apple Sales representatives multiple times in technology purchasing roles at various companies I've worked for and they aren't shy about stating that you either play by their rules or leave the discussion.
One of the biggest problems is that large companies want to see things like Product Road Maps. Apple makes it very clear they won't let you know whats going to happen 6 months ahead with any of their products. This really puts the enterprise off in many large companies because they like to know where technology is going in order to plan for it's impact on their infrastructure accordingly.
Apple is busy making scads of money in the consumer space. Enterprise IT is a "nice to have", but not a "gotta have" for Apple. Sure Lion is initially available as a download only. And no IT department with any brains will install Lion right away to begin with. That all said, it's easy to download it once, then make it available for mass deployment (just pay the license fees as if you were downloading it a ton for starters - there's no DRM on the download). And next month it'll be shipped on USB stick (like they do now for all the current DVDless Macs).
Besides that, there's plenty of third-party deployment and management tools that are being updated for Lion right now. It's really not going to be that big a deal. They are dumbing down the server software, but they also have a virtualization license that is far more generous than it has been in the past. The App Store is getting a corporate version. Third parties like Apperian are getting opportunities there, too.
Apple's focus from a corporate side is making Lion a good client OS. They've done a lot to advance it. The server is backtracking to be a SMB OS (we'll see how server-friendly the next Mac Pro is, but the mini is pretty slick even if it's not readily rackable). Apple, though, is focused on delivering the features that sell the most units to the most people. Period. Anything they deliver on top of that is pretty much a bonus.
When your Mac sales are considered disappointing because they're "only" up 14% you're doing something right.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Oh wait, you were looking at your own posts.
Snap!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
._* and .DS_Store, anyone...?
(Yes, the .DS_Store can be disabled, emphasis on *can*, not that most users give a rat's ass if the spill that crap on the corporate fileserver, the ._ files cannot be disabled at all.)
While it isn't necessarily their fault(the whole idea that there is such a thing as a "Windows LAN" is kind of fucked up), it really requires an excessively charitable viewer to describe OSX machines as "quite well behaved clients" in the context of an environment making heavy use of Microsoft stuff. Sure, they speak SMB more or less adequately, and the AD binding mostly works, usually; but there are all sorts of weird quirks and architectural differences(a particular non-favorite of mine: Windows handles 802.11X wireless authentication in two stages: "machine" authentication, tied to the permissions of the machine account, normally so that you can get network access to handle user authentication, and then "user" authentication, which occurs when somebody logs on. The OSX machines can have a system-wide set of 802.11X credentials, or individual accounts can have them. These differences are nothing that a bunch of bodging can't overcome; but they are sort of annoying.)
Then, of course, there is the fact that if you want to do any sort of AD-esque control of OSX clients, Apple's advice is "Go get an OpenDirectory server". In fairness, that is pretty much exactly the same as Microsoft's response, but in an already microsoft environment, only one of those is a sunk cost(and, Apple's "server" offerings, to which their software is legally bound, are kind of a joke. Of Course IT would be happy to run some directory services off a machine that isn't even offered with redundant PSUs, and is "rack mountable" in the sense that you can put it on a shelf if you want...)
There is no point in denying the elegance of Apple's engineering, and their success in home and small-business niches is a testament to that; but institutional IT isn't frowning at your precious macbook just because we hate your creativity and want to stifle you into a beige cube drone...
I find it hilarious that Apple still has that myth going for it -- there are NO advantages to a creative professional under an Apple environment compared to a Windows environment, especially after FCP took a turn for the worse...
First if all I don't know of many business that would allow a random employee to buy, download, and install an OS without first testing and blessing it on company machines. After approval, these usually are procedures for enterprise deployments like downloading a single copy on a network share. Second if it was a personal machine, I know my business doesn't like you clogging the company bandwidth with a 4GB download. Businesses are different but how is any different when the newest version an OS like Red Hat is released?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization
It does offer full support, unless you're too cheap to buy Apple hardware to run it on.
The whole thing seems to boil down to a whine that the AC submitting can't run OS X on his cheap commodity hardware..
WAKE UP AC ! OS X is a means to sell Apple hardware because they are a hardware company.
