Slashdot Mirror
Why IT Won't Like Mac OS X Lion Server
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's John Rizzo sees Mac OS X Lion Server as a downgrade that may prompt a move to Windows Server. 'Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server adds innovative features and a new low price tag, but cuts in services and the elimination of advanced GUI administration tools may force some enterprise departments to think twice about the role of Mac servers on their networks,' Rizzo writes. 'Looking more deeply inside Lion Server, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that Lion Server is not built for those of us in IT. The $50 price tag — down from $500 — is the first clue that Lion Server trying to be a server for the consumer. But the ironic part for IT administrators is that Lion Server actually requires a greater degree of technical knowledge than its predecessors.'"
No doubt Apple is backing its new iCloud platform as the way for everyone to share - and damn the so-called hardware Server market. This is the only operating system not natively supported in most virtual machines. IDC doesn't even include Apple in market share reports anymore, and they've clearly de-leveraged their investment over the past few years as opposed to their commitment to growing xServe in 2002
All that aside, I had a client who insisted on moving to OSX Server in 2003 to manage his email. FIle sharing was fine, even over a massive fiber/iscsi San config. But it didn't take long for his users to force a switch to an exchange hosted environment. The features just weren't there and the support or the tech resources to make corrections were far too time-consuming.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
I've played with it for a few days now, and I absolutely agree. I'm not planning on upgrading any of my customers at this point, and I'm considering my options for replacements in environments where I can't maintain Snow Leopard Server indefinitely. I think it's likely to be relegated to calendar server duty, and I'm going to move mail, web, and FTP to some variety of Linux.
I'm really not happy with Apple about Lion - it just doesn't feel like an upgrade to me, and server is even worse. I don't like seeing the best operating system there is backsliding like this.
I can easily think of two more:
I have not heard any reason why a currently working installation of OS X would suddenly stop working altogether just because the owner did not upgrade. Windows people have seen this before; there are plenty of people still running Windows XP even though two newer version of the same have been released since.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
John Rizzo, author of "Mac OS X Lion Server for Dummies"
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. -- Willam Blake
Mac OS X Server before it, and now OS X Lion Server aren't intended for enterprise IT, and haven't been for a while. Apple has been working the word enterprise out of the marketing pages for a while now.
Indeed, the current blurb says this on apple.com: "OS X Lion Server gives you everything you need to provide workgroup and Internet services.".
For workgroup and SMB sized applications it's pretty nice, but a bit of a quandary when you hit the big leagues.
I put all my thoughts on it in my review on AFP548.com: http://www.afp548.com/article.php?story=lion-server-review
The real place in enterprise for the Mac has been in on the client side for quite some time now.
The server admin tool you're talking about is cut down compared to the tools in v10.6. Some key screens are now completely gone and so configuring some aspects will not work.
My favourite feature of the new server.app is how the ssl certs keep resetting to bad configurations.
I don't know any high quality sysadmins that want more point'n'click high-bandwidth GUI features on their servers, and less reliance on low-bandwidth SSH console commands.
I mean, I'm willing to hypothesize that they are out there, sure, but I'm also willing to postulate the existence of flying monkeys for the sake of discussion. I don't expect to ever meet one.
The share price and earnings of a vendor doesn't help the IT department do their work. IT doesn't care about share price and earnings, as long as they're both positive numbers and not trending downward (meaning the vendor isn't likely to go bankrupt and thus leave them with unsupported product).
The whole premise of this article is bunk.
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
If your using a non time capsule network backup, it's broken. They disabled DHCAST128, and use dhx2 instead.
With the elimination of the XServe and now the simplifying of Lion Server, it's clear that Apple has decided to choose a different vector for their server business. To me it seems they are now focused on the SOHO market where the users administer the network and there is no IT department (obviously another reason why IT professionals REALLY do not like Lion Server). This is a very Apple thing to do: turn something complicated into something almost anyone can do. I would not be surprised if they ended up making more money with this approach than they did with the XServe approach - this way has a significantly broader base.
