In the previous version of Apple Mac OS X Server (10.2), service parameters were managed through a GUI tool called Server Settings, while log files for each of those services were read using a tool called Server Status. For the latest X Server release, Version 10.3, or Panther, the functionality of both of those tools, plus a bit more, has been combined into a single utility called Server Admin. Here is a look at the new GUI, with screenshots and explanations of what I believe are the best new features.
Panther Server Part II: A look at the Server Admin tool
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
that the screenshot were larger and showed more. Other than that – it was a good article
…why Linux distributions are having such trouble developing good server utilities like this? Surely RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Gnome or KDE should be able to put something like this together. They’re good at copying Windows, why not Panther?
right click on link, click “copy shortcut,” open new browser, and paste link. Press Go.
That’s for IE (l)users, who might have problems otherwise.
@me: Linux distros haven’t even managed to (successfully) clone the Windows Control Panel, much less Server Admin. Lycoris has the closest thing to an integrated computer management program, and it’s still miles behind. Maybe in a couple years?
it has nothing to do with the browser. the images are small and there is no click for bigger version.
Really, it looks a whole lot like the Linux Mandrake tools. That is not an insult – Mandrake has done a really nice job with their toolset.
@me: Linux distros haven’t even managed to (successfully) clone the Windows Control Panel, much less Server Admin. Lycoris has the closest thing to an integrated computer management program, and it’s still miles behind. Maybe in a couple years?
Pure Crack. Two examples from the top two corporate linux distros.
Here comes the linux Control Panels.
The best Control Panel goes to SuSe. In their KDE setup from one central location you can get to all desktop settings, network browsing settings, bookmarks, and ever single system administration setting provided by Yast2 including Server setups. SuSE has one of the sweetest most complete Control Centers available in a distro.
The second best but the easiest to work with is Redhat. Yes, they litter System Settings and Server Settings into the menu but you can get to all of it from the Start-Here icon on the desktop. They should have renamed that thing a couple of years ago. There are Applications, Preferences for your desktop, System Settings and Server Settings. It does not offer as many things to configure but it is quite good for the average desktop user and their tools I think have a nicer feel to them.
BTW, Mandrake people can speak to the fact that Mandrake is supposed to have a very nice Control Center/Panel thing as well.
There are plenty of things to bust on linux about. However, the lack of gui configuration tools thing is way old and restricted to the non-commercial distro universe. The big boys have done a good job on this.
People cannot even post a Mac story without some silly anti-linux troll coming up.
On topic the tool looks very nice and complete though I think the text list category view could use better visual hinting (icons instead of colored dots beside the text) to indicate use.
Yeah for Apple, this looks nice.
“On topic the tool looks very nice and complete though I think the text list category view could use better visual hinting (icons instead of colored dots beside the text) to indicate use. ”
The colored dots are done that way throughout the system to show statuses, so using it there fits well. Check out screenshots from something like an iChat buddy list.
Some stuff on the screenshots looks strange:
OS X server uses for mail server postfix/cyrus. The advanced panel looks not so advanced (configuration options are very limited): no rbl, no header checks, no body checks no options for intranet relaying while denying internet relaying. No TLS?
I assume that some (all?) these options are available from command line. If thais is the case GUI makes not much sense: half config from command line and half from GUI? When one starts config from command line I dont think that latter one will switch to GUI.
Out couriosity, I have question about firewall. I see the option of denying icmtypes 0. So for eah of all thirty something icmptypes there is check box? Simply leave openline to fill up with requested icmptypes.
If other GUI admin tools (for LDAP for example) looks similar, then Apple has hery long way before GUI admin tools will be worth consideration.
OS X in not a new toy anymore and tools are based on UNIX so it looks like complete misunderstanding.
I could not find info about NFS implementation in Panther This is version 3 or 4?
No NAT and no VPN, problems with DNS.
If this is it then it looks like GUI tools for home computer rather than for real server.
>…why Linux distributions are having such trouble developing
>good server utilities like this?
Firt i think you are wrong.
Second why do you want to run a GUI on a server?
Better start learning the CLI, even MS is copying it..
