But the underlying premise is solid. It might sound archaic to our jaded readership... but how about a little truth in advertising?
I agree entirely and for that reason alone I'm more than happy (here in the UK) to pay an annual TV license on the assurance I get advert-free TV and radio broadcasting from the BBC.
But at the same time, I'm bad enough and smart enough not to be taken in by advertising so I don't believe anything that's shouted at me from a brightly coloured page somewhere.
And I'd much prefer the sheeple who do get sucked in by ads to also find some smarts and not get taken in the same way. Then they won't need someone else fighting their battles for them on the "corporate lies" front.
I think it's pretty unethical to say no one should call out the powerful on their lies because somebody might feel offended, or because someone might see you as a radical. I can understand if you lack the courage to speak truth to power, because it can be scary. However, please don't use the irrational reasoning of a social phobic to try dissuade those who want to stand up for what's right.
Your argument will have better standing in the eyes of others if you stop resorting to silly little personal attacks at me (I can understand if you lack the courage to speak truth to power, because it can be scary) purely because you're unable to come up with a more reasoned response.
There are positive and negative ways of being a Linux advocate. The positive way is to tell people what Linux is and what it can do for them, then let them make their own minds up about using it. If they decide to use it, then help them understand it, make their initial experiences better.
As for the negative ways, I hate to say this but "ALL CORPORATIONS LIE, ESPECIALLY MONOPOLISTIC ONES!" Yep, Microsoft lies, so does GM, Walmart and all the others. But so what?
Why would ANYONE use an alternative OS purely for making a political statement? Why would anyone "cut off their nose to spite their face"?
Oh, how about this idea then? Next time my niece hands me her XP laptop for me to repair, I'll make a political statement shall I? I'll wipe XP and put Ubuntu on it instead? Or would that just be "forcing" her to use it in exactly the same way Microsoft forces XP and Vista on the world.
Sorry, I complain very loudly when something is wrong but your stupid little OS war is irrelevant. It makes *NO* difference to my computing experience or to that of anyone else, (and here is my personal attack back at you) it just lets otherwise insignificant people make themselves feel important fight some silly crusade that has no relevance.
Please identify what OS X/Apple-specific services require an OS X server to be deployed in the first place?
I am not saying that BSD is *THE SAME* as OS X but what I am saying is that if there are no Apple-proprietary services that require an OS X server to be deployed (in the same way that an MS Exhange client using Exchange's internal protocols would require an Exchange server), why would I bother deploying one on the basis that a server does not require the eye candy a desktop machine would, and on the basis of Apple's pretty poor responses so far to security issues which would be fixed much quicker on a BSD or Linux server?
But once again (assuming you're the same AC), you've tried to avoid my question.
For what reason would I deploy OS X Server in favour of a Windows Server (where I might need to run Microsoft-specific services like Exchange) or a BSD/UNIX/Linux server running more standard services?
I don't think I can make the question any clearer than that.
It's going to affect system administration, admin tools, maintenance, and all the server dependent desktop application.
This is still a generic statement with little or no substance.
In the Windows or Linux world, there is very little I can think of that is of a proprietary nature in system administration or maintenance that also requires a separate server.
With Windows, RDP is proprietary for remote access and updates might be deployed on, say, a SAMBA share that can be pushed onto client machines. However, SAMBA runs on UNIX/Linux also and it is perfectly possible for a client machine to pull updates onto itself from, say, a web or FTP server.
Again, nobody seems capable of answering my very simple question - why do you NEED OS X server?
I'm still waiting for an enlightened Apple user to tell me what Apple proprietary client-server applications justify deployment of OS X server in the first place.
The fact is that in the corporate enterprise, there's room for proprietary Microsoft servers that run Exchange, run Active Directory and/or domain control, MS-SQL or stuff like Sharepoint. Other than some really specialised applications, just about everything else is web servers, SMTP servers, FTP, etc. etc. which can be done in a pretty much open fashion on Windows or UNIX.
So please tell me where OS X fits into this - especially since you're reliant on Apple's not-very-good track record for releasing security updates when, by running proper BSD, updates are much more frequent.