I would never have considered using OS X Server at home before but I an now thinking about using my current Mini for a home server after I upgrade to a new machine because it now seems doable and worthwhile to me.
Know how I know you didn't RTFA?
The article is not bunk, and the author mentions the admin tools. He also points out that a good chunk of the functionality of those tools have been ripped out, you're limited to the Server app or command line for quite a few things.
Windoze is not an option, let alone my choice for an upgrade path.
I'm not replacing any currently running OS X servers just for the fun of it, but I'm not going to be putting 10.7 on them, and I'm probably going to be installing quite a few more Linux servers in the coming years.
... the elimination of advanced GUI administration tools...
Incorrect. Lion does indeed include the most awesome GUI administration tool in existence.
It's called Terminal.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
So IT departments may not like apple for various reasons.
Look at the share price and the earnings. Apple, quite rightly, couldn't care less.
I don't think it needs an article a day to say what IT departments think of apple either
Slashdot is not the Wall Street Journal - most people here don't care about Apple's share price and earnings, but many of us do care about what to do with our existing OSX servers, whether or not we should plan an upgrade to Lion, and what impact that will have on us.
I do sincerely hope Apple gets a clue from these articles and realizes that they screwed up. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not recommending any more Mac servers for my customers unless they have a specific need. I've always been a big Mac proponent, but I'm getting tired of apologizing. This time, I'm not going to, I'll be installing more Linux servers as it's time to replace the 10.6 servers I've installed, unless Apple fixes this mess.
I'm sure you had good reasons, but I'm not sure I would ever have chosen an Apple server, as Apple were always a bit lukewarm on enterprise support, even when they tried their hardest it was a bit half-hearted, and were never really competing well with Linux or even Windows servers for performance or available server software, though I guess they did have it all presented in a neat package with a nice admin UI. Linux is a much better choice for servers at this point, and in a few years I would expect Apple to drop even more of the server features or even drop it altogether as less and less people use it.
Apple's focus is definitely consumers now, and more specifically, gadgets, mobile and iOS. They have moved on to the next great thing (mobile, cloud), and that's great, it works well for them and the majority of their customers, but it means they have completely lost interest in many parts of their business:
* Pro software like Final Cut Pro has been redesigned to make it easier to use (not adding features, taking them away)
* xCode is still a buggy mess, though it is at least getting some attention.
* Mac Pro machines have not had a major upgrade in years and are quite expensive for what you get compared with consumer options
* Mac OS X has become OS X, and has moved visibly closer to iOS in many ways (and in many ways improved as a consumer OS because of this)
IMHO that change of emphasis from pro to consumer is only going to increase in velocity, unless someone very different from Steve Jobs takes over.
Beyond basic configuration, real Mac OS X sysadmins don't use the GUI's. The things the author gripes about (QTSS, MySQL, NFS) were never really expansive in the GUI tools beyond "enable networking" or "run # processes" or "set this service to run on port 8000". QTSS has been replaced, not removed and no longer requires server involvement beyond a file share. MySQL is replaced by PostgreSQL and as said before, beyond "enable networking" really had never any GUI admin tools thus we were still going to command line or phpMyAdmin. MySQL is still there by the way, not removed entirely. NFS same thing, shares were never done in the "NFS" tab, they were done in the "Sharing" tab together with AFP and SMB.
SMB as a PDC/BDC is maybe a slight loss in small environments but thanks to the licensing issues it was stuck on 2 and never could've made it bundled in Mac OS X to 3 (and Windows 7 support) as GPLv3 prevents the proprietary ties to the configuration subsystem. There is documentation available however on how to run Samba 3 (and binary packages as well) on Mac OS X Server and run it as a PDC/BDC against LDAP (which Open Directory is), it just won't be integrated.
