Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

RickR · May 14, 2007, 10:02 PM

I know this is possibly a hot topic but I am wondering what other people's opinion of Linux is on here.
I know for many years it has been said that it will grow fast. It seems years ago I heard it would be something like 50% of the desktop market now but it seems it's less than 1% and growing but still not growing that fast. Yet for the server market I think it's the large majority.
I first tried Linux about 8 years ago and found it very dos-like and hard to set up. During a trip to Germany last fall I was shocked to see how common it is. I'd go to a bookstore and it seemed half the computer magazines were about Linux and two people I visited both were switches to SUSE Linux from Windows claiming how Windows was too expensive, buggy, bloated, and full of viruses and spyware. I think Linux is making large inroads in many countries outside of the US and even more so in developing countries because of the low cost of Linux itself, basically free, and the fact it will run on older hardware and not need as much memory and processing power.
When I was a Windows user I always looked at the day Linux would take over so I didn't have to work with Windows anymore. After my Germany trip I almost bought SUSE Linux to try on my desktop but chose Ubuntu since that seems popular now. I never tried it though since within a month a friend introduced me to the Mac. I instantly became hooked and purchased this Macbook Pro. I have two programs including Quickbooks that require Windows so I still have Parallels running Windows XP on my MBP. Yet when I purchased this I planned to use Windows much of the time but found most of my software could be replaced with Mac versions and I hope to someday use the mac side 100% of the time. Any problems I've had with my MBP have been on the Windows side.
I still find myself reading up on Linux a lot and I have two Windows desktops that I very rarely use. Whenever I do I deal with viruses, spyware, etc. and am thinking of setting Ubuntu Linux up on them.
I think the the Mac is a great computer and my future definitely likes with the Mac, not Linux. With time it seems Linux is getting easier to install and more of a out of the box solution. I listen to a lot of Linux podcasts and do some reading on it and it seems many Linux people are anti-microsoft, not anti-apple and some even look at apple as an ally with them against microsoft. Yet other Linux people look at Apple as even more proprietary than Microsoft since Apple makes the hardware also.
My take on this is I think Linux can coexist with Apple in the future. I think Microsoft is falling apart and Vista helped that. It won't be overnight but I think unless something changes, maybe with Gates leaving, Microsoft doesn't have much of a future opening it up to both Linux and Apple.
The way I see it is Linux will do well with the highly technical crowd. They like modifying the OS, having more power over their computer, and are more open to open source software. I think it will also do well with some businesses since they buy so many computers. They will look at the cost of outfitting many desks with computers and how much cheaper Linux is. I've heard Linux may move into education a lot but I'm not as sure about that. I think some people at home may use it as a desktop but not as much. The big problem I see with Linux is at least at this time you can't go to a store to buy software for it. Maybe that will change with time but i see Linux being more about open source downloadable software. I'm not sure what this means for the future of many companies such as Adobe is more software is open source. Also, with Linux being so open source and so many distributions I see it being even less control than Microsoft. This is a good thing but bad in that there could be more stability issues with different hardware, setups, etc. than we had with Microsoft.
What I see for Apple is they will still give you that out of the box solution you can't get elsewhere. You have iLife and a very stable system. It may cost more but these people will be willing to buy. I think it will continue to do well in education and be very popular in the home and I think some people trust commercial software more than open source.
I see the day Apple could easily grow to 25% of the market. I have doubts about it being the majority. Some people don't like the idea of one company controlling so much but I know the result is you get a product that is very well integrated and works well. I see the other 75% being Linux eventually. I know this will take some time and I guess there's always the chance of another OS joining the crowd. This isn't at all meant as anything anti-Apple. I think Apple is a great solution and am planning on getting a iMac later this year to maybe replace one of my desktops. I just am interested in how people feel about Linux and it's affects on Apple.

bstone · May 14, 2007, 10:14 PM

I like Linux. I love OS X. Linux for servers. OS X for desktops. No place for windoze.

starman · May 14, 2007, 10:32 PM

Linux blows. I've posted enough times about it. It'll never be a robust OS past a command line.

Chuckit · May 14, 2007, 10:43 PM

Lateralus · May 14, 2007, 10:51 PM

besson3c · May 14, 2007, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Linux blows. I've posted enough times about it. It'll never be a robust OS past a command line.