Needs to have some kind of hardware / software road map
Why? What use it that? Current desktop systems will suffice, plan for three years of use. Why do you NEED to know what else is coming?
Mini and Imac's need to easy to open at least being able get to the HDD
I'm not sure how it gets any easier that screwing off the bottom of a Mini to get to HD and RAM. That changed a few years ago...
Let Business send in systems for warranty work with out a HDD in side
That would be useful, are you sure Apple disallows it?
Better pricing VS dell and others at least for big orders of hardware
I'm not sure Apple will really play that game to the extent Dell does but they DO offer business discounts (something like10% on new systems).
allow some OS downgrades on new hardware
They do support SL on all but the very more recent systems. That is an area where businesses get kind of annoyed because of training issues...
App store for business
You mean like the Apple Apps Volume Purchase program? Or the fact that any enterprise can simply put custom apps up on a server and allow devices to download them directly?
smaller OS update downloads
Happily the app store does delta updates now.
some kind of desktop mid tower or at least a easy to open mac mini system
Which as noted they've had for a year or two now.
Let MAC OS server run on ANY VM
That would be good, not sure what the license is like on that now... it would make a lot of sense since they don't have the XServe anymore.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
as far as upgrades, do the same thing we do for pcs. For instance, I have 15 identical macs and 25 identical PC. Upgrade one of each, setup as like, create an image and propagate. MS Windows is superior in some ways in that it can remotely load change profiles each time the machine is booted, but that is not important to everyone. For my personal cluster of macs, I like OS X Lion because there are virtually no licensing issues.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
You can just copy the Lion installer to a network share or other disk to move it around as well.
The EULA allows for virtualization of up to two additional instances without the need for more licenses as long as you do it on Mac hardware. http://www.afp548.com/article.php?story=lion-eula
What's more, you can just copy the Lion application bundle after downloading it through App Sture (before installing it), and install it on any number of computers, distributing it using whatever tools you like. The installer has no key code or Apple ID requirements. Of course, anyone can find that out by going to Apple's web site.
Actually with the security improvements in Lion everyone should really switch. Between sandboxing applications and much better security all over, it's a really strong update that moves past Windows7 in terms of securing the desktop.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources.
They've already announced a volume licensing scheme which only requires one download and everybody should know by now that the "updater" app that you download can be copied to physical media and re-used, and if you dig it contains a disc image of a good-old-fangled bootable DVD which you can use for bare metal installs. Most big IT setups will do an install on one machine of each type and then image it, anyway.
The main annoyance is not for IT departments, but for microbusinesses and people running small groups of renegade Mac users in PC centric environments, where the minimum order of 20 licenses might be a problem (although if you phrase that as "$600 for up to 20 users" it sounds more reasonable).
Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.
Ain't gonna happen. First, Occam's razor suggests that the reason they dropped XServe was that they couldn't even sell it to themselves: who's going to buy a XServe when the makers have just built a big shiny data center full of Dells?. Second, they've passed on the realistic solution, which was to license Snow Leopard Server for non-Apple hardware: at $500 a pop (or sign a volume license) it would hardly allow Dell to produce a $500 MacPro-killing minitower, but would be competetive with other server-grade software. Now that Server is a $50 add-on, that is out of the window.
Thing is, Apple has to make the Mac play nice with Windows servers if they want any business penetration. With that as a given, there's not much of a case for using OS X in your general purpose server farm when you can use Windows or Linux instead: OSX's USP is its combination of UNIX with nice GUI and the availability of MS and Adobe applications, which counts for little on a server.
While the Mac Mini and Mac Pro servers are not a replacement for proper rack-mounted server hardware, they are fine for Mac workgroups. The advantages of "proper" server hardware only cuts in when you've got a hundred of the things and the overall MTBF starts to go down.
As for this whole Apple hates business thing: so much of the business sector is a MS or Linux closed shop than any investment Apple makes is a long shot. Its main "inroad" to business in the past was its present in the DTP, Pro graphics and video arenas which was established at a time when Apple and Adobe had a head-and-shoulders lead in those markets and the PC of the day wasn't technically up to competing. That is now going to be a war of attrition. Apple main weapon now is its ability to rapidly innovate and move on to new things: that goes down a storm in the consumer arena but is not so good to businesses who like nice stable platforms, roadmaps and 5 years warning before a product is discontinued.
