[Oisín]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No way would OS X be chosen to provide infrastructure. Show me where this is happening now?

I don’t get half of most of that post (I’m no sysadmin), but the two companies I can think of that use Apples both as their servers, database servers, and regular work stations are both middle-sized companies (about 30–50 employees, I’d guess).

They both have IT departments of two or three people, who maintain all servers and work stations, and like I said above, they (or at least the one of them, where I spent any significant amount of time) seem to be very stable. I have no idea what they did to solve all those issues you pointed out, but it seemed to work a lot better than it does in the Windows environments I usually work in.

Saying you could run a company like JP Morgan on an out-of-the-box macintosh network is foolish. Yet that is what is being said here.

Uh, no it’s not.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Apple cannot do much for DNS and DHCP except provide a GUI. In most environments, lease/network info as well as DNS info has to come from somewhere. This is generally scripted somehow, or pushed/pulled from a data store. There is no simple "make DNS work" checkbox Apple could develop.

Apple can do whatever they want as long as they publish the source code as required by GPL or other respecitve licenses.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Moreover, if you want to talk about support, this would add another layer of complexity. Apple does not write either major DHCP implementation (Wide or ISC). Any support needed would come from the developers of these DHCP implementations.

Apple has full access to the source code. There's no reason Apple can't offer direct support for those implementations (and they do, by the way.)

Originally Posted by besson3c 

... Apple can do very little except try to research your problem on your behalf. They cannot fix these problems for you in a self-sufficient manner, they do not have all the answers. Red Hat Linux's model is exactly the same, except they are setup to do exactly this with small and large clients. So, what would the advantage of going with Apple be here?

Apple has access to the source code, they didn't just decide to implement a bunch of applications as core parts of the OS, then not know what to do with them. They're perhaps a little rougher at the edges, but they're in no different position than Microsoft.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Cyrus already includes its own perl based administrative interface called cyradm. IMAP authentication and account management happens in a variety of ways, again usually scripted or managed via some sort of automated backend. There is no magic GUI Apple could write here.

... Apple could write all the GUI they want for Cyrus. They've done quite a bit already and Leopard Server's supposed to expand on it and give the admin more features and control through the GUI instead of the command line. If an application can be configured through a command line, then a GUI can made for it. There's no reason what-so-ever that Apple can't (and does) provide a GUI for the various features for Cyrus. Aqua is just one giant GUI for BSD, so are the tools in OS X Server.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Apple also does not develop its own web server, and its included Apache GUI admin is limited.

But no less functional. Yes, some of the features you have to access the good old fashioned way. 95% of what you need is in the GUI. That 5% is no different than Windows with some obscure properties tab in some other unrelated section of the OS that has nothing to do with IIS or web.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

OS X would *not* be the OS of choice if starting a new company, unless it was very small and could get away with having a weak support model.

I don't see why not.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

OS X would *not* be the OS of choice if starting a new company, unless it was very small

Do startups tend to be large in your experience? Most companies I know start out with 1-50 (the low end being far more common) employees and grow from there.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Chill. My pimp hand is relaxed.

I am just saying that a bunch of macintosh geeks are wrong about what the computer markets are doing. The reason why more people don't buy macintosh obviously is because it doesn't offer more benefits than the cost of switching. Saying you could run a company like JP Morgan on an out-of-the-box macintosh network is foolish. Yet that is what is being said here.

The cost of switching is worth it if you are into content creation, and the cost of switching may be worth it if you are looking for a solid home computer. Apple has never set their sights on being the platform that runs JP Morgan, so this is a moot point. Apple is a niche/boutique product, and has been for ages.

That being said, make no mistakes about it, Windows really does suck. I could go on for several pages as to why it sucks, but I suppose I'd only be preaching to the choir.

I'm anticipating we will continue to see more Linux infiltrate government and education, as well it should. There is no reason why people need to shell out money for a MS license to type up some documents and check their email! Hell, I would bet that most people could get by with only an internet connection using Google Docs and Spreadsheets and GMail.