So what do you recommend running on servers? Please don't say OS X Server.

bstone · May 14, 2007, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

So what do you recommend running on servers? Please don't say OS X Server.

In the 50+ servers that I have built and administrated, I have used Linux on them all. Free and fast. I have used Red Hat, Ubuntu and Fedora.

besson3c · May 14, 2007, 11:00 PM

RickR,

I agree with some of what you are saying.

Linux is entirely open-ended in its usage. It is essentially a kernel, and the GUI controls are left up to third parties to dictate. Within Mac and Windows operating systems, many people equate the GUI to being the OS. In a Linux or Unix environment, this is not the case.

Linux/Unix make terrific servers for a number of reasons I won't get into here, since you are talking about Desktop usage. As far as Desktop usage goes, it is already making inroads in government and education. In fact, there was a story posted this weekend about the japanese government switching to Linux. In many cases, the low dangling fruit is switching to a Linux-based server, but eventually I see this creeping into Desktop usage within businesses too.

Within business, government, or education, there are usually administrators that control software builds remotely. For these sorts of workstations, it makes sense to make your drones Linux. Once Linux is configured and setup, it is very stable and relatively easy to manage. If users are handling computing tasks that Linux is equipped to handle reasonably well (e.g. office work, using a web application, basic internet communication, etc.), there is a potential to save a lot of money doing this. In fact, our local high school has saved tens of thousands of dollars switching from Windows to Linux, according to the principal of the school.

It will take a lot longer for Linux to invade the home desktop market. It may never. This, and content creation are Apple's niche markets, and to be sure Macs are niche products.

besson3c · May 14, 2007, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by bstone

In the 50+ servers that I have built and administrated, I have used Linux on them all. Free and fast. I have used Red Hat, Ubuntu and Fedora.

I've used Redhat, FreeBSD, and Solaris myself. I like not having my pager go off, and I like taking care of business when something needs to be done which I can do when I'm not dependent on data flows being obfuscated by a GUI or a proprietary mess.

Chuckit · May 15, 2007, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

So what do you recommend running on servers? Please don't say OS X Server.

Do you typically run your server with a GUI?

bstone · May 15, 2007, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Do you typically run your server with a GUI?

CLI

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Do you typically run your server with a GUI?

No, don't want one, don't need one.

goMac · May 15, 2007, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

No, don't want one, don't need one.

Honestly, in since the GUI is usually done on the GPU, why not run a GUI on your server? It's not like the GPU is doing anything else anyway, and with the quad core and octocore machines, you have more than enough omph to handle a GUI.

I love OS X server for it's GUI tools. It lets me get in and get out of a server remotely very quickly and easily, and also let me track and organize servers.

GUI tools for servers don't get nearly the credit they deserve.

Also, with regards to OS X server, a) you can run it in command line only mode, and b) if you're buying an XServe, it comes with the XServe for free, so why not use it?

Big Mac · May 15, 2007, 04:57 AM

The Linux we know today will never be adopted as a mainstream desktop OS. Perhaps in the future, a Linux derivative will take the desktop by storm, but Linux as it's currently defined cannot fit the bill as a mainstream desktop OS.

starman · May 15, 2007, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

So what do you recommend running on servers? Please don't say OS X Server.

It's working just fine for me.

Uptime: 277 days.

starman · May 15, 2007, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Linux we know today will never be adopted as a mainstream desktop OS. Perhaps in the future, a Linux derivative will take the desktop by storm, but Linux as it's currently defined cannot fit the bill as a mainstream desktop OS.

Linux's biggest problem is hardware drivers. Ever Single Time I try to use Linux SOMETHING doesn't have a driver, and it's always something new. There's nothing anyone can do until companies take Linux seriously, which nobody ever will.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Honestly, in since the GUI is usually done on the GPU, why not run a GUI on your server? It's not like the GPU is doing anything else anyway, and with the quad core and octocore machines, you have more than enough omph to handle a GUI.

I love OS X server for it's GUI tools. It lets me get in and get out of a server remotely very quickly and easily, and also let me track and organize servers.