That is what Linux and Novell have over windows. They run without a gui. If Apple was smart, they would alow you to configure with the gui and then exit AQUA to the command line. Then have the server run without all the wasted clock cycles. Same with you Microsoft!
“That is what Linux and Novell have over windows. They run without a gui. If Apple was smart, they would alow you to configure with the gui and then exit AQUA to the command line. Then have the server run without all the wasted clock cycles. Same with you Microsoft!”
OS X runs fine without the GUI.
>OS X runs fine without the GUI.
I never saw a GUI-less server from OSX are you sure
you do not refer to Darwin?
anyway..
Its not if it runs fine yes or no its about
why even bother to make a GUI for a server.
A server is not a home toy, a click and click thing,
its about a powerfull and mission critical machine that is controlled somebody machine that knows EXACTLY what he/she is doing there is no need for a GUI.
GUI tools are only usefull if you target at small companies and home users like Windows Server 2003 does.
Sorry the above article was mine but i forgot to
put in my name etc. Damn GUI’s
Yeah, I’m sure it’s OS X and not Darwin.
OS X Server is targeted at small businesses. It is scalable and can be used for more, but they have clearly stated that OS X Server, the XServe and XRAID are targeted at small businesses and video/audio professionals (for the storage space…XRAID has 2.5 terabytes and works with the pro apps in the field). I have seen it used on a few larger scale web sites and have used it as a web server myself and have never pushed the hardware to its limit while acting as a web server alone, but you do have the option to not use Aqua.
What you want to say is not very clear. In fact, it isn’t clear at all.
@ Bas: you can even run OS X without GUI (the client).
MP,
You are right, the tools only appear to cover the most simple options. Some of the more advanced functions are available through the serveradmin command line utility The remaining functions are available through conf files. The nice thing is (depending upon how you look at it) is that apple has set up a mechanism where gui/serveradmin tools right to one location or file and direct user mods go to another, thereby allowing for greater persistance of user settings.
The underlying utilities are full implementations. For example, the firewall is ipfw. This is very powerfull (yes all icmp types can be individually selected.
One thing in the article that I take exception to is the comment about not leveraging nat. OSX is using natd, which is also very powerfull and very flexible as it directly couples with ipfw.
gotta run…
“That is what Linux and Novell have over windows. They run without a gui. If Apple was smart, they would alow you to configure with the gui and then exit AQUA to the command line. Then have the server run without all the wasted clock cycles. Same with you Microsoft!”
Go to log panel and type “>Console” as user name. Let’s play with OS X without GUI.
When you don’t know, don’t speak.
One thing that I have found very helpful while learning how to deploy Panther Server is this piece of documentation titled, Command Line Adminstration. You can find it here:
http://www.apple.com/server/documentation/
Instead of everybody (Apple, Redhat, Suse, etc) building their own tools, why don’t they all agree on a standard GUI format to, say, manage Postfix? The way its done now, you will have to stick to the product provided by the vendor. I am always having problems between using rpms and making custom changes. You also encounter the same problems with Cobalt boxes .. you have to wait for SUN to apply the updates or risk breaking everything.
“Instead of everybody (Apple, Redhat, Suse, etc) building their own tools, why don’t they all agree on a standard GUI format to, say, manage Postfix? The way its done now, you will have to stick to the product provided by the vendor. I am always having problems between using rpms and making custom changes. You also encounter the same problems with Cobalt boxes .. you have to wait for SUN to apply the updates or risk breaking everything.”
The way to do it is to have a chioce of tools to use that all use the same formats for doing things. That way you still get competition to help keep innovation up, yet everything works together.
<<A server is not a home toy, a click and click thing,
its about a powerfull and mission critical machine that is controlled somebody machine that knows EXACTLY what he/she is doing there is no need for a GUI.>>
Depends on what you’re using your server for. If I’m using it to store and render images, or excell files, or run cues for a printer, I wouldn’t consider those exactly “mission” critical”.
And as for “home toy”, I gave my PII450 (and 6 gig HD) to a friend of mine about 2 years ago. It’s now his server and before he put slackware on it, it ran NT4 (click click) as his server. (He’s my *nix guru, btw.) Of all the servers I’ve ever seen, 75% of them are run out of people’s bedrooms.