There are rumors that Apple will, itself, run a virtualized version of Mac OS under VMware as part of its iCloud product.
Well, OS X is Unix and Apple own it so they can install it where the hell they like. Bet its stripped down to hell, though. Chances are though, it would be just as practical to run iCloud on Linux, OpenBSD or any other Unix-a-like - just a bit of an embarrassment if your name was Apple.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Too bad Apple is going to abandon desktops and their pro line software. They laid off 40 staff on the FCP team and turned it over to the iMovie people. If the FCP X fiasco is any indication, the transition not going to be clean or pretty.
Apple should have sold their desktop business and licensed their OS to someone else. They're a successful consumer electronics company trailing a part of the business they hang on to for nostalgia.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
hm kill our internet for a couple days or piss off your IT guy by the company asking him to burn a dvd X times
seriously would it have hurt apple that fucking much to include a 50 cent dvd in a paper sleeve (which is what you get from those clowns 80% of the time anyway cause white paper looks elegant)
Any medium to big sized company that thinks that it is cool to base their IT infrastructure in hardware from a single supplier and that any software you buy for that platform is tied to it is making a big mistake. Basing their software purchases on a single OS provider like Windows is enough a problem to tie you to a hardware manufacturer. At least software is something intangible that can be replicated easily, with hardware you must be ready to be able to switch providers if needed, for example: on my country companies have problems importing their products frequently, what happens if Apple is not able to provide you the hardware you need when you need it and you need to open a new branch office, ohh no!!! we are screwed
business PC's and servers are like selling coke cans in a supermarket. there is no profit and it's done for branding only. that $500 laptop or desktop is almost no profit for HP or Dell. they make money on the server hard drives and other IT gear they also sell. like a $3000 starter fiber switch that goes to $30,000 after you buy all the licenses.
apple on the other hand wants to make a 30% or so gross profit on every device they sell.
Most IT guys have no problem with a Apple device, on it's own. However, it's not just a question of plugging it in to a corporate network.
There's a whole bunch of management behind the computer system that "creative types" don't see. Each new environment has real money costs way beyond the purchase price of the kit.
Just off the top of my head (and i'm not an expert on Apple Desktop Environments):
You need someone with support skills to manage the environment. You need tools to manage the mac, and ensure compliance with corporate policy. These tools probably don't integrate with what is currently implemented. There may be the hidden costs of potentially incompatible document formats (Office Documents), different feature sets on web browsers. The anti-virus software probably doesn't have a Mac version, so requires a one off purchase.
True story: Createive type got approval to buy a mac at one of our regional sites, via the wrong budget. Bought all MS Office and software and installed it herself. Outlook is essential to her work (and in this case, REALLY essential). Of course, not having cleared the purchase with IT, she didn't know that the current version of Outlook doesn't integrate natively with Exchange 2003. (Yes, I know IMAP works).
The "creative types" need to sit down and talk with IT. Not at IT. IT need to listen and understand the requirements. Creative Types need to wear ther cost of supporting a second discrete infrastructure.
Where did I read about "Infrastructure: The stuff everybody needs, but no one want to pay for"? Probably Dilbert.
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources.
I can't see how this is an actual issue for most IT managers. Most shops have already been doing electronic delivery on every other OS for years.
As far as businesses loving devices that are locked down, you forget an important point - THEY want/need to be the ones with root, not some cloud provider somewhere.
That's how Apple works things though, all the devices are easily managed by a company - not Apple. Apple does not want to be the one in charge of systems. Apple makes corporate management tools and there are also lots of third party options. Companies can wipe devices remotely, and with Lion whole-disk encryption can probably do the same for desktops (but even if they can't without a valid login an attacker cannot get anything off the drive).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, you CAN get Macs to work in AD and the machines work great -- once everything is set up. It isn't a hardship to set Macs up and, although you do need to run separate remote access tools remote administration of a Mac is a breeze.
The thing is, and it is a big thing, that you need to have a mac to remotely administer a mac and you need to have a PC to administer the PCs and Windows-based servers. And yes, you CAN run PC apps on a mac through any add-on product or method you want but it's slower, requires extra work, and is wholly dependent on the Mac running they way you want it to.
