[besson3c]

I'm kind of torn about this. On one hand, it is great that people are able to use computers more and more these days, despite all of the annoyances we face in having to support these sorts of people On the other hand, this has been and will clearly continue to cause problems at the same time.

As complicated technologies become easier and easier to use, they become increasingly tantalizing to people who otherwise would have no business, say, running a server, and gives them a false sense of security when clearly they are in over their head. At my old jobs and based on countless other anecdotal stories and circumstances we have all heard about inept system administrations running companies into the ground: poor decisions, backups that are non-existent or silently failing, systems that are compromised, viruses/worms galore, hiring the wrong people, spending money poorly, etc. We are all aware of the sorts of problems these situations can create when IT structures collapse.

I don't mean to sound like some sort of geek elitist. I know it's incredibly unpolitically correct and/or at least snooty to wish that people needed licenses to run servers or other important pieces of IT that people depend on, I don't mean to sound like I'm going that far. Still, on the flip side, there are clearly problems when people are in over their heads, when the comfortable bubbles break, when a house built on a deck of cards collapses, etc.

What seems different now is that with software we are able to do increasingly complex things. For instance, Apple is selling a Mac Mini with OS X Server on it now. They are also in the business of selling computers. If I was a very naive dude wanting to start a small business or something and I went into an Apple store and was wooed by some Apple genius who recommended that I go ahead and run my own servers using this Mac Mini because it is so easy to do and yadda yadda, how would this not be enticing when you couple in this sort of perceived potential with the price point? Maybe in some cases running your own server would be totally doable and totally advisable, but how do I, a hypothetical naive newbie type person, assess this if I have no clue what I'm doing and what sorts of things I need to be considering and researching?

All I'm saying is that there is some sort of balance here. At what point do companies oversell ease-of-use to the detriment of others?

[Big Mac]

If a person buys a server product without knowing how to properly administer it or what other tools are needed to make proper use of the server, that's that person's fault. Apple clearly sees a market for the mini in a server configuration as a result of companies using them in that capacity. If, however, the configuration proves unpopular in the market, Apple will pull the configuration. Supply and demand, as simple as that. The invisible hand is what you're discounting.

[besson3c]

I was not trying to debate whether or not Apple should sell Mac Minis with OS X Server on it, I'm not sure how this was derived. I was simply using this as an example.

[Chuckit]

No matter how inept these people are as sysadmins, their systems are working better than they would if they didn't exist at all.

[Big Mac]

besson: If your concern is that Apple isn't giving enough information to customers about the server config to allow for informed purchases, I think I would agree with that notion. And in fact, Apple's link that promises more information on the mini server config is currently broken. At least they intend to offer expanded info.

Other than that, I don't know what beef you could have with Apple over providing options to consumers.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

besson: If your concern is that Apple isn't giving enough information to customers about the server config to allow for informed purchases, I think I would agree with that notion. And in fact, Apple's link that promises more information on the mini server config is currently broken. At least they intend to offer expanded info.

Other than that, I don't know what beef you could have with Apple over providing options to consumers.

Again:

I was not trying to debate whether or not Apple should sell Mac Minis with OS X Server on it, I'm not sure how this was derived. I was simply using this as an example.

I was not intending people to fixate on my example. This topic was very general in nature.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No matter how inept these people are as sysadmins, their systems are working better than they would if they didn't exist at all.

An inept sysadmin running a server when he/she has no business to, the server possibly causing problems is better than nothing? Why is this the alternative? In some cases, these companies would have simply had somebody else do this for them who possibly knew what they were doing. To break this down even further, it is possible that the latter would be out of the budget of the company. So, in this case, sure, this would be better than nothing, but my point is that this alternative is not always the only one.