Since it's good to see an intelligent discussion on here comparing Windows to Linux, here's my 2 cents worth. Yep, I'm primarily a Linux user but I also use XP and, once I've stripped back the terrible default desktop back to "Classic" view and done a few more tweaks, it's pretty usable and I like it. I don't rate many of Microsoft's built in utilities like Notepad, IE and Windows Media Player but I strip those out with XPLite and just put on better free or Open Source equivalents.
My two biggest bugbears with Windows are The Registry and the fact it's not multiuser in the same way that UNIX/Linux are.
With UNIX/Linux, all your files and program settings are held in your home directory so to migrate those over to other machines or users is simple. Yet to do the same in Windows means exporting parts of The Registry & trying to copy everything in the user account under "Documents and Settings" which invariably results in you trying to copy a system file that stops the whole process.
The multiuser part is mainly as a result of Microsoft's licensing stupidity which means deliberately crippling an OS so that more than one user cannot have a desktop session simultaneously. Yep, RDP probably is sleeker than VNC but for someone like me who helps out friends and relatives with XP problems over the Internet, I have never found a way yet with RDP that both of us can see the same screen simultaneously (even though I have remote control of the desktop) so I can show the person what I'm doing while talking to them on the telephone. With VNC, it's straightforward to do this.
Other than that, Windows needs to get rid of the GUI when it's not needed on some server applications. GUI means third-party graphics drivers which add instability onto any server system, whether it's Windows or Linux. Not to mention the additional, possibly wasted overhead.
Yes, I certainly can do that but it may need to be Thursday I post it to this thread.
I'm out of the country on a short break (until Thursday) and whilst I can normally get to my home Linux server with SSH, I can't even ping it at the moment. Might be an ISP problem at home, I'll keep trying and if I can get into it, I'll grab procmailrc and post it.
I keep an email account for honeytrapping that I throw on every web site possible to make sure I get huge amounts of spam on it that I then test my procmail filters on.
Sounds like someone who's a) never used OS X server
Correct.
and b) never had to wrangle OpenLDAP, Kerberos, Samba, and SASL on a regular Linux server.
Totally incorrect - I'm a senior Linux and UNIX security consultant working for a telecoms company. I eat, drink and sh*t Linux both at work and at home in my "playtime" doing a lot of interop stuff with MS Exchange and LDAP also.
So the kernel in OS X is proprietary - fine, I accept that.
But then if most of the application stuff is BSD which is presumably compiled to work on the Mac platform and the proprietary kernel, why then would you need an OS X server rather than a BSD server which, in most cases, would still be compatible?
I'm willing to be educated here since my knowledge of OS X is much less than either UNIX or Windows. But what Apple proprietary client-server applications require the specific deployment of an OS X server? And, if such applications exist, are they likely to be used in a corporate environment where deployment of an OS X server would be justifiable? (Like, say, Microsoft Exchange on a Windows server)
For hardcore multitaskers, expose is a must - in a second you can pick the window you want out of the 20 that you have open.
Arrangement of windows is a function of a desktop environment, not a server. Those windows could each be running a terminal session, or some other application, to one or multiple other machines across a network.
But the thing that most often gets ignored in geek circles is the bling factor.
Point one - you don't need "bling" on a server, you need reliability & efficient use of CPU cycles.
Point two - I am a 100% geek but the last thing I ever do is buy a computer as a fashion accessory. I tinker with my machines constantly, get the best value for money with everything I buy and therefore have never had (and never will) had even the remotest desire to buy any Apple product - because paying a 50% premium for a curvy case means nothing to me. So please don't confuse "geek" with "Apple user", they are mutually exclusive.
Sure, in a Microsoft house, you need to deploy Windows Server to run Exchange, MS-SQL or some other proprietary Microsoft client-server application. Likewise, you may have something proprietary running on a UNIX client-server environment. Or otherwise, you may run an open client server application like a web server (without proprietary extensions), FTP server, etc. etc.
I'm willing to be proved wrong with my minimal knowledge (or care) about the Mac environment but what proprietary client-server apps require deploying an OSX server?
Modern servers can handle running a GUI layer on top of their other processes without breaking a sweat.
And your comment suggests that you therefore have no idea about deploying servers.
