Slashdot Mirror
Apple Deprecates More Services In OS X Server (apple.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader HEMI426 writes: Long ago, Apple used to produce rack servers, and a special flavor of OS X for that hardware with extra, server-friendly features. After Apple got out of the rack server game, OS X Server soldiered on, with the occasional change in cost or distribution method.
The next stop on the long, slow death march of OS X Server is here. With a recent post to their knowledgebase, Apple states that almost all of the services not necessary for the management of networked Macs and other iDevices are being deprecated. These services will be hidden for new installs, and dropped in the future.
Apple writes that "those depending on them should consider alternatives, including hosted services."
The next stop on the long, slow death march of OS X Server is here. With a recent post to their knowledgebase, Apple states that almost all of the services not necessary for the management of networked Macs and other iDevices are being deprecated. These services will be hidden for new installs, and dropped in the future.
Apple writes that "those depending on them should consider alternatives, including hosted services."
It takes an awful lot of courage to remove DNS and DHCP services from a...server. Way to go, apple!
So, let me get this straight: This is a server OS, with basic server functionalities removed? In what way is this still a server OS?
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
People complain about the iPad commercial where the kid asks "What's a computer", but could it be that Apple is genuinely asking what one is since it is looking more and more like they themselves don't know.
Looks like it's dying, as predicted
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
It should be easy enough to install them on your own, if for some reason you want to use a macOS box as a server.
#DeleteChrome
I bought this software to NOT hassle with numerous config files hidden in various locations with thousand parameters only known to experts... it hid all the difficult stuff... it just worked! But o-no, this is apple..., everything useful they deprecated... magsafe, a working finder, local file sharing, osx server, upgrade ability, steve jobs... deprecated... well was fun while it lasted...
also every update of osx contains more and more bugs, I mean a working finder is that TOO much to ask?
thanks apple!
This is the whole apple "experience". Avoid like the plague...
What are Apple using in house to provide these services? Please tell me they manage all their people with a Windows AD + Exchange! ;). I wish they did because then they might make the integration better.
Back when it was a separate server OS (before the Server.app debacle) it used to have insanely good Continuous Integration, Continuous Deployment and Build Reporting capabilities built in. It was an extremely useful out-of-the-box solution even for non-macOS/iOS development shops.
A week?
Iâ(TM)ve been a Linux user on and off (sometimes on for 6 years ina stretch) for 25 or so years. I started using it quite a bit around the 0.9 days.
That said, Linux config hell doesnâ(TM)t take a week for all those services. It takes years. Consider running secure services like mail, messaging and contact services. You can maybe get a Linux box running those in a few hours with a lot of cut and paste. But the configuration file declare configuration of the current version.
Appleâ(TM)s method was to define intent or policy. You would click a few check boxes to enable the services. You would create some user accounts and activate som features and the config files would be generated from the intent or policy.
Then when a new version came out, the âoeexpertsâ at Apple would include scripts that would hash out the details of the configs.
The benefit of this is that Apple would define the security policies and you would define functionality. This would be merged into something theoretically secure and functional.
Linux software typically is not like that. FreeRadius seems to be moving this direction, but is still way off from that. Most other Linux software requires editing the files distributed as part of the packages to simply get functionality.
What this means is that where Apple is sending out security patches and updates that happen in the background, Linux software requires active reconfiguration by someone actively following the updates and security notes at all times.
Want a good example? I did some testing a while back. I configured OpenVPN using the current best practices. Then I ran the server for over a year with automatic updates. After a year, 20% of all security exploits reported on OpenSSL, OpenVPN and a few others worked without a problem. The remaining 20% required manual reconfiguration of the VPN. In fact, more than a few required complete reconfiguration. Insecure ciphers and hashes has remained active, certificate exploits were still there, etc...
By comparison, Appleâ(TM)s approach makes it so I configure features and they handle the ciphers, keys, etc...
Of course, since Apppe doesnâ(TM)t care about server or security anymore, I wouldnâ(TM)t expect much from them on this anymore. :(
Apple's neglect of the Mac (and particularly the disregard of the enterprise space) not withstanding, when I look at this list I can't really help but admit that there is not a single entry on it where I would rather use Apple's tools in favor of their open source equivalent.
Back when it was a separate server OS (before the Server.app debacle) it used to have insanely good Continuous Integration, Continuous Deployment and Build Reporting capabilities built in. It was an extremely useful out-of-the-box solution even for non-macOS/iOS development shops.
That was then, this is now. For the last several releases even getting network accounts to work right has been a nightmare. It's the exact opposite of their desktop. It Just *Doesn't* Work(TM).
