OSNews

I agree that the story reads too much like an advertisement and could have had more depth... However, what I like about the story is the idea of an easy to use reliable server, and the combination of the Unix core and the ease of use of Mac OS X.

Unix & Linux servers may often be the best options for serious server usage. However, why do so many people still use and prefer MS Windows servers instead of Unix or Linux and although they have to pay for Windows licenses when they could get a well tested secure Linux or BSD server operating system free of charge? Ease of use is certainly one reason, and a field where Linux and Unix servers could still develop a lot - and even though Linux and Unix desktop usability may already sometimes be easier than, say, that of MS Windows.

If you have a look at the website, IT Business, its a website designed for CEO/CIO/CFO and other TLA titled people who have no idea about IT but love reading magazines that give them the illusion that they do. It flutters over the details - if you want the details, best to go to a website like Arstechnica.

I'll tell you why people use Windows Servers: Because they are locked in to Microsoft only technologies. Want Exchange? Gotta have a Windows server. Want AD? Gotta have Windows Server. Want to run a web site with ActiveX or ASP? Gotta have a Windows Server. Need ftp, samba, OpenLDAP, a firewall, or any other mail server? Pretty much any server out there can handle it. Difference is I can run a ftp/http (not full on apache, granted) server off a floppy disk on anything. Or you can have the behemoth that is Windows 2003 Server.

Back on topic, if Leopard is the people's Unix, how about letting the people use virtualization?

They do now.

Virtualization yes. Because I really would like to buy a virtualized Mac OS X server. I haven't looked into things yet, but I know there are linux (and other) variants out there, and I really would like a 24/7 server to put some small stuff up on. But I don't want a linux box on 24/7 at home and I simply can't justify an XServe.

I don't care about "opening" up OS X for non-Apple hardware. I don't even think they should do it. But running virtual OS X servers should be a high priority for Apple. I would even venture to say that I would be OK with an OS X specific solution. I.e. you can only run the virtual stuff on an OS X machine. I don't particularly care how they solve it (you don't have to have virtual computers running after all), just do

While that's true, it isn't the ONLY reason why people use Windows Server. Give MS some credit. Windows Server 2003 is a pretty darned good server OS. Highly integrated, good security record, excellent administration tools, scalable, etc. That's not to say that Linux is any less capable.



Including Windows Server. Isn't that ironic?



That's really not a very interesting scenario for most organizations. But you already knew that. I suppose it was more interesting to draw an unreasonable comparison.

But running more servers on less hardware is.

While that's true, it isn't the ONLY reason why people use Windows Server. Give MS some credit. Windows Server 2003 is a pretty darned good server OS. Highly integrated, good security record, excellent administration tools, scalable, etc. That's not to say that Linux is any less capable.

Actually most places I have been that use Windows on the server user it for several other reasons.

1. MS's development tools (Sorry to say) are loved by a LOT of people. Which means a LOT of people develop on Windows, using Windows for Windows. And most of those apps are going to be deployed on Windows with IIS.

2. Using AD to manage users at a help desk (Also sorry to say) Can not be matched. A 6 year old with a few days to play around in AD could do the basic tasks of a help desk person. Being able to: make users, set up email accounts, change passwords, add or change groups, set group policies etc are very simple tasks in AD.

3. TCO. Serving data on and Web sites, providing edge services etc on Linux is the way to go. You have low TCO. But user management, file and print services (Sharing to Windows, Linux and Macs) single sign on etc have lower TCO on Windows. And that is because 2003 server and AD are just good enough and get just good enough uptime that you can lower staff and pay less for user management etc once you get the servers up and running! You don't need some shell scripting guru on staff that charges 80,000 plus a year. For that you can hire 2 40,000 a year Windows guys and have one manage the servers and one manage the desktops, images etc. (That is not good for us in the industry but its good for business!

4. Roll out is quicker on Windows. In reality how log does it take to set up redundant Windows 2003 servers, add users, create a domain, set up DNS, DHCP etc and then add Windows machines to the domain, share and map printers, files shares etc. Although we hate to admit it, those are very easy tasks to do, even a non Windows admin could do it because Windows gives you those dumb wizards that show you how to do it. Now how long would it take to do that using all Linux (Desktops and servers) I am sure a tad bit longer since you would have to piece everything together. Using Suse it's not so hard, but hard enough. Not as smooth as with Windows. (Or Apple since this is actually supposed to be a talk about Apple server anyway)

Anyway, I am not knocking Linux as I am a big Linux fan. But there are some things that Linux could do better. If Linux companies like Novell and or Redhat had a workgroup server that was out the box as easy to use as Windows 2003 and Apple are in workgroups, Linux would pick up a LOT more steam in the enterprise. Novel has their small business server but it's a pain to set up. All the tools are there (Samba, Edirectory etc) but it's not easy to set up out the box. Too much going on!

Anyway, let me know what everyone thinks. Thanks. :-)

Just a quick reply; why do you need exchange? do you need exchange or exchnage like functionality? the purpose of software is to fulfill a task. If you decision to purchase something is based on brand than what it can do and the price it can do it at - then god help what ever company you are at.

You don't need to look far to find alternatives to exchange which are superior; Sun sell a middleware stack called "Solaris Enterprise System" which will be opensourced soon, there is Lotus Notes/Domino, Oracle eve has their own collaboration suite. All of these substantially cheaper than exchange.

Which comes back the original question; as you buying software based on brand or functionality and price?

Don't forget Zimbra.

I think you're missing the point. There is a very substantial niche for a server OS with a good, easy-to-use interface and limited scalability. There are lot's of servers that support a relatively small number of users and are maintained by a non-professional admin. For example, at my university, the small departmental computer labs are sometimes maintained by professors or students in their spare time. Where I work, our e-mail and source-control servers are maintained by people who have no formal IT training, and other primary duties. OS X Server is perfect for such environments. Indeed, if I recall correctly, that's exactly what runs our setup at work --- a PowerMac with OS X Server.