Due to the nature of graphics drivers and GUIs, by virtue of running either you introduce additional instabilities on any machine, whether it runs Windows, OS X or X-Windows on UNIX.
The whole point of running a server is not to waste CPU cycles on stuff you don't need and keep its availability time as high as possible. Therefore, a good "rule of thumb" is to avoid putting a GUI on a server but, if you need to, use GUI-based or browser-based management tools on a client machine.
My expertise is UNIX and Linux servers but I've been in enough data-centres over the years where I've also seen loads of Windows servers where whomever has administered them, has not used proprietary drivers to get maximum resolution on Windows but stuck with a 640x480 or 800x600 standard VGA display because they don't want the additional overhead & instabilities of external drivers.
Nope, I'm not getting anything - procmail on my honeytrap spam email account sees it and stops it with a few simple filters
So please try harder, spammers, or go and get extensions to your obviously miniscule penises so you no longer need to take you inadequacies out on the rest of the world.
...as primarily a Linux user myself who works as a consultant in a telecoms company where most of our products are already running on Linux, can you please stop with this stupid idea that Linux is "at war" with Microsoft or Windows?
Linux is an operating system, and a very good one at that, but please treat everyone else like adults who are capable of making their own minds up as to what OS they want to run. Fine, if they choose not to consider Linux then so be it, let it be their loss but let them get on with it.
Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.
It's quite clear that recently, Microsoft is quite capable of putting its own foot in its mouth without your assistance.
So I would strongly suggest your energies would be put to better use giving assistance to those who have just started to explore Linux - help them along with it, make their experience with it easier & firmly dissuade them from any thoughts that Linux people are not lunatic hippies but actually nice helpful people.
Linux exists DESPITE Microsoft, not BECAUSE of Microsoft and it will still be here in years to come whether Microsoft is here or not.
Even if they don't care at all about Linux, that would be a fairly easy way to make the Windows experience more pleasant, and more competitive with OSX, which already enforces a fair bit more consistency on OEM drivers.
I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but I'm afraid you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
OSX is designed to work on a small number of very specialised and fixed hardware platforms whereas a Windows or Linux PC can be running on thousands of different variants of hardware.
I really hate to piss on your fanboiism but if a company the size of Microsoft or a developer community the size of the Linux one are both reliant on some co-operation from hardware vendors, do you not think Snapple would also be reliant on those same vendors if (god forbid) OS X was running on as many different hardware platforms?
Oh, I forgot - the Greek titan that is Steve Jobs will just have a mammoth coding session one night and write every hardware driver 100% perfectly with 24 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree entirely and for that reason alone I'm more than happy (here in the UK) to pay an annual TV license on the assurance I get advert-free TV and radio broadcasting from the BBC.
But at the same time, I'm bad enough and smart enough not to be taken in by advertising so I don't believe anything that's shouted at me from a brightly coloured page somewhere.
And I'd much prefer the sheeple who do get sucked in by ads to also find some smarts and not get taken in the same way. Then they won't need someone else fighting their battles for them on the "corporate lies" front.
Your argument will have better standing in the eyes of others if you stop resorting to silly little personal attacks at me (I can understand if you lack the courage to speak truth to power, because it can be scary) purely because you're unable to come up with a more reasoned response.
There are positive and negative ways of being a Linux advocate. The positive way is to tell people what Linux is and what it can do for them, then let them make their own minds up about using it. If they decide to use it, then help them understand it, make their initial experiences better.
As for the negative ways, I hate to say this but "ALL CORPORATIONS LIE, ESPECIALLY MONOPOLISTIC ONES!" Yep, Microsoft lies, so does GM, Walmart and all the others. But so what?
Why would ANYONE use an alternative OS purely for making a political statement? Why would anyone "cut off their nose to spite their face"?
Oh, how about this idea then? Next time my niece hands me her XP laptop for me to repair, I'll make a political statement shall I? I'll wipe XP and put Ubuntu on it instead? Or would that just be "forcing" her to use it in exactly the same way Microsoft forces XP and Vista on the world.