<<GUI tools are only usefull if you target at small companies and home users like Windows Server 2003 does.>>
And the problem is? See, not everybody needs to run an industrial strength RAID 3+5, 5+1, or 5+3 server. Maybe I’m a pro-sumer level home user, or the computer teacher/IT department at a cash-strapped school, or a small business person, or maybe I want my webpage served out of my bedroom.
A simple to set up, make with the clickies, server makes it possible for us to have the kind of computer we need without the expense of hiring an IT pro. What’s more, it takes some of the pain and wasted human clock cycles out of getting a task done. (See, why should a user like the ones I just described take the time or money to scale Mt. Everest when what we need to do is get to the top of Mt. Whitney?)
The nice thing about OS X Server is that should we need something that’s CLI only, *then* we can bust out the book and look up the required line of *nix gobbley gook, or have a master of CLI-fu come un and take care of the 10% we can’t. Either way, time and money saved.
And, as several others have pointed out, the lovely thing about OSX (in any of its flavors) is that if you’re really happier at the command line, it’s very easy to get to. (As I have discovered on the 12 times in 3 years of daily use I’ve absolutely had to use the CLI to get something done.)
—
As an aside:
Enlightened IT folk who have used OS X, can you please explain to me (and many others) why so many *nix users have the mistaken impression that OS X has locked users away from the command line or is missing several key commands just because you can do damn near everything from the GUI?
“Enlightened IT folk who have used OS X, can you please explain to me (and many others) why so many *nix users have the mistaken impression that OS X has locked users away from the command line or is missing several key commands just because you can do damn near everything from the GUI?”
*nix users who have used OS X do not fall under that impression. Apple has been changing markets lately, or rather adding another market to their scope, and have been moving into the scientific market. There are a lot of companies and people who need unix and have switched over to OS X because of the GUI. Apple has managed to reach one of Linux’s big goals first…putting a great GUI that handles pretty much everything on top of unix while maintaining simple access to a CLI and still allowing you to natively run major commercial applications without an emulator or a substandard excuse like WINE. The only real complaints I’ve heard lately are price and games, both of which mean absolutely nothing to anyone doing any useful work, considering the price isn’t that bad. A lot of IT guys I’ve met use Linux at work and OS X at home. It has been proven in many cases and studies that OS X Server is easier to work with and maintain than Linux, and so if I was an IT guy and wanted to keep my job I certainly wouldn’t reccomend OS X at work. Apple has been going around to businesses and instead of talking to the IT department about using OS X, they talk to the company boards about how much money they will save.
If you are into Linux, great. I use it to. But it’s not the be-all end-all for servers or anything else. With the exception of x86 hardware (which I don’t care for much anyway) I haven’t seen anything Linux can do that OS X can’t, but I have seen quite a few things OS X can do that Linux can’t. Needless to say WIndows doesn’t do much of anything.
Linux_baby:
“I am always having problems between using rpms and making custom changes.”
What are you talking about? what rpm format has to do with server configuration? You can install it from whatever format (rpm, gz, something) and still you have to configure it.
Of course sources in case of servers install are better (for me) as I am able to add helper apps during install, config still needs to be done however.
Quoth Panther PPC:
“Apple has managed to reach one of Linux’s big goals first…putting a great GUI that handles pretty much everything on top of unix while maintaining simple access to a CLI and still allowing you to natively run major commercial applications without an emulator or a substandard excuse like WINE.”
So, it’s like the *nix’ snob’s worst nightmare, right? A *nix with an interface so well thought out and straightforward that … anybody can use it? Horrors!
No wonder they think ill of it.
LOL
“If you are into Linux, great. I use it to. But it’s not the be-all end-all for servers or anything else. With the exception of x86 hardware (which I don’t care for much anyway) I haven’t seen anything Linux can do that OS X can’t”
You really have not seen much. Until now OS X server has only one adwantage Quicktime streaming server plus Apple specific server apps.
On the unix side it is still a toy. Very nice but still a toy.
“You really have not seen much. Until now OS X server has only one adwantage Quicktime streaming server plus Apple specific server apps.”