I maintain a multi-site windows-based network from a mac laptop -- not through choice but because my boss wants me to. It is a lot of extra work keeping everything on my own system working so that I can maintain all of the other systems. As an admin who is forced to work this way I can say unequivocally I would not wish this set up on anyone and if I had my way everyone in my network would either use a Mac or a PC but there would never, ever be a mix. As someone with some insight on IT purchasing I can tell you that my boss's boss, the guy who holds the purse strings, would rather never buy another Mac.
I am very familiar with Apple in a business environment and have been successful using, administering, supporting and integrating Mac with a primarily Windows environment. That is not and has never really been the problem.
The real problem is hardware support.
In business, we have come to expect things like next-day-on-site for repairs and service. This is especially important for servers and laptops -- desktops not so much but still important when you need it. (And most businesses don't understand "spare" anything... all they see is money spent with no return on it.) Apple will not offer such services. They won't offer accidental damage warranty coverage either. There are local suppliers who will offer this type of support, but if/when they have trouble or go out of business, it is meaningless. It needs to come from Apple just as my expectations and needs are met by Dell.
Apple does not want the responsibility for providing business level services. Consumer-only is far more convenient. I suspect this is part of their legal strategy -- when business sues, it's a big deal, when consumers sue, it's not.
for Lion with bitcoins?
I don't want to use my credit card, and I've already spent more than enough cpu cycles farming bitcoins. Is anyone here willing to sell me a copy of Lion burned onto a DVD in exchange for some bitcoins?
You decide the price, and I'll cough up the bitcoins.
Viva la revolucion!!!
We've got roughly 300 Mac clients on our network, and we are 90% windows in the server room. Samba in Mac OS has been broken since Leopard. Accessing SMB shares has either been unreliable or very slow and DFS support was non-existent until 10.7.
I would argue that Apple's efforts in Windows compatibility have been half-hearted - and that's why IT departments cringe when a handful of Mac users want their machines to be integrated into a network that they do not own or maintain....and then they complain when the results are less than optimal.
Apple's management tools have always been a bit half-assed as well. Remote Desktop Administrator is OK, but their patch deployment server stinks, and Open Directory doesn't really compare with the power and flexibility of Active Directory. 3rd party tools can help make this better though.
So I'm not accused of being a Mac hater - ALL of my personal machines are Macs, and I love Mac OS. I simply wish that Apple put more time and effort into making admins happy, not just end-users.
-ted
(Also killing XServe was a STUPID thing to do. Now I am forced to choose between a MacMini with an external disk array, or a Mac PRO turned on its side - both options SUCK in different ways.)
Almost everyone I know who uses an iPhone has no clue on how to change their email signature. I find it irritating that all of their emails contain an ad for iphone and whatever carrier they happen to use.
I know, editing a signature is a tough technical task for most iphone users.... or are they just bragging about how cool they are to have an iphone?
I dont really care about any of that. If Apple wants their equipment blessed by IT, they need to have the following:
A) some way of dynamically mapping network shares; at logon would be nice.
B) some way of controlling updates from the server
C) some way of issuing security and password policies, from the server
D) Centralized LDAP integration
E) some method of pusing software from the server would be nice
Basically, without a method to configure the Mac from where I sit at my remote terminal, Macs remain a phenomenal pain to administer. Want to integrate into the business world? Start by not being the special-needs squeaky wheel on the network.
all the hardware is made by a handful of companies in China like FoxConn.
Sorry, but what's the point of saying that? What are you really trying to say, other than pointing out how knowledgeable you are about some obscure facet of business?
Apple's factories are owned and managed by Foxconn, that's a fact. When it comes to Apple products, Apple does the design work, Apple lays out the boards, and Apple chooses the components. Many of the components (batteries, cases, boards, and sometimes even chips and LCD screens) are custom Apple parts which competitors can't buy. Foxconn has no say in component cost, sourcing or product design.
Apple essentially does its own manufacturing. Foxconn is just a contractor that manages the physical plant and distributes the paychecks.
You might as well claim that Foxconn isn't a manufacturing company, because Foxconn is just a corporate entity that owns factory buildings, while the Chinese wage slaves actually do the assembly work.
The distinction is irrelevant.