Sorry, I complain very loudly when something is wrong but your stupid little OS war is irrelevant. It makes *NO* difference to my computing experience or to that of anyone else, (and here is my personal attack back at you) it just lets otherwise insignificant people make themselves feel important fight some silly crusade that has no relevance.
Please identify what OS X/Apple-specific services require an OS X server to be deployed in the first place?
I am not saying that BSD is *THE SAME* as OS X but what I am saying is that if there are no Apple-proprietary services that require an OS X server to be deployed (in the same way that an MS Exhange client using Exchange's internal protocols would require an Exchange server), why would I bother deploying one on the basis that a server does not require the eye candy a desktop machine would, and on the basis of Apple's pretty poor responses so far to security issues which would be fixed much quicker on a BSD or Linux server?
For what reason would I deploy OS X Server in favour of a Windows Server (where I might need to run Microsoft-specific services like Exchange) or a BSD/UNIX/Linux server running more standard services?
I don't think I can make the question any clearer than that.
This is still a generic statement with little or no substance.
In the Windows or Linux world, there is very little I can think of that is of a proprietary nature in system administration or maintenance that also requires a separate server.
With Windows, RDP is proprietary for remote access and updates might be deployed on, say, a SAMBA share that can be pushed onto client machines. However, SAMBA runs on UNIX/Linux also and it is perfectly possible for a client machine to pull updates onto itself from, say, a web or FTP server.
Again, nobody seems capable of answering my very simple question - why do you NEED OS X server?
Apologies. I thought this was a discussion on "The merits of OS X server", not "Effective Arguing for Managers".
I'm still waiting for an enlightened Apple user to tell me what Apple proprietary client-server applications justify deployment of OS X server in the first place.
The fact is that in the corporate enterprise, there's room for proprietary Microsoft servers that run Exchange, run Active Directory and/or domain control, MS-SQL or stuff like Sharepoint. Other than some really specialised applications, just about everything else is web servers, SMTP servers, FTP, etc. etc. which can be done in a pretty much open fashion on Windows or UNIX.
So please tell me where OS X fits into this - especially since you're reliant on Apple's not-very-good track record for releasing security updates when, by running proper BSD, updates are much more frequent.
My two biggest bugbears with Windows are The Registry and the fact it's not multiuser in the same way that UNIX/Linux are.
With UNIX/Linux, all your files and program settings are held in your home directory so to migrate those over to other machines or users is simple. Yet to do the same in Windows means exporting parts of The Registry & trying to copy everything in the user account under "Documents and Settings" which invariably results in you trying to copy a system file that stops the whole process.
The multiuser part is mainly as a result of Microsoft's licensing stupidity which means deliberately crippling an OS so that more than one user cannot have a desktop session simultaneously. Yep, RDP probably is sleeker than VNC but for someone like me who helps out friends and relatives with XP problems over the Internet, I have never found a way yet with RDP that both of us can see the same screen simultaneously (even though I have remote control of the desktop) so I can show the person what I'm doing while talking to them on the telephone. With VNC, it's straightforward to do this.
Other than that, Windows needs to get rid of the GUI when it's not needed on some server applications. GUI means third-party graphics drivers which add instability onto any server system, whether it's Windows or Linux. Not to mention the additional, possibly wasted overhead.
I'm out of the country on a short break (until Thursday) and whilst I can normally get to my home Linux server with SSH, I can't even ping it at the moment. Might be an ISP problem at home, I'll keep trying and if I can get into it, I'll grab procmailrc and post it.
I'm just guessing but maybe it has something to do with using VPN tunnelling to connect to other networks outside of China?
I keep an email account for honeytrapping that I throw on every web site possible to make sure I get huge amounts of spam on it that I then test my procmail filters on.
Correct. and b) never had to wrangle OpenLDAP, Kerberos, Samba, and SASL on a regular Linux server.
Totally incorrect - I'm a senior Linux and UNIX security consultant working for a telecoms company. I eat, drink and sh*t Linux both at work and at home in my "playtime" doing a lot of interop stuff with MS Exchange and LDAP also.
But then if most of the application stuff is BSD which is presumably compiled to work on the Mac platform and the proprietary kernel, why then would you need an OS X server rather than a BSD server which, in most cases, would still be compatible?