Considering their target audience (most Apple server sales go to media professionals) the Apple specific apps are a huge advantage. It’s really the only option for zero configuration distributed rendering with FCP, Shake, and Logic. When you aren’t running a web server and want to use a GUI, OS X Server really nails it. BTW, QTSS runs on other platforms with the right configuration.
“On the unix side it is still a toy. Very nice but still a toy.”
Since when was BSD a toy?
I use BSD for long time and I dont remember limitations as seen in OS X server.
OS X is using tools from BSD but it does not make it BSD in the extend that you can do everything on OS X as on BSD. I am not criticizing Apple’s servers but you can’t put together OS X BSD or linux when comparing Apache, LDAP, mail server. You said that OS X server can do everything as linux or BSD but that is simply not true. Unless you are building home server then of course most tasks can be done on OS X (as well as on any other OS). However most of home users does not need dedicated server(s).
“Apache, LDAP, mail server”
Umm, OS X Server does those. Apple is the largest distributor of Apache.
What exactly are you specifying can’t be done? You haven’t named anything yet.
I’m typing this from Safari in an Apple store in Kuala Lumpur. Panther is rather nice… but on this G5…. it’s dissapointing to say the least.
Has someone pointed out you can admin OS X server pretty much completely from the CLI once you have done the initial setup. And for folks who don’t want clock cycles wasted on having the GUI login screen up just do >console for the username and poof no more Aqua.
The only issue is if you should be careful with messing with various config files is the GUI tools may not be able to parse you changes and either loose them or do something stupid. So far myself I’ve managed to edit my apache config files without breaking the GUI tools and I’ve always built my own sendmail config files. Only thing to watch out for is updates from Apple tend to overwrite some of the config files that don’t get changed via the GUI tools. Apple has gotten better at it, but I still backup all my customized config files before applying any patches.
As I said, you don’t know what you are talking about when comparing OS X server to BSD. Take look at the numbers: limited to ~150 virutual host (apache – my experience) limited db in openldap (check out Apple’s data). And so on. As I said OS X server is good for small networks but BSD or linux will take care of much larger setup. So if you think that running apache puts OS X in par with other UNIX systems then you are wrong. I can run apache under windows 9x (unstable of course and I am not comparing OS X to windows 9x). It is not the point. The point is the limited capacity of OS X when compared to real BSD.
“limited db in openldap (check out Apple’s data)”
Checking and only limit I see is a precation if you are using substandard hardware.
“~150 virutual host (apache – my experience)”
Can’t find anything about this anywhere, nor ever run into this problem.
But I did find this…
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/history.html
“The final architectural scheme for Mac OS X, unveiled at the Macworld Expo in January 2000, combines nine basic elements in a layered, component-based model. At its foundation is Darwin, which actually contains two layers of its own: the Mach kernel and the BSD subsystem wrapped around it. The time-tested Mach 3.0 kernel provides the rock-solid stability that is indispensable in consumer and production environments. The move to a kernel-based architecture (a first for the consumer Mac OS) also makes porting to other platforms much more practical.
Darwin also incorporates a full implementation of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) UNIX, welded on top of the Mach kernel. The hybrid BSD architecture adopted by Darwin embodies its historical association with the BSD code base and underscores both the project’s strong relationship with the various BSD organizations and its strong cultural affinity with the open source developer community. Indeed, Darwin itself constitutes a full-blown operating system, complete in and of itself, made available as open source by Apple — a fact that’s both astonishing and under-appreciated.
Darwin is comprised of five main components: the Mach microkernel and BSD subsystem, the file system, networking, and the I/O Kit.
The Mach microkernel at the heart of Darwin (based on Carnegie-Mellon University’s Mach 3.0) manages processor resources, scheduling, and memory protection, and gives other OS layers a messaging-centered infrastructure.
Darwin wraps a customized version of 4.4 BSD-Lite2 kernel and userspace around Mach. It includes many of the POSIX APIs, exporting them to user-space, and abstracts Darwin’s file system and networking. Darwin’s BSD also provides the process model, basic security policies, and threading support for Mac OS X.
Supporting both Mac and Unix file systems, Darwin’s file system — based on an refined VFS design that allows the addition of new file systems and enhances those already supported — is a key element in Mac OS X’s versatility.
Darwin makes industry-standard TCP/IP — based on the original, time-tested BSD code — the primary fundamental networking infrastructure for Mac OS X.