Mac OSX servers actually scale pretty well. here on our Development Network we have a bunch of Macs and Mac servers. On our Production Network it's all Windows, some Linux and Unix.

As I said the cost of hardware is Apples problem. For what you could buy a Mac Pro for you could get a couple Dell or Gateway small business servers with Windows 2003 server on them. (As the Mac pro does not come with Mac OS X server out the box) for the same price. And yes the Apple machine will be more powerful etc. But the Windows machines will get the job done and cost much less. (And they run Linux more easy) LOL!

As noted by a previous posts. Mac OS X does scale very well. Maybe not from the GUI but it is BSD UNIX under the hood and I don't think anyone will tell you that BSD UNIX doesn't scale well.

Harder to do than Windows? Only people I know that have only ever used Windows Server will say something like that. Or people that have used very old versions of other NOSs.

PS: Installing a NOS on a home computer and hooking up less than 200 computers to it doesn't even begin to make you an expert. Step two would be having people and all their ingenious ways of doing things differently from each other and supporting them would start to make you an expert.

Mac OS X is not BSD Unix. It is a BSD layer built on top of a Mach core with some BSD tools in the userland. They've done some things to improve their kernel scalability, but it's fundamentally a workstation OS right now. I think they've been improving it steadily, though they're nowhere close to FreeBSD, Linux, or Windows as a server OS.

Darwin's based on FreeBSD, and the FreeBSD team thought and admitted that it doesn't scale well, giant locks were everywhere in the kernel. They've started the SMPng initiative years ago to fix this. Apple snatched the FreeBSD 4.x codebase, which didn't get much SMPng treatment at all.

Edited 2008-01-29 15:28 UTC

Try saying that on a macos-x-server list and watch yourself get torn into tiny pieces.

Darn. You got to them before I did. OS X scales, and scales well. It also interacts with an AD domain really well as well.

I get more business done before 8 a.m. with my OS X and Linux servers than most so-called Windows systems administrators in-house get done in a day.

Most of the time they are in either panic or repair modes of operation. I'm not sure if it's a joy or a pain to watch their Microsoft misery. Somehow, in twisted logic, they believe panic mode is a form of job security.

Anyone who says 2003 server is well behaved is parroting someone. I would give them better uptime in seconds than their NT predecessors but not by very much. At least it does not need to be rebooted daily. Generally once a month now since it does not cleanly kill of zombied services or apps well.

I really don't see a reason to run Windows-based servers, but, you know, Microsoft has done a really, really good job of marketing their pair of shoes.

As for the article, yeah, it does sound like a high-school level ad without the drama or teen angst.

You are right about the real up time. I don't see why people should run Windows ether, but most of what I wrote came from me asking people and seeing why people actually do use Windows.

When I am asked to set up networks for my job and my side clients they come to me with requirements, and almost all of those requirements come from their use of Windows.

Another shocking thing I found out is that even though Linux, Unix and Mac OS in practice are more secure then Windows, most security experts in companies poo-poo on them because they don't know how to secure Linux and Unix. At the government agency where I work, putting a Linux machine on the network is worse then surfing porn! And that is because most people are trained for Windows security, and most IDS's are geared for Windows security (And maybe Solaris on the Unix side)

I love my Linux but there are a few more steps to climb before we can see Linux everywhere.

WindowsSucks,
saying a 6-year old can do that doesn't prove Windows makes for a great server platform. In reality most of Windows "admins" have a knowledge of those 6-year olds.
It's also one thing to set something up and another thing to be able to maintain your setup. This is where two factors come into play - general OS stability and maintainability and your experience. As the other person said, many of Windows server installs are stuck in a permanent panic mode with a varying degree of panic and brokenness. Worse, this has taught the management to accept that condition as something normal. I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain Windows in a working order, it's just that its 'ease of use' makes people think they can handle everything while in reality they can not.

I never said that Windows was a great or even good server platform, what I was saying was related to what I have seen at all the companies and government agencies I have worked for. Its the same reasons that Novell Netware which has 80% of the server market in Enterprises at one point and Banyan Vines which was 90% of government networks at one point and both failed! And that is TCO and ease of use.

It managers dont give a darn if the network or server admin spends most of his day putting out fires as long as the end user can get to their resources that is all the matters! And that just requires redundancy.

The thing that sells to It managers is ease of use. How easy is it for your help desk staff to manage user accounts, how easy is it for you to go out and hire It staff?

Most people in the Linux world are use to doing the admin tasks themselves, same as it used to be with Novell. I used to have my Novell CNA cert and thought I was hot shit cause it was hard to get etc and I could command money for it. Blah, then MS came along and showed that you dont need a network admin to do simple tasks that your help desk staff could and should be doing.

Like I said before, no IT manager cares that you get better uptime with Linux in the area of Workgroup services. When it comes to keeping your website up and running, YES it will matter, when it comes to keeping your firewall up, YES it will matter, when it comes to keeping your Oracle databases up and running, YES it will matter. When it comes to filesharing, printsharing, user management, identity services etc, Windows will win every time.

People will say "Well MS doesn't share it's protocols etc so that is why you can't have Linux servers share file with Windows clients right etc" Yet Apple does it with their server, using Samba, Open Ldap and Kerberos. same as AD on Windows yet using open source code. Only thing holding Apple back is you have to use Apple hardware. If Apple server ran on any hardware, I would choose it over Windows! Because Apples tools are easy to use AND you get quality uptime, security etc!

At this point the ease of use part eludes Linux in this area.