GUI tools for servers don't get nearly the credit they deserve.

Also, with regards to OS X server, a) you can run it in command line only mode, and b) if you're buying an XServe, it comes with the XServe for free, so why not use it?

I don't want my server's RAM consumed by a GUI, nor do I want to VNC in to do stuff like you would a Windows server.

What is the point in running Pure Darwin? It isn't a particularly good environment for running a server in, has no package management software, and nobody is using it. What does it buy me? Why not just run FreeBSD?

besson3c · 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by starman

It's working just fine for me.

Uptime: 277 days.

Sorry dude, OS X Server flat out sucks, I don't know how to put it any other way. It is decent for small businesses that don't have the technical resources to run Unix/Linux, but no larger business is using it. There is a reason why there isn't demand for OS X server administration on job sites like monster.com.

jokell82 · May 15, 2007, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Linux's biggest problem is hardware drivers. Ever Single Time I try to use Linux SOMETHING doesn't have a driver, and it's always something new. There's nothing anyone can do until companies take Linux seriously, which nobody ever will.

I think Linux isn't held back by the hardware drivers, it's held back by being *TOO* open. There are no standards between distributions. There is no single way to install packages, no single user interface, no single starting configuration. Downloading one distribution yields a very different experience from downloading another.

I understand that being able to configure it however you want is a big positive for the über-geeks, but for Joe Sixpack he just wants his computer to work.

Until Linux can finally adopt some standards when it comes to GUI and specific functionality, it cannot be adopted by the mainstream. And it's not like the custom configs would disappear, they just wouldn't be standard...

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Linux's biggest problem is hardware drivers. Ever Single Time I try to use Linux SOMETHING doesn't have a driver, and it's always something new. There's nothing anyone can do until companies take Linux seriously, which nobody ever will.

Hehhe... companies do not take Linux seriously? Are you serious? Linux runs on far more servers than OS X Server does, I guarantee you that.

Sure getting Linux to work on some Desktop computers is a PITA, but if you are a business and you standardize on hardware that Linux supports, this problem is solved.

Dakarʒ · May 15, 2007, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It is decent for small businesses that don't have qualified IT staff

Well this shouldn't turn personal in a moment.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by jokell82

I think Linux isn't held back by the hardware drivers, it's held back by being *TOO* open. There are no standards between distributions. There is no single way to install packages, no single user interface, no single starting configuration. Downloading one distribution yields a very different experience from downloading another.

I understand that being able to configure it however you want is a big positive for the über-geeks, but for Joe Sixpack he just wants his computer to work.

Until Linux can finally adopt some standards when it comes to GUI and specific functionality, it cannot be adopted by the mainstream. And it's not like the custom configs would disappear, they just wouldn't be standard...

This is true, I agree.

I wish you guys would indicate when you are talking about servers and desktop computers though. When you start talking about Linux in business, this discussion can typically get into server usage, you know.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

Well this shouldn't turn personal in a moment.

Let me rephrase...

"Who don't have the technical resources to run Unix/Linux"

starman · May 15, 2007, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Hehhe... companies do not take Linux seriously? Are you serious? Linux runs on far more servers than OS X Server does, I guarantee you that.

Sure getting Linux to work on some Desktop computers is a PITA, but if you are a business and you standardize on hardware that Linux supports, this problem is solved.

I meant hardware companies.

starman · May 15, 2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Let me rephrase...

"Who doesn't have the technical resources to run Unix/Linux"

fixed

starman · May 15, 2007, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Sorry dude, OS X Server flat out sucks, I don't know how to put it any other way. It is decent for small businesses that don't have the technical resources to run Unix/Linux, but no larger business is using it. There is a reason why there isn't demand for OS X server administration on job sites like monster.com.

Sorry, dude but my best friend works for Apple and he tells me about major Fortune 500 businesses that buy hundreds of Xserves at a time.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by starman

I meant hardware companies.

Ahhh... well, it matters what hardware you are talking about. If you are talking about SAN cards or something, your chances are higher that you'll find something for Linux than for OS X.

Linux *does* run on the most hardware of any OS when you count embedded devices and all of the little machines that use it without most people even knowing it.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Sorry, dude but my best friend works for Apple and he tells me about major Fortune 500 businesses that buy hundreds of Xserves at a time.