It's people like you who are killing productivity in the workplace. I will be very happy once "IT" has been thoroughly discarded as a business unit and workers are allowed to use whatever tools they wish to accomplish the jobs they need to do.
Why? What use it that? Current desktop systems will suffice, plan for three years of use. Why do you NEED to know what else is coming?
I'd say it's more about knowing what is going away. Over the life of an installation you are likely to need to add or replace some systems and you want to be sure of having something appropriate to replace them with?.
First it was the xserve, now it's the macbook and the optical drive in the mini. Can you really reccomend apple knowing that the products you have built your system arround could either be dropped completely or have important features dropped at any time with little warning?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
They already have all that, you ignorant ass-hat.
And have for at least 5 years now.
Want to not be ignorant? Try reading the docs on Mac OS X Server.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I thank God (substitute your favorite supreme being) every day that Apple has had trouble with IT departments. I've worked in pharmaceutical discovery for many years and the IT departments that I've worked with are some of the most backward, paranoid, Luddite, control freaks I've ever encountered. Most of the scientists (and the IT contractors) are light years ahead in terms of technical awareness. Maybe the problem stems from the odd notion that you apply the same computer rules for discovery, clinical, manufacturing and accounting across the whole organization. Maybe it's because they're beholden to the guys who take them out to nice restaurants the most. Maybe it's because they like the technology (?) that needs a lot of people to keep it running. Maybe it's because the people who are smart with computers, work in some other industry. Maybe it's because of the inverse relationship between technical rank and technical competence, at least in this industry. Maybe it's because IT management is a political position (coders need not apply). I don't know what the problem is and I don't know how widespread the problem is, but I think Apple has done good by ignoring those clowns in the IT department.
Also, the new VSphere 5.0 explicitly mentions the new ability to virtualize OSX. Here's the technical overview from VMware. http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/techpaper/Whats-New-VMware-vSphere-50-Platform-Technical-Whitepaper.pdf Although it only mentions server 10.6 I wouldn't be surprised if that's update to 10.7 before the official release of 5.0
It used to be downloading porn was the network stress test. Now its operating systems. How boring have we become?
Needs to have some kind of hardware / software road map
Why? What use it that? Current desktop systems will suffice, plan for three years of use. Why do you NEED to know what else is coming?
Budgets. And PHBs - The people who control how the money is spent. If you don't understand this, you've never worked in a business that's hesitant about Macs.
Let MAC OS server run on ANY VM
That would be good, not sure what the license is like on that now... it would make a lot of sense since they don't have the XServe anymore.
Only licensed, supported VM is VMware 5 which says it requires host OS *and* guest OSes to be running on Xserves. Which flat out sucks.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
One big problem with the new macs for corporate useis the lack of a cable lock. My company requires all computers in cubicles to be attached to a cable lock if the owner is not present, otherwise the laptop has to placed in a locked cabinet. But Apples laptops don't have this feature, meaning our legal department is less likely to allow IT to use Apple laptops in any kind of scale.
Really, how many admins are actually fluent (at the competent network admin level) on more than one OS? No, I'm not talking about you, the first dozen child replies to this post who know three flavors of Linux, support Windows XP-7, and have intimate (CLI level) knowledge of the OSX network stacks - I mean one of the typical admins who's spent their entire career (sometimes exceptionally short) managing only a single OS environment.
How conducive are Apple admins to supporting the occasional Windows box? It's a royal PITA. Anything you learned to do in the GUI 3 years ago when you took that Windows networking class to get out of the server room for a day is utterly useless in the current version. Put an Ubuntu box on a network? WTF would I want to have to page through thousands of forum posts to find the nugget of information that my corporate router won't play nice with the OEM network card and the 2.XX.XX kernel the user wants to use. How many linux shops would want to have to fool with putting an OSX or a Windows machine on their system?
It has nothing to do with a particular OS - anything that isn't in the core competency of the net admin or IT shop is going to be a threat to the whole system, and every admin here knows it. If you can't manage it from the inside out, it becomes a drain on resources anytime you have to troubleshoot.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Corporate IT ALWAYS prefers taking electronic delivery of software so that they avoid sales tax charged when receiving physical media. We haven't received physical media for *anything* (including gigabytes of ERP software) in years.