I like that XSAN is now included for free. Great if you want to build a large mail or Apache or any type of cluster and very simple to set up. Also the Profiles addition will be a boon in many (especially the more mobile) environments. A lot of that could be done already (provisioning) in Open Directory (using MCX) but not many users like to be bothered with locking down their environment.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
let me tell you as an industry insider in web hosting/datacenters that server = linux since a long time ago. the question is, which flavor of linux. the most used and accepted one so far is centos. those who want to handle the support bill use red hat enterprise. debian and clones, opensuse come after. ubuntu is just a new entry.
just have a look.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/
community forum for hosting/it/datacenters. you can find all kinds of people from industry, ranging from (now the biggest datacenter in u.s.) softlayer, much lauded rackspace to obscure indian company to kids who are trying to do hosting with their mothers' credit cards.
Read radical news here
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
1/10. Obvious troll is obvious.
Yes, an obvious troll. But no one said that trolling can't also be 100% truthful...
I think Apple has come to realize it's simply not a player in the server space. Being Unix, it's hard to compete with Linux when your greatest strength - the UI - isn't really important. There's very little that Apple offers - in the server space, anyway - that the other *nixes don't also provide.
That said, this article is silly. The author likes to refer to "those of us in IT", but clearly he's not particularly technically oriented. Unix admins don't just prefer the command line - they DEMAND it. For a Unix admin, the loss of GUI controls is basically irrelevant. And even if you like having a GUI interface (and, btw, please turn in your geek card at the door), the plaintext configuration files for Apache, Samba, OpenLDAP, CUPS, or what have you are not particularly arcane.
I think the author falls into the camp of people that like to play at being a server admin (seriously - Podcast Producer? Lamenting a GUI for MySQL?) as more or less a "fun little hobby". For those people, Mac Server was a viable alternative to Windows. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not a commercially viable market.
#DeleteChrome
great until they max out the consumer market and IT won't allow it anywhere near a corporate lan. lack of group policy support out of the box (on a windows or linux domain) combined with lack of rackmountable options combined with lack of (legal) ability to virtualize means there is really no good solution from apple for medium or large businesses. Apple can say screw you to IT, but as a mac user I can say screw you right back from the server room. I have customers that would go all apple if support for group policies and enterprise tools were better, but instead only have a half dozen macs for creative departments.
Get a web developer
This isn't really that bad.
The important stuff (MCX) has been enhanced such that client management---which is where the effort is---is easy, fast and comprehensive. The less important stuff is hidden from small shops who would just muck it up, and at the enterprise is usually provided elsewhere (ie, they'll already have an AD domain, Exchange or suchlike, FTP and web servers, file servers etc, etc). Basically, they deprecated stuff most people don't use, or have better solutions for.
About the only real pain is losing enterprise print services, but even that's not too huge a loss considering that, again, there's better tools out there that enterprises are already using, and small shops wouldn't go anywhere near those features.
It would be nice if Apple provided better hardware and/or allowed you to deploy MacOS X Server VMs for things like MCX or ARD. That, more than any of the author's other complaints, is what keeps OS X out of the enterprise. Other nice touches would be SSO on iOS and some way to extend Time Machine services to non-Apple Filers, or if Home Sync/Mobile Users is somehow no longer a festering pile of suck (which, to be fair, is the case on Windows and UNIX when you get to the gigabytes of files stage and are sync'ing profiles)
--srj/mmv
"Once you locate and download the Server Admin tool, experienced Mac OS X Server administrators will notice it's a much thinner tool than it used to be. Roughly half the services that used to be there are missing. Most user-based services, such as file sharing, calendaring, and Web services, have been moved to the simple Server application. Others, such as QuickTime Streaming Server, have been completely removed."
I wish you had quoted a bit more, because it leads the reader to conclude that if the one service removed that TFA mentions is quick time streaming server, then big f'ing deal. Here's a little more from TFA:
One of the more significant feature rollbacks comes in reduced support for Windows clients. For years, Mac OS X Server's LDAP-based Open Directory had the ability to function as a primary domain controller (PDC) to support Windows clients. The PDC provided Windows clients with single sign-on authentication, and for those who work on both platforms, it gave users access to the same accounts and server-based home folders from their Windows PCs as well as their Macs. In Lion Server, Windows clients still have access to file sharing, but are now second-class clients.