To run OS X Server on? Who are they?

starman · May 15, 2007, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

To run OS X Server on? Who are they?

Gee, I don't have the list in front of me. Why can't you believe it?

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Gee, I don't have the list in front of me. Why can't you believe it?

Because OS X Server is not designed for the Enterprise. There is a pretty long list of shortcomings with using it in this environment which we've discussed before (I can't remember if you were a part of these discussions or not).

I can understand buying XServe hardware though, it works fine, as long as support is strong in your area.

Dakarʒ · May 15, 2007, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Gee, I don't have the list in front of me. Why can't you believe it?

He wants to call the companies and explain to them the mistake they're making.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

He wants to call the companies and explain to them the mistake they're making.

It's common sense to use an OS that doesn't pester you to download, install, and restart that Quicktime update you don't care about on your server OS. Unless you are running Solaris, which has its own advantages, it's common sense to use an OS that offers package management if you are running open source software. It's common sense to use a file system other than HFS+, and also common sense to not run a GUI like OS X which requires a big footprint and features a Finder which likes to wig out when network resources are taken away. If you are not going to run Aqua on your machine, what is the point of running OS X anyway?

Dakarʒ · May 15, 2007, 09:03 AM

That's right respond to my sarcasm with a long thought out post. That'll show me.

besson3c · 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

That's right respond to my sarcasm with a long thought out post. That'll show me.

What were you expecting with a response like yours?

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 09:50 AM

Look guys,

The reason I get a little heated with this sort of stuff is because for years I had to endure FUD about the Mac, and have shared your frustrations. However, it seems entirely hypocritical when we get on our high horses about all of the FUD and Mac discrimination while we perpetuate our own FUD about Linux/Unix.

The fact is, Linux is an excellent server OS. OS X is an excellent OS for home users. If you want an OS to rule them all that will hit the critical mass that Windows has, there are lessons to be learned from Linux, and there are lessons the open source community can learn from OS X.

Dakarʒ · May 15, 2007, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

What were you expecting with a response like yours?

None, unless you like to waste your time making serious posts I have no intention responding to in kind.

nerd · May 15, 2007, 10:19 AM

My gripe with Linux as a Desktop is the hardware drivers as well. I can't tell you how many times I've played with it and after a fresh install I'm stuck with a 640x480 resolution that I can't change until I go into the command line. It takes me an hour just to find out how.

I could deal with that but I think package management needs to go. I don't understand why someone can't come up with the approach that Apple has. Make apps a package. VLC is a great example with all the supporting libraries in the app package, no dependencies I have to go hunt down. Yes I know Yast, Yum, Apt, etc. make that better but it still doesn't get rid of the problem in the first place. I want to drag and drop an app on my desktop and run it. Remember I'm talking about desktops here, that means my mother might use it some day.

For server I think they're great and I'm running one myself for a RAID 5 set. I'm running EVMS so I can grow my RAID set whenever I run out of space. At work I'm about to choose Apple for a server but this is only for QTSS.

goMac · May 15, 2007, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't want my server's RAM consumed by a GUI, nor do I want to VNC in to do stuff like you would a Windows server.

The GUI is going to eat VRAM more than RAM. And VRAM doesn't really affect your ability to serve things. Plus, once you reach the 2 gig or 4 gig memory mark, who cares about the little amount of RAM the GUI is taking.

Originally Posted by besson3c

What is the point in running Pure Darwin? It isn't a particularly good environment for running a server in, has no package management software, and nobody is using it. What does it buy me? Why not just run FreeBSD?

Because you still get niceties such as the remote GUI tools, and stuff like XSAN?

goMac · May 15, 2007, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Because OS X Server is not designed for the Enterprise. There is a pretty long list of shortcomings with using it in this environment which we've discussed before (I can't remember if you were a part of these discussions or not).

I can understand buying XServe hardware though, it works fine, as long as support is strong in your area.

We use OS X Server to manage thousands and thousands of users at work. I'm not sure what you define as "Enterprise", but OS X server uses many of the same servers that Linux does, while wrapping them in more palatable configuration tools.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by nerd

My gripe with Linux as a Desktop is the hardware drivers as well. I can't tell you how many times I've played with it and after a fresh install I'm stuck with a 640x480 resolution that I can't change until I go into the command line. It takes me an hour just to find out how.

