[olePigeon]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...html?s=feature

I just noticed it was posted to MacNN's main page, but oh well. Just incase anyone missed it: IDG InfoWorld (same guys as Macworld and PCWorld, but more general) named OS X Tiger both Server and Client as the best OSes out there.

I thought this was rather nice as it went up against heavyweights such as Solars and Windows Server 2003.

Before OS X came out, I don't think as much as a whisper went around the general IT magazines and PC Magazines. Now it's funny seeing Windows Magazine and Extreme PC running articles about using Mac OS X... and liking it.

[typoon]

Nice to see

[besson3c]

I disagree quite strongly with OS X Server being the best Server OS, for a number of reasons. If the main metric is ease-of-use in setup of basic functions, okay, but in most other areas I would not rank OS X Server that high.

Problems with OS X Server:

- Having to do bloody restarts every time an admin does something as simple as upgrade Quicktime or something. On other Unix servers, restarts are only necessary after Kernel updates.

- The GUI not being able to control all functionality of software like Apache, and sometimes not recognizing changes made through the command line (I've had changes rolled back), very uncool.

- Poor database performance

- Dependence on Fink or DarwinPorts to keep Unix services up-to-date (Apple is frequently slow in pushing out updates)

- No great way to plan for these service updates when Apple does push them out, aside from installing them manually ahead of time and waiting for Apple to update these services on their watch.

- Installation of services not provided by Apple break some of Apple's GUI functions (why not just provide a means to plug in an alternate directory prefix for the service?)

- AFAIK, OS X Server doesn't do things like machine virtualization or running in Jails.

- People here at our campus have had poor support from Apple for their server products. Some updates have done things like break Kerberos and/or ADS authentication, and there isn't much admins can do except wait for Apple to acknowledge this and release an update or workaround.


I have a feeling that the review of Server was pretty superficial.

[wdlove]

I hope that it is better in actual use.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wdlove

I hope that it is better in actual use.

With the exception of the Jails/virtualization and database performance stuff, this is all based on my experience with it.

All of the low-level, BSD-based benefits of running a server can be had with FreeBSD - an OS that is not only free and will run on a wide variety of hardware, but is in many ways much better designed to be a server OS.

OS X Server has a really sweet LDAP setup and user management, some other nice GUI tools, and is really easy to setup to perform basic tasks accommodated by the GUI tools, but that's really the only advantage I can think of to running OS X Server.

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by besson3c

OS X Server has a really sweet LDAP setup and user management

On the surface, and when it works. When it doesn't, you'll come to realise Open DIrectory has... issues.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Angus_D

On the surface, and when it works. When it doesn't, you'll come to realise Open DIrectory has... issues.

What sorts of issues have you run into?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Angus_D

On the surface, and when it works. When it doesn't, you'll come to realise Open DIrectory has... issues.

[[APi]TheMan]

Client: Yes
Server: Usually no

Like someone said, poor database performance, and poor performance in general. Tom's Hardware (I think) has done some comprehensive tests on this. Interesting stuff.

That said, I manage five OS X servers (mysql, OpenDirectory, AFP, Apache, Filemaker, etc). I dig OS X server, but if I had more time, and probably know-how, I'd use Linux or one of the BSDs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by [APi]TheMan

Client: Yes
Server: Usually no

Like someone said, poor database performance, and poor performance in general. Tom's Hardware (I think) has done some comprehensive tests on this. Interesting stuff.

That said, I manage five OS X servers (mysql, OpenDirectory, AFP, Apache, Filemaker, etc). I dig OS X server, but if I had more time, and probably know-how, I'd use Linux or one of the BSDs.

You might be surprised how easy it can be to move to Linux or BSD. Many Linux/Unix operating systems include software that will automatically download, compile, and install software. That just leaves the configuration and learning how to start and stop these services. These config files can be transferred from OS X, or in some cases, you can use other GUI or web-based tools to handle the configuration.

To me, it's worth the learning curve to learn how to configure these packages. Setting options isn't hard, but knowing what they are and what they do is what is often worthwhile learning. If an OS X Server GUI tool fails, you're left out in the cold with little recourse. Also, there are options which the GUI won't even touch. It is another layer.

Of these services you've listed, MySQL has really no significant configuration necessary outside of setting directories for it to save stuff to (if you build it automatically, it will set sensible defaults for you anyway). Ditto for PostgreSQL. Netatalk will provide you with AFP support and is incredibly easy to setup (defaults will also work). OpenDirectory and Apache will require the most work, but even then your knowledge of using these services under OS X should transfer over fairly easily.

Maintaining the system is generally just about learning how to setup a firewall (many operating systems have GUIs for that), learning how to keep software up-to-date (this is automated in many operating systems), and learning how to create accounts. Many of the basic security techniques are also transferrable (e.g. understanding permissions, using SSL encryption where possible, etc.)

My belief is that most OS X system admins can benefit from a comfort with other server operating systems.