Another service that Apple deleted is the print server of previous Mac OS X Server builds. Lion Server contains only the same ability to share printers found in every copy of Mac OS X client for the past five years: the open source Common Unix Printing System (CUPS), which gives Macs the ability to host shared print queues and simple pools of printers but lacks the enterprise features that previous print servers had. For example, Lion Server's CUPS cannot prioritize printers in the pool or set quotas for individual users or printers. And you can't publish printers to Open Directory.
The print server would seem to be one of the more important removals in functionality.
Earlier in the year, Apple released a new version of it's popular professional video editing software, Final Cut Pro X. There was much belly aching by the user community and in the media about missing features. Indeed, the comments from professional users are eerily similar to those comments of IT admins about Lion Server -- basically that it's being dumbed down for the consumer market.
Just a few weeks ago, Apple updated the FAQ for this software, with CNet quoting the following:
"Final Cut Pro X is a breakthrough in nonlinear video editing. The application has impressed many pro editors, and it has also generated a lot of discussion in the pro video community," the FAQ reads. "We know people have questions about the new features in Final Cut Pro X and how it compares with previous versions of Final Cut Pro. Here are the answers to the most common questions we've heard."
In the FAQ, which details specifics about importing, editing, media management, export and purchase, Apple's tried to make one thing clear: some of the missing features will return with future software updates.
Indeed, Apple may be as inclined due to this backlash to reverse itself with OSX Lion as it was with Final Cut Pro. It's entirely reasonable to project that missing server features may make their return to the Sever Admin panel or as stand-alone add-ons.
After all, I doubt that Apple is trying to get rid of the userbase of corporate departments that use OSX Server and technologies like the group print spooler and the Quicktime streaming server are already developed, coded, and released -- so why not roll them back in?
I'm also a Mac admin and we're actively looking for replacements for Apple's gear two or three years down the road. We made the mistake, being a mostly Mac company (about 20% Windows) of letting ourselves be convinced into switching over to a Mac server based server infrastructure back in 2006, just around the time Apple killed the XRaid. I suppose the writing was on the wall back then already, but we didn't really want to look too closely. When Apple killed the XServer with two months notice at the end of last year, it became blindingly obvious, though. Anyone using Mac server software or gear in a larger than workgroup sized company should think carefully before using this tool.
The dual PSU is an issue, but the mini's are so small and cheap enough why wouldn't you just be running several and have hot failover to the working ones?
They actually seem like really good server systems to me.
Hot failover is damn difficult. If your application doesn't support it (which many don't), your only realistic option today is to virtualise it and set up some sort of mechanism to shut down the (failed) virtual server and swap everything over to the hot spare - which usually implies shared storage of some sort.
There are ways to try and work around this with Linux and DRBD but AFAIK no distribution has yet done this in a reasonably neat fashion - you'd have to lash so much together by hand there's a very good chance you'd wind up with something less reliable than a single server on its own.
The macminicolo.net folks seem to agree with you on that one.
I think that Apple is still squarely in the market they enjoy - and that isn't big iron.
I thought this was a joke at first. In 22 years in IT, outside of use in the film industry, I have never heard of any business that used Mac servers. Linux is far more accepted in the server room. At most, the corporate world accepts a few Mac workstations lurking in creative departments ripe for downsizing.
Given that attitude, why would Apple invest effort in this area?
The whole premise of this article is bunk.
No, the reinforcement of the premise is bunk. IT departments will still hate 10.7, if for the only reason they've always hated OSX - not for stability or user-friendlyness, but for the simple fact that having an apple backend will draw hipster know-nothings to apply to work at their company.
And push out all the un-hip know-nothing MCSEs. Silly Microsoft, copying Cisco in their drive to establish 4-letter fraternities.
Fandroids hate facts.