I could deal with that but I think package management needs to go. I don't understand why someone can't come up with the approach that Apple has. Make apps a package. VLC is a great example with all the supporting libraries in the app package, no dependencies I have to go hunt down. Yes I know Yast, Yum, Apt, etc. make that better but it still doesn't get rid of the problem in the first place. I want to drag and drop an app on my desktop and run it. Remember I'm talking about desktops here, that means my mother might use it some day.

For server I think they're great and I'm running one myself for a RAID 5 set. I'm running EVMS so I can grow my RAID set whenever I run out of space. At work I'm about to choose Apple for a server but this is only for QTSS.

If you want the closest thing to Apple's approach, you'll get it in RPMs. However, the problem with RPMs and with doing what you are describing is that a clean system does not have incompatible versions of libraries lying around, possibly being used by things, and a security conscious systems admin will keep various vulnerable libraries updated.

The problem with the latter is that when you update one piece, sometimes this necessitates updating others. This is where Unix package management solutions (e.g. apt-get, FreeBSD ports, etc.) earn their bacon. An application can bundle their own libraries that are known to be compatible with the software, and some do, but too much of this and your system can become a complex mess where things can break once out of the administrator's grasp.

For Desktop applications, I agree that an Apple-like approach would be useful.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

The GUI is going to eat VRAM more than RAM. And VRAM doesn't really affect your ability to serve things. Plus, once you reach the 2 gig or 4 gig memory mark, who cares about the little amount of RAM the GUI is taking.

We do, our old servers are memory bound at 4 gig. Seriously. Many others are memory bound too, that's why you can buy servers with 32 gig of RAM.

Because you still get niceties such as the remote GUI tools, and stuff like XSAN?

Useless if you don't want to devote the system resources to running these.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

We use OS X Server to manage thousands and thousands of users at work. I'm not sure what you define as "Enterprise", but OS X server uses many of the same servers that Linux does, while wrapping them in more palatable configuration tools.

A file server I take it? What if you needed to run a mail, DHCP, or DNS server for tens or hundreds of thousands of people? For starters, you'd probably be running clusters of these machines...

Perhaps the differences in our environments are that it sounds like you use OS X Server to supplement desktop usage, while I run network services within clusters of nodes we think of as appliance/machine like?

If I want to make a configuration change to our web servers, I can fire up ClusterSSH and automatically push the config file out to all the machines much quicker than I can manually click on stuff in a GUI on all of these machines or write an Applescript or something.

Just trying to make you a little empathetic to our environment and why what I say holds true for us.

goMac · May 15, 2007, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

A file server I take it? What if you needed to run a mail, DHCP, or DNS server for tens or hundreds of thousands of people? For starters, you'd probably be running clusters of these machines...

OS X Server uses most the same server software that Linux does.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Perhaps the differences in our environments are that it sounds like you use OS X Server to supplement desktop usage, while I run network services within clusters of nodes we think of as appliance/machine like?

No, we run LDAP, DHCP, DNS, Apache, and XSan with multiple terrabytes of RAID's. Actually, we run our DNS on OS X Server running on some blue and white G3's.

Originally Posted by besson3c

If I want to make a configuration change to our web servers, I can fire up ClusterSSH and automatically push the config file out to all the machines much quicker than I can manually click on stuff in a GUI on all of these machines or write an Applescript or something.

OS X server still supports SSH and still provides command line tools to access all the server software. Not to mention, again, a lot of the server software is the same server software on Linux.

We use ARD to push out server changes all the time.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Just trying to make you a little empathetic to our environment and why what I say holds true for us.

OS X Server hasn't been without it's problems, but I can't say our Linux server we are setting up for Squid caching hasn't been without it's issues either seeing as how it's still not working in the first place.

goMac · May 15, 2007, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

We do, our old servers are memory bound at 4 gig. Seriously. Many others are memory bound too, that's why you can buy servers with 32 gig of RAM.