In fact, Apple knows the basic hardware of every Mac they've shipped, so managed preferences addresses the specific abilities of each machine. Your automatic updates will also make sure the right drivers get to the right machines. It'll even manage the profiles and settings on all of your iDevices.
Not bad for a $49 add-on.
...appears to rest on the posit that Apple cares about IT managers, rather than wishes to eliminate them as a class, Kulak style.
All I have are bitcoins. Is there anyone out there willing to burn Lion to a DVD for me in exchange for bitcoins?
Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. Got that iPad six months ago? Come get the iPad 2! Got that Mac Book? Come get the Mac Book Pro! 10.5? That's ANCIENT! Come buy 10.7!
See the Next Media Animation piece on this. Biting satire from Li Anne in Tapei.
As someone who works in corporate I.T. myself, I *really* don't get the nonsense about Lion's "download only" nature being an impediment to I.T. managers conscious of "conserving resources"?
1. It's VERY clear that once you download a copy of Lion from the Apple App Store the first time, you can create an installable image from it that you place on a share-point on your local network, OR can burn to a bootable DVD, OR can even make into a bootable USB memory stick (as long as it's an 8GB stick or larger). That means, a mass upgrade or installation of Lion would be NO different than any other operating system, *except* it may technically prove to be EASIER than a Windows installation if your company didn't happen to have a volume license key to use for all of the Windows PCs.
2. If you've ever really looked at the size of the regular update and security patches that get downloaded for a modern OS, it's clear that sufficient Internet bandwidth is a basic REQUIREMENT for a smooth functioning corporate network. If you can't handle the 4GB download of Lion (and a little bit more to add the Server component to it, if needed) - you have FAR bigger problems than OS X using up "too much bandwidth"!
The REAL impediments to large businesses doing mass migrations to the Mac and OS X are far more financial in nature. And by that, I don't mean the tired old "Macs cost more than comparable PCs!" line. You can argue that one 'till you're blue in the face, but the reality is - things like the OS itself have a lot of value to some people, easily justifying whatever premium price Apple puts on the hardware/OS bundle's initial purchase. (And secondarily, Apple doesn't do product upgrade cycles as regularly as most Windows PC vendors. A given Dell or HP model will be replaced with another variant by the next time you go to the store looking at the things. A given Mac tends to stick around for a full year or so before getting a major refresh. So when you compare a Mac near the end of its "cycle" to a "just released" PC equivalent, the Mac can look like a poor deal, cost-wise. Yet in another month when it DOES get refreshed, it may offer market-leading value again. A lot of factors are at play.) What I'm referring to is a different problem. Apple isn't very Enterprise-friendly in handling sales and service. Their sales model revolves around retail stores aimed at consumers, coupled with online web-based purchasing that expects payment with a major credit card. If you work for a place that demands "3 price quotes" before a purchase is approved for the lowest priced bid, and expects to pay with a purchase order on "NET 30" or "NET 60" terms? Apple presents a few more hurdles to overcome. If one of the Macs breaks down while under warranty, same issue. You might indeed have your extended "AppleCare" purchased on the system, but that doesn't mean a tech. will appear on-site the next business day in a "guaranteed 4 hours window" and swap out whatever broke. Most of the PC competitors sell their machines with such contracts as a matter of course to their corporate customers.
To be honest, I've never even delved REAL deeply into the options Apple makes available to large business customers. I know, second-hand, that they work special arrangements out with area schools that decide to deploy Macs (dedicated account reps. assigned to the school, and exchanges or returns expedited, plus special pricing) -- so I'm sure a big enough corporate or govt. customer can get the same treatment. But the fact remains it's not openly advertised or obvious that such options exist. And if you're just trying to get started moving to the Mac in a big business, chances are your boss wants specifics on pricing BEFORE they'll agree to do it. Apple wants you to commit before they'll reveal the "secret, special pricing discounts" they'll offer you.
Seriously, would it hurt your IT guy that much to properly configure the network, or to put a copy of the Lion installer on a local network share?
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
It's not business-friendly when an Apple iTunes account with a stored credit card must be used to install the OS.
Long time Apple user here, and unlikely to change in the near future. However I have to say Apple makes it hard on professionals. They refuse to give roadmaps and timelines on most products and they have no problem pulling the plug on things users depend on. It's why they are always at the forefront of what is hot, but it's not fun trying to run a stable business depending on them. That's true if you're a developer or a professional user. You just have to set aside some amount of your budget for surprises.