[goMac]

I ran a Linux server for a bit as my primary server (don't actually have an in house one right now). It was ok. My big problems with Linux were that it didn't have a nice remote configuration system like OS X Server (although I did run headless with a VNC server) and of course the GUI tools weren't quite as nice (was running Fedora with server tools, I'm sure the full blown Red Hat Server is nicer). Our company used to run a Red Hat server but that got taken down last summer in favor of an OS X Server solution. It has it's issues too. For one, the Blog system on OS X Server uses LDAP accounts, while AFP with home folders uses the NetInfo which means I have trouble with multiple accounts. It was a minor issue and I think our server guy might have got it sorted out, but the last time I trained for certification was on 10.1, so I wasn't in a position to troubleshoot LDAP vs. NetInfo.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac

I ran a Linux server for a bit as my primary server (don't actually have an in house one right now). It was ok. My big problems with Linux were that it didn't have a nice remote configuration system like OS X Server (although I did run headless with a VNC server) and of course the GUI tools weren't quite as nice (was running Fedora with server tools, I'm sure the full blown Red Hat Server is nicer). Our company used to run a Red Hat server but that got taken down last summer in favor of an OS X Server solution. It has it's issues too. For one, the Blog system on OS X Server uses LDAP accounts, while AFP with home folders uses the NetInfo which means I have trouble with multiple accounts. It was a minor issue and I think our server guy might have got it sorted out, but the last time I trained for certification was on 10.1, so I wasn't in a position to troubleshoot LDAP vs. NetInfo.

What sorts of tasks did you wish had a GUI under Linux? Just wondering, I'm always interested in hearing people's experiences with various Unix systems.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What sorts of tasks did you wish had a GUI under Linux? Just wondering, I'm always interested in hearing people's experiences with various Unix systems.

An IPTables frontend would have be awful nice. I had to download a separate GUI to configure routing. All the other GUI's included are just... lacking... It just seems that most of the Linux server packages include limited GUI's and force you to make heavy use of the CLI, which I don't mind, but OS X Server just makes things easier. OS X Server could be the best server OS, but the lack of any sort of terminal services service and various random breakage concerns really hold it down.

I used to have heavy contact with the OS X Server team and it always seemed they'd tell us they either knew about the bug and it was being fixed "real soon now" or they hadn't found the bug yet. It's getting better though. 10.0 Server (which I beta tested) -> 10.2 server seemed to be just bug fixing. OS X NetBoot and LDAP were considerable features, but 10.4 server seems to be the first really big advance of the whole package.

[[APi]TheMan]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You might be surprised how easy it can be to move to Linux or BSD. Many Linux/Unix operating systems include software that will automatically download, compile, and install software. That just leaves the configuration and learning how to start and stop these services. These config files can be transferred from OS X, or in some cases, you can use other GUI or web-based tools to handle the configuration.

I guess I really meant "if I had more time." I don't even use the GUI tools for my OS X servers (only Workgroup Manager), but it's sure nice having updates come from an automatic source and when problems strike, it's nice being able to boot to a Mac OS X CD and troubleshoot, or even target disk mode the server to another one, etc.

I love the command line, but you've gotta admit, maintaining a Linux/BSD server is a little bit of a pain... I always tease my co-workers when they're asking how to do something, and then they find which GUI app can do it, and I tell them that I did it in the command line.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac

An IPTables frontend would have be awful nice. I had to download a separate GUI to configure routing. All the other GUI's included are just... lacking... It just seems that most of the Linux server packages include limited GUI's and force you to make heavy use of the CLI, which I don't mind, but OS X Server just makes things easier. OS X Server could be the best server OS, but the lack of any sort of terminal services service and various random breakage concerns really hold it down.

I used to have heavy contact with the OS X Server team and it always seemed they'd tell us they either knew about the bug and it was being fixed "real soon now" or they hadn't found the bug yet. It's getting better though. 10.0 Server (which I beta tested) -> 10.2 server seemed to be just bug fixing. OS X NetBoot and LDAP were considerable features, but 10.4 server seems to be the first really big advance of the whole package.

Some valid and insightful comments here. I wonder if there simply isn't a sense of agreement in the Unix/Linux world whether there *should* be a kick ass GUIs for these sorts of admin tasks? I mean, the strength of using the CLI is remote control. NetMusician is located in New Jersey, and I often wonder about what I'd be doing if it were run on Windows... I can't imagine using Remote Desktop for everything - simply way too slow. VNC (which Apple's ARD is based on) is also slow once you put a distance between yourself and the remote computer.

I do all of my system administration completely GUI-less, and I wonder if Linux/Unix administrators simply feel uninspired to work on server GUI tools since they are so at home at the command line. I've literally never even fired up a GUI on NetMusician, and it runs all sorts of software and handles all sorts of tasks.

I also wonder how integral the Server business is to Apple, or whether they are simply going after people who want really simple and easy-to-use servers for basic tasks? You can say that OS X Server has gotten better, and I'll agree with you, but the fact that you have to plan to restart the damn thing after every little upgrade just takes it out of contention in the serious Server OS arena to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by [APi]TheMan

I guess I really meant "if I had more time." I don't even use the GUI tools for my OS X servers (only Workgroup Manager), but it's sure nice having updates come from an automatic source and when problems strike, it's nice being able to boot to a Mac OS X CD and troubleshoot, or even target disk mode the server to another one, etc.

I love the command line, but you've gotta admit, maintaining a Linux/BSD server is a little bit of a pain... I always tease my co-workers when they're asking how to do something, and then they find which GUI app can do it, and I tell them that I did it in the command line.

I have mixed feelings about what you'd said here. I think updates coming from Apple is a good and bad thing. Running Software Update is nice, but planning for restarts is a pain. Waiting for Apple to update included packages on their watch is a pain. Carefully reading documentation on what the updates do and break can be a pain - sometimes there are surprises. I use the FreeBSD ports system, and I've never had a problem *getting* my updates, it sort of functions as a Software Update mechanism, and it works *very* well.

I would say that, if you are comfortable via the command line, Linux/BSD server administration is a breeze even compared to OS X administration in many ways. The problem is getting through that learning curve of being able to do everything without relying on a GUI. The admins I know of simply don't seek out GUIs for most administrative tasks (although they do for desktop software and using business/finance software to run the books and whatnot).