Again, OS X server can run without a GUI server side, but let you use the administration GUI on your machine. But you have to understand, Apple's servers (i.e. the ones that are going to run OS X Server) have not been bound at 4 gigs for a long time.

If this was an argument on Linux being friendlier with other hardware, I'd give you that. But at a software level, OS X Server is a very capable performer.

besson3c · 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

OS X Server uses most the same server software that Linux does.

I didn't state otherwise, that's not my point.

No, we run LDAP, DHCP, DNS, Apache, and XSan with multiple terrabytes of RAID's. Actually, we run our DNS on OS X Server running on some blue and white G3's.

Cool... How big is your company, just so I have a better idea of where you are coming from so I can put what you say into context?

OS X server still supports SSH and still provides command line tools to access all the server software. Not to mention, again, a lot of the server software is the same server software on Linux.

I know this, but like I said before, if you aren't running Aqua for the reasons stated above, what is the point of OS X? I know OS X *can* run DHCP and DNS and all that, but why would you do this when you have enough users to push your hardware when you can do the same stuff in a way that requires less RAM, can handle greater loads, and therefore keeps these appliances useful for a longer period of time?

We use ARD to push out server changes all the time.

Have you ever tried ClusterSSH? I've used ARD, it is useful in Mac environments, but what if you want to see the command line output of a string of commands on each individual machine to monitor for failures?

OS X Server hasn't been without it's problems, but I can't say our Linux server we are setting up for Squid caching hasn't been without it's issues either seeing as how it's still not working in the first place.

I used to use Squid a long time ago... What are you guys using Squid for, just out of curiosity?

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Again, OS X server can run without a GUI server side, but let you use the administration GUI on your machine. But you have to understand, Apple's servers (i.e. the ones that are going to run OS X Server) have not been bound at 4 gigs for a long time.

If this was an argument on Linux being friendlier with other hardware, I'd give you that. But at a software level, OS X Server is a very capable performer.

OS X Server is a capable performer in small environments, I'll give you this. It would be absolutely lousy at doing the stuff we are doing, and what we are doing isn't all that unusual.

Like I asked before, what is the point of running OS X Server if you have no intention of running the GUI?

It seems like we are talking past each other. You are trying to apply your work environment to the rest of the world, and I'm trying to explain to you that you can't. I fully acknowledge that OS X Server would work fine in smaller environments, and would handle some jobs in a larger environment if it came down to it, but there are far greater choices.

besson3c · May 15, 2007, 11:07 AM

GoMac,

Just to make sure I'm not rubbing you the wrong way, I'm not trying to suggest that I'm superior because I work in a larger environment or something. In fact, my next job will definitely be in a smaller environment out of choice. You should feel thankful that you don't constantly have to deal with the restraints we do as much in scalability and security

Laminar · May 15, 2007, 11:10 AM

besson, you are a jerk.

Love Calm Quiet · May 15, 2007, 11:11 AM

So, Besson...

Has OS X Server gotten any better for PHP/MySQL serving?

I remember (a couple years ago?) reading in these forums that something about the structure of OS X was crippling the performance for (either) PHP / MySQL.

If that's still the case, that would sure be a competitive disadvantage to a LAMP setup (which I believe is the hands-down first-place installation for PHP/MySQL). N'est-ce pas?

goMac · May 15, 2007, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

OS X Server is a capable performer in small environments, I'll give you this. It would be absolutely lousy at doing the stuff we are doing, and what we are doing isn't all that unusual.

You keep saying this, but you haven't said why. Again, OS X server runs mostly the same server software Linux does. If this was a question of hardware variety, I'd give you that, but you haven't said what is wrong with OS X Server.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Like I asked before, what is the point of running OS X Server if you have no intention of running the GUI?

a) Because you can run the GUI configuration on the server from your desk without actually running it on the server.
b) Real support.
c) It's free with your server.

Originally Posted by besson3c

It seems like we are talking past each other. You are trying to apply your work environment to the rest of the world, and I'm trying to explain to you that you can't. I fully acknowledge that OS X Server would work fine in smaller environments, and would handle some jobs in a larger environment if it came down to it, but there are far greater choices.

You keep saying things that convince me you don't work with OS X Server very often, if not at all. Most the stuff you say is just dead wrong.