I'm willing to be educated here since my knowledge of OS X is much less than either UNIX or Windows. But what Apple proprietary client-server applications require the specific deployment of an OS X server? And, if such applications exist, are they likely to be used in a corporate environment where deployment of an OS X server would be justifiable? (Like, say, Microsoft Exchange on a Windows server)
Arrangement of windows is a function of a desktop environment, not a server. Those windows could each be running a terminal session, or some other application, to one or multiple other machines across a network.
But the thing that most often gets ignored in geek circles is the bling factor.
Point one - you don't need "bling" on a server, you need reliability & efficient use of CPU cycles.
Point two - I am a 100% geek but the last thing I ever do is buy a computer as a fashion accessory. I tinker with my machines constantly, get the best value for money with everything I buy and therefore have never had (and never will) had even the remotest desire to buy any Apple product - because paying a 50% premium for a curvy case means nothing to me. So please don't confuse "geek" with "Apple user", they are mutually exclusive.
Sure, in a Microsoft house, you need to deploy Windows Server to run Exchange, MS-SQL or some other proprietary Microsoft client-server application. Likewise, you may have something proprietary running on a UNIX client-server environment. Or otherwise, you may run an open client server application like a web server (without proprietary extensions), FTP server, etc. etc.
I'm willing to be proved wrong with my minimal knowledge (or care) about the Mac environment but what proprietary client-server apps require deploying an OSX server?
And your comment suggests that you therefore have no idea about deploying servers.
Due to the nature of graphics drivers and GUIs, by virtue of running either you introduce additional instabilities on any machine, whether it runs Windows, OS X or X-Windows on UNIX.
The whole point of running a server is not to waste CPU cycles on stuff you don't need and keep its availability time as high as possible. Therefore, a good "rule of thumb" is to avoid putting a GUI on a server but, if you need to, use GUI-based or browser-based management tools on a client machine.
My expertise is UNIX and Linux servers but I've been in enough data-centres over the years where I've also seen loads of Windows servers where whomever has administered them, has not used proprietary drivers to get maximum resolution on Windows but stuck with a 640x480 or 800x600 standard VGA display because they don't want the additional overhead & instabilities of external drivers.
Nope, I'm not getting anything - procmail on my honeytrap spam email account sees it and stops it with a few simple filters
So please try harder, spammers, or go and get extensions to your obviously miniscule penises so you no longer need to take you inadequacies out on the rest of the world.
Linux is an operating system, and a very good one at that, but please treat everyone else like adults who are capable of making their own minds up as to what OS they want to run. Fine, if they choose not to consider Linux then so be it, let it be their loss but let them get on with it.
Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.
It's quite clear that recently, Microsoft is quite capable of putting its own foot in its mouth without your assistance.
So I would strongly suggest your energies would be put to better use giving assistance to those who have just started to explore Linux - help them along with it, make their experience with it easier & firmly dissuade them from any thoughts that Linux people are not lunatic hippies but actually nice helpful people.
Linux exists DESPITE Microsoft, not BECAUSE of Microsoft and it will still be here in years to come whether Microsoft is here or not.
If you need a server OS, you don't need eye candy on it. OS X is built on a BSD core, therefore just use BSD for your server.
I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but I'm afraid you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
OSX is designed to work on a small number of very specialised and fixed hardware platforms whereas a Windows or Linux PC can be running on thousands of different variants of hardware.
I really hate to piss on your fanboiism but if a company the size of Microsoft or a developer community the size of the Linux one are both reliant on some co-operation from hardware vendors, do you not think Snapple would also be reliant on those same vendors if (god forbid) OS X was running on as many different hardware platforms?
Oh, I forgot - the Greek titan that is Steve Jobs will just have a mammoth coding session one night and write every hardware driver 100% perfectly with 24 hours.
Yawn!
I'm into "Uriah Heep" & "Blodwyn Pig" so please - hit me with those adverts targetted for middle-aged hippie rockers. I could do with a new kaftan.
[cough] Syslog [cough] [cough] SNMP [cough] and neither one in Beta [cough]
Yep. It's called SNMP and Syslog. Nothing new to see here, please move on.
Strictly speaking, it's a patch for a fix in a service pack.