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Apple stopped offering a server certification years ago, but it didn't stop Apple Stores from recommending a Mac Mini with a single drive to customers who wanted a file server. Apple's SMBX doesn't really work well with anything but a Mac, and Profile Manager is just about the least reliable MDM out there.
And who is really using Open Directory these days? If you want Netboot, you can do it from Linux. If you want VPN, use your firewall or an appliance.
So, when people want a server for use with their Macs, we'll recommend a Synology or a QNAP. They offer dozens of services, including DNS, practically any other service you could want, and they have RAIDs and SSD caching as well. Some of the Synology units can even be configured to provide Active Directory.
As Apple has now built the caching service and file sharing into High Sierra, I don't really see that there is much reason for Server any more. Oh wait..
MAYBE you don't want to trust your data to someone else? Maybe you figure YOU are the best person to manage your data and services, so you won't be down a day or two while Google fixes G Suite? And as Google thinks they're the world expert on who is and who isn't sending spam, what could go wrong there?
Server was great because it enabled the end user to run his/her own mail server, DNS, file sharing, software update server, and more, rather than outsourcing everything to companies which may or may not give a damn when something goes wrong with "the cloud".
Damn it all.
I only went to Apple when Microsoft tried to shove Win10 down everyone's throat. But it's looking more and more like in a few years I'll have to go back to that spyware that pretends to be an OS.
Christ, I wish the Amiga had won.
Turn off Smart Punctuation on your ios 11 device! Settings > General > Keyboards. Please.
(I know that I am about to get pummeled, but...)
Why is it that most people seem to think it's OK to either;
Produce a 'server' app that is easy to use and has a relatively-clear GUI, but lacks so much substance that it's hardly worth bothering
or
Produce a server app that does everything, is very configurable and very stable, but has a zillion modules and takes a long time to learn, because the author never heard of HIG (Human Interface Guidelines)
I am now going to raise a virtual beer to EIMS, WebSTAR, QuickDNS, etc.
Those were the days...
Their servers had no lights-out management (at least the ones I tested). Their nicest feature was a brushed metal facade; they made sure to include that. I'm surprised it didn't come with a black turtleneck and a pair of horn-rimed glasses. OSX server is (soon to be "was") a pathetic hybrid that shamelessly bastardized whatever they felt like and sucked more as they went along despite borrowing from their betters FreeBSD, OpenStep, and Mach. They went for years without any real volume management, pimped HFS+ as something worthwhile for years before deigning to release APFS (which still sucks in nearly every way compared to ZFS), conformed to POSIX only when they felt like it, and had very few RAS features that defines server. They said fuck all the proven traditions of Unix, they were Apple, they were going to show us how it's really done and bring a new level of user-friendliness to systems administration.
... poorly." Apple is trying to make sure they learn the hard way.
The whole thing is ending as it began, as the IT weaklings at Apple learn that same lesson Jobs himself forgot: "Those who do not learn from Unix are doomed to re-invent it
I don't think that at the time of his death Jobs thought his 'digital hub' concept would lead to Apple's becoming a huge, overfunded cell phone company that would let its computer business die a horrible death. But I think that's exactly what's happening.
you probably should stop now you are starting to look really dumb with a serious lack of knowledge. Windows hasn't used config files in a couple of decades. All the roles you listed are stock standard roles that can be added to a windows server in a couple of clicks from the Server Manager and all provide either a default working config or a step through wizard to preconfigure it.
No one... gives... a shit....
We heard you like servers, so we took all the servers out of your server.
Wait, wat?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I would've liked to see what Apple could've done with servers. Now they're just a toy company.
I don't respond to AC's.
I don't think anyone but a blind fool would have ever said their server offering was one of their advantages.
There was a time that Mac OS X Server made sense. Apple made some great server hardware. At first it was a rack mount Xserve. Then, Apple killed that and expected people to rackmount Mac Pro (cheese grater) machines. But one of the best servers that Apple made was the Mac mini. For $500 you had a powerful little server that took up very little room in a rack system. New businesses sprung up to collocate Mac miniâ(TM)s, and those who used this hardware with Mac OS X Server knew the power that came with the inexpensive hardware and easy to configure software.
Now, the Mac mini hasnâ(TM)t really been updated in 6 years, and Apple doesnâ(TM)t give a ratâ(TM)s ass about any server products. They keep Mac OS Server around now solely for the purpose of mass configuring iPads.
I still think Mac OS client is the best client OS available, but itâ(TM)s very sad to see Apple slowly bleed the Mac dry of itâ(TM)s professionalism. They seemed to get that they had let people down last year, and the iMac Pro and (hopefully) the new Mac Pro will continue to impress. But Apple has long been about dropping what it deems as anything outside itâ(TM)s focus, and in 2018, itâ(TM)s focus is not on server hardware or software.