That doesn't take a Kensington lock.
This is why my visits to /. have gone from multiple times per day to maybe once a week.
An anonymous reader?@!
For reals?
And then this anonhole writes:
> The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources.
Oh, because it's not like you can burn disk image onto physical media or anything like that.
Not that IT professionals are that capable anyway.
And writes this:
> Most of all, IT departments would want to see the Mac OS offering full support for virtualization, on the desktop and on the server.
And this is utter FUD as well. It's well known the EULA explicitly allows this.
This mouth breathing OP should be deleted.
Why burn a DVD x times?
Once the installer is on the local network, just install it that way. Or put it on a USB stick.
Unless you're saying your company network can't handle local transfers of 3.5GB files without choking.
Lion VLA is available and cheap. All computers can be upgraded with the same installation package, locally or over the LAN, or imaged with NetInstall... the only reason that some IT departments fail to manage Macs properly is that they refuse to learn how.
Any competent Mac admin would create a disk image and deploy that with Apple Software Restore, or hack an existing NetInstall image with the Lion installers. This takes all of an hour to do, and fixes this 'issue' straight away.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Budgets. And PHBs - The people who control how the money is spent. If you don't understand this,
I understand that better than you. As far as budgeting goes, Apple is the most predictable company around - what stays fixed are price points, only the specific hardware configurations underneath changing. You simply budget to buy a low end, mid or high end laptop, or a Mini or a desktop. They will all cost the same three years from now even though the hardware may change dramatically.
Only licensed, supported VM is VMware 5 which says it requires host OS *and* guest OSes to be running on Xserves.
I figured as much - although you can use a Mini, they rack mount quite well and with thunderbolt have excellent connectivity options.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The current issue with doing ASR or NetRestore with Lion is that unless you've run the installer once you won't have a Recovery HD partition. Without that you can't access features like the FDE.
.nbi set. Then upload it to your existing NetBoot server. Done.
No need to hack a Lion NetInstall, just download SIU for Lion and make your
OK, I 'get it' for servers (and I think that's in part due to the problems that Windows servers at least used to have in doing more than one class of application at a time.) But I don't see the pressing need for virtualized desktops/end user computers. Why would anyone need to have 2 copies of any OS running on their desktop? I guess one possible answer could be 'each OS instance is a security firewall', but are we really at that stage? (And how do you handle getting a file from a Sharepoint server via a web browser, editing it, and then mailing it to someone?)
judging by iphone 4 antenna and proximity sensor designs and performance - it's clear these were "engineered" by apple designers.
what for 4 computers? fuck that, if our IT guy cant get it off of amazon and stick it in a filing cabinet then it doesn't happen, or if your in a mac shop how much configuring do you need to do when 100 computers are all hammering the same resource at once trying to update
Makes me glad I gave up corporate IT. I only work for startups, people feeling the need to control need not apply. You need, mac, bsd,linux, windows whatever it may be you plug it in and start working. The moment someone turns into a blocker trying to exert control they are kicked out the door on their ass.
Got Code?
Oh, you can do that from a windows server?
Oh I see, you want businesses to roll out a brand NEW server infrastructure to cater to a couple of users who think "work" means" i need have a Mac because I like the aesthetics".
It is interesting that barely after Linux/Apple started to integrate easily with AD, AD itself started to decline, due to Web app server use in business. Nowadays, the only thing AD is still used for is to control Exchange logins. Linux/Apple machines do not have problems in Windows networks anymore, since the whole idea of a Windows network is fast going the way of the Dodo.
Incidentally, I wouldnt be ignorant if it were easy to just run/test OSX Lion in a virtual machine. But when I check the apple site, they seem to indicate that in order to run OSX Lion server, I need to own OSX Lion, which means I need to purchase hardware before even evaluating the software. What about that seems IT friendly? We need to request funding for something before even having a chance to evaluate it?
And I dont remember the full details for Leopard (as I cannot seem to find it on their site anymore), but I remember similar hoops when I attempted to get an evaluation version several years back.