Darwin incorporates the I/O Kit, an object-oriented framework for developing device drivers that also provides much of the infrastructure that drivers require to support SMP and real-time preemption
It’s worth emphasizing that even without the other elements of Mac OS X — the powerful graphics layer (QuickTime, OpenGL, Quartz), the array of flexible application environments (Carbon, Cocoa, Java), and the eye-catching Aqua user interface — Darwin is a complete, functional operating system.
Darwin implements an industrial-strength security architecture based on open standards, building on The Open Group’s Common Data Security Architecture (CDSA). Open source was the preferred approach here partly because peer review is simply the best way to validate security technologies. Beyond that, improving extensibility is far easier with open source than with commercial software. While some elements of CDSA are based on proprietary technology licensed from third-parties, one of Darwin’s principal goals is to make the open source effort functionally complete, which means creating an open source reference implementation of its encryption library.
DARWIN’S ROOTS
The Darwin team is indebted to a diverse collection of open source projects, including the following:
– Mach, which was originally developed by Project Mach at Carnegie-Mellon University, and later enhanced by the Open Software Foundation (now The Open Group).
– 4.4BSD-Lite2, originated in UC Berkeley’s Computer Systems Research Group and developed by a large number of contributors:
FreeBSD, the primary reference platform for Darwin’s BSD kernel development.
NetBSD, the upstream source for a significant portion of Darwin’s user-space commands and tools.
OpenBSD, with its focus on robustness and security and its integrated cryptography, provides OpenSSH for secure remote access.
– Apache HTTPD, the world’s most popular web server, is included as part of the Darwin distribution, making Apple the largest distributor of Apache. ”
So I would be happy to keep this up if you would provide a little insight as to what the hell you are talking about.
BTW, with Panther it’s been upped to BSD 5.
db4 can do 1×10^6 so do OPLDAP without any problems. OS X is limiting it to 1×10^5.
In short OS X is far from being even close to be a real competition for BSD or linux.
“BTW, with Panther it’s been upped to BSD 5” – this is not a news but you have mistaken of based on and being FBSD 5.x.
Your references are not the news either.
“”~150 virutual host (apache – my experience)”
Can’t find anything about this anywhere, nor ever run into this problem.”
Have you ever set up virtual hosts? If so how did yo past ~150-200 barier (it simply is freezing and it needs reboot 100-120 is ok, but above that it is serious problem)? Please let me know what was your config. We could use OS X better than it is used now.
“”BTW, with Panther it’s been upped to BSD 5″ – this is not a news but you have mistaken of based on and being FBSD 5.x.
Your references are not the news either.”
I never claimed it was news.
“db4 can do 1×10^6 so do OPLDAP without any problems. OS X is limiting it to 1×10^5.
In short OS X is far from being even close to be a real competition for BSD or linux.”
Again, haven’t found any references to this anywhere.
“Have you ever set up virtual hosts? If so how did yo past ~150-200 barier (it simply is freezing and it needs reboot 100-120 is ok, but above that it is serious problem)? Please let me know what was your config. We could use OS X better than it is used now.”
I have not run into that problem, nor found anyone else with on the discussions I looked though to check up on it. If it’s freezing up though that sounds like you are trying to do more than the hardware allows. What are you running it on? I’ve seen eMacs have problems as well as some of the older towers.
So it looks like you never set up virtuals. As I am not only one with this problem (I dont remember how I did ask the questions at google) and you can’t find it (freezing will happen under haevy load) and can’t show your setup, so there is no point of disscussing it.
The max size of db under Panther was published at macnn.com with link to Apple’s page with Panter specs.
Actually, yes, I have set up virtual hosts, I just never had to edit any config files…I used the Server Admin to do it and it worked just fine. Before this thread I had never had a reason to set up that many. I tried it to see if I could run into the same problem and didn’t. You are the only person I’ve talked to with that problem. I am very happy using the GUI tools, and have no intention of bothering with it any other way, but if you want screenshots I can do that.
“The max size of db under Panther was published at macnn.com with link to Apple’s page with Panter specs.”
Still don’t see that anywhere.
Instead of screenshot show me your httpd.conf file.