They didn't do their own web server. It was a pretty GUI for configuring Apache. Same for mail, originally OSX server used Cyrus, I think they switched to dovecot later. DNS was always implemented with BIND. A few of the services like DHCP/NetBoot used their own implementations, but most of it just a GUI for configuring open source services.
OSX Server used to be a compelling proposition for a small business, because it made configuring these services easy for someone who isn't a professional sysadmin. But once they changed it from being a separate OS spin to a feature pack in the app store, it was pretty clear they just didn't care.
Nothing more than what Cisco and IBM did. And after they realized that, they quit. If they can't offer something very distinctive, they're not interested. They used to make printers too and those weren't distinctive. And a whole bunch of other stuff that turned out just "meh" and then got the axe.
Mind you, they've swung that axe far, far fewer times than Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. have, where ten zillion things go into beta and then trail off into a wasteland of absent support and broken features and promises. So there's that.
macOS on the Server side of things is so far behind what can be done with Linux, it isn't even funny. You can't run macOS in AWS. You can't containerize macOS apps (Docker on macOS uses macOS's hypervisor to run Linux in the background). If you want to run in the server space, and you aren't tied to Microsoft proprietary ways of doing things, Linux is the place to be. Apple knows this -- they're already too far behind, and are simply never going to be able to keep pace with what's going on in the Linux world.
Apple needs to focus on continuing to ensure that macOS is a highly compatible client OS. Linux still falls flat in this area. Other than for some Apple proprietary stuff (like iOS provisioning), a macOS server is pointless. Use Linux on the server and macOS on the client.
Yaz
I am supposed if they are still doing anything that will require a new OS anyways?
I am not an Apple hater. But using Apple for a server is just a bad fit.
With servers you need to know what technology will be ahead of you and be able to have a well planned upgrade path. Companies like Apple and Google while can make an excellent product, do not have the stomach for long the support of 20-30 years on a product line. This isn’t saying they expected to support 30 year old components but keep the technology in a way for gradual upgrades over 30 years. And make sure the software can keep the business processes the same.
This methodology isn’t in the West cost silicone valley DNA. It is more of an East Cost IBM like methodology of less wiz-bang and more continual improvements.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'm pretty sure they looked at the install numbers for the feature pack in the store and concluded that if no one else cares they aren't going to either.
Would you?
I'm not at all surprised.
When Apple killed off the XServe, their commitment to anything server related was immediately put in question. The Mac Mini Server was cute, but I don't know of one single person that actually took it seriously.
I never considered OSX Server as a system to be relied upon. If I needed anything, I would run a linux machine instead. Apple made no effort to demonstrate anything resembling a commitment to the server arena, most likely intentionally, so no one in their right mind (barring exceptional circumstances) would ever roll out OSX Server for anything.
So you could probably say that this announcement was the inevitable conclusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's sad, cause Apple could have done a fantastic job here and possibly given a serious blow to Microsoft right on it's home turf, but alas, Apple has no interest in that side of things.
Reading the comments, it seems clear everyone has deep scorn for people using the Mac OSX Server.app services anyways as they can all be replicated better and faster and easier using mumble mumble for the price of a sandwich.
So, what are the details? For those of us who do in fact use the Server.app services, what specifically do you recommend?
I use:
Websites: to serve small internal websites for myself and my collaborators to share non-secret internal info.
Mail: to set up temporary email addresses that people can use to sign up for events and then are destroyed once the event happens.
Calendar: to sync all of the iCal users in my group to the group calendars.
SFTP: to let internal users send files to the group server when they are in the field.
File Sharing: for storing backing up our main file systems.
etc.
Nothing complicated; nothing that requires vast configuration. Just services that OSX Server has provided us for years on machines we already have. (We're a Mac based shop in general.)
So what should I replace these services with?
For a decade or so, I've used MacOS Server (or its predecessors) to run a small research group with a dozen or so iMac clients and a couple of dozen staff/students. We use network logins (and hence a mounted home directory) and a small handfull of groups to determine which file shares are available. That's about all we do with Apple Server that can't obviously/easily be replaced with alternatives.
So, for someone who is Linux-comfortable at a sysadmin level, what is a path to replacing MacOS Server's network logins (with server-mounted home directories) for iMac clients? Key services are home directories and a few shared fileshares.
Oh, and thankyouverymuch Apple, for not cutting, say, $100M to maintaining and improving Mac Server for people who've been buying your hardware and software for a decade or two. After all, that would have been 0.05% of your current cash reserves. I think I'm over being an Apple recommender.
Look at HTTP servers: they are deprecating the three major web servers. I may be wrong but Apple is just saying "don't use our servers anymore with anything else that our software". Or they may just have raised a white flag.