The decision to release OS10.7, or Lion, for download only is hardly going to endear Apple to IT managers who need to conserve network resources. You only need to download it once. There is a dmg image inside the application package that can be burned to physical media and/or used to perform a clean install.
Mini and Imac's need to easy to open at least being able get to the HDD
I'm not sure how it gets any easier that screwing off the bottom of a Mini to get to HD and RAM. That changed a few years ago...
You ignored the iMac bit completely. Until the 2006 refresh, it was amazingly easy to access the iMac's internals. As of the final PPC G5 refresh though, you had to remove the screen first. I get that this is the price for miniaturization and thinning the case, but with Apple making it so 3rd party replacement HDDs don't report temperature properly and causing the fans to run 100% all the time, it's clear it wasn't merely a technical decision.
I tried doing an initial install of Lion today at our enterprise (which I shall not name but it's in the Fortune top 20; a customer you think Apple would want.) Lion failed to install with the error "Can't download the additional components needed to install Mac OS X. Check your internet connection and try again."
The Mac was networked and I know the cause of the error: We have proxy servers. However, the Lion installer has no allowance to enter the addresses of proxy servers. It assumes a clear/clean path to the internet or you are hosed.
This is just the latest in a long string of evidence that Apple had little consideration for enterprise. I'm working to set up an Ubuntu-based transparent proxy to fix this but it's some serious hoop jumping that I should not have to perform. Macs are supposed to "just work". If they don't, we might as well use Windows.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Ah, ok, so "fuck that" is your retort? That's the level we're going with here? Gotcha. Good to know.
Putting aside the fact that Apple has already announced their solution to all this and that it's a non-issue, I'll bite.
If it's 4 computers clogging up the entire network bandwidth, then yeah, your network isn't configured properly. If you're in a Mac shop and it's in the hundreds, then your IT guy should have enough knowledge/experience to keep everyone from hammering the App Store at the same time. Although considering you mentioned a primary IT requirement is that something be ordered on Amazon and stuck in a cabinet, I'm guessing he doesn't have enough knowledge or experience. That, or you're just trolling.
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
I tried to read the rest of the article but for some reason I can't scroll downward.
/* No Comment */
If a win-centric network wants to use this as an excuse to exclude OSX, I'd have to call BS. The download comes with a dvd iso, so if you need multiple copies of hard install disks you can burn them till the cows come home. This is just a much more efficient and cost effective way to distribute the release. DUH!
your spinning the wheel, let me know when you have an better awnser than "apple is flawless, but obviously you are incompetent for not wanting to rebuild an entire network over a service pack"
I btw am not our IT guy, and its not my problem, but leave it to apple to find some way to make something as software on disk a pain in the ass
and fuck your grammar nazi bullshit
Point to where I ever claimed Apple is flawless. And I hate to break it to you, but if your job is maintaining a network and you have it set up such that one computer can suck up the entire bandwidth for the company, you've failed. That particular part has nothing to do with Apple or the Lion update.
If you're not the IT guy and it's not your problem, then what the hell do you care how Apple does their OS updates?
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Congratulations, sir or madame - you have bested me with your witty repartee!
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
who says I was trying?
your angst to battle me is saddening
yes if a network can not handle all god jobs magnificent update then we have failed, and I really don't, it just makes my disk collection incomplete
how crude and inelegant to force me to use some rat trash walmart memory stick after (sigh) I download it myself, what has become of apple
it's over paying for gimped products.
No. That's not it, they like to SELL over priced products....
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Didn't see that on your list of requirements.
But thanks for showing your ignorance about Macs once more.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The base OS for both Lion and Lion Server are exactly the same, so Server is built on the base OS. Identical systems across the entire platform, one has a few extras. What about that DOESN'T seem IT friendly? And it costs $50. If you need to request funding for that, then there's no helping you.
Go educate yourself:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
In all fairness, a lot of Macs are laptops that use primarily wireless. It is much easier to slow down a wireless LAN because data rate is shared among the hosts.
Even so, were I a Mac admin (I'm not), I'd just download it and push out the update in some staggered way (after testing it with a grouop of pilot users of course).
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
I've done GP for a network of over 10,000 systems.
I haven't done quite so big for OS X, so maybe I'm missing something.
So what features of GP do I not get in Managed Preferences.