I'm hoping that our tax dollars will be put to use buying brain dead dummy terminals for these sorts of uses, and Linux is a good operating system to run low end hardware on since it can scale a lot better on older hardware.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I don’t get half of most of that post (I’m no sysadmin), but the two companies I can think of that use Apples both as their servers, database servers, and regular work stations are both middle-sized companies (about 30–50 employees, I’d guess).

They both have IT departments of two or three people, who maintain all servers and work stations, and like I said above, they (or at least the one of them, where I spent any significant amount of time) seem to be very stable. I have no idea what they did to solve all those issues you pointed out, but it seemed to work a lot better than it does in the Windows environments I usually work in.

OS X *can* do a lot of things. Windows *can* do a lot of things. Admins are notoriously lazy though, and are more likely to go with combinations they know will work with minimal hassle. OS X works great so long as you stay inside the comfortable Apple bubble. Once you leave it, I see little point in running OS X at all - there are likely several better suited choices.

Paul Graham is actually one of the original founders of Yahoo. He's a smart guy, although now that I've digested his essay a little more I question several other of his points. Nothing that hasn't already been said here really, but I also question whether this whole "Web 2.0" thing is that radical evolutionary departure, or really just a realization of how to design modern web applications, and how a CMS can be used to drive a site. The technology itself is not terribly new - reading and writing from databases through the web has been around a long time, as has Ajax (and Ajax is also far more complicated than one might think it ought to be - as if it were an afterthought). There have been some companies that have used these technologies to produce some neat products, and several other neat web based applications that have emerged, but I don't think there has really been a radical shift in technology to warrant a "Web 2.0" title.

The web is *very* well suited to replace the traditional word processor and simple apps that do not rely on a lot of horsepower to run. Have you guys checked out Google Docs and Spreadsheets? If I was running a business, I can guarantee this is a (free) product I would consider relying upon quite heavily.

[Oisín]

OS X *can* do a lot of things. Windows *can* do a lot of things. Admins are notoriously lazy though, and are more likely to go with combinations they know will work with minimal hassle.

This is how I saw things working at the two Apple companies.

At the Windows companies where I work, though, it doesn’t seem to work like that: the concept of ‘minimal hassle’ simply doesn’t seem to exist there. One of them, a building that has about 120 employees, has a 12-man IT department, plus various developers here in there in other departments, who all run around nine hours a day, stressed as all hell, simply trying to keep the whole thing from breaking down completely. They have very little time for actual development; all their time is used on damage containment.

Proportionally speaking, it just seemed a lot easier and less hassled being a sys admin at the Apple companies than at the Windows companies.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

It's just as productive.

In general, no, but that's arguable. I would argue, for example, that not having to worry about keeping antivirus, spyware, etc. updated would mean spending more time concentrating work. OS X also doesn't have those god damn, mothering popup dialogs that makes you want to throw the compuer out the window.

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Windows Vista is being bought by consumers like no other Windows and is a fierce competitor...

No. Vista is one of the slowest releases of Windows to be picked up by consumers.

Originally Posted by anonymac 

... or be used for major businesses. That's okay. One size doesn't fit all.

Seems to fit Apple and many universities.

Originally Posted by anonymac 

And the slowest motorola processors are twice as fast as the newest intel processors too.

When utilizing AltiVec, they were. Since the computers were targeted at the creative market, that's the only benchmark they cared about. For everything else (to take a page from Microsoft), it was good enough.

Originally Posted by anonymac 

The reason why more people don't buy macintosh obviously is because it doesn't offer more benefits than the cost of switching.

Not using Microsoft Windows is infinitely cheaper becuase Apple doesn't charge annual client access license fees just to use the software. Microsoft charges nearly $40 a device (computers [Macs, PCs, 386, Amiga], cell phones, PDAs, printers; anything that accesses Windows services) just to use Windows Server.

Macintosh can run OS X and Windows software (simultaneously, if you want it to.) There's no investment in software lost.

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Saying you could run a company like JP Morgan on an out-of-the-box macintosh network is foolish.

Because an out-of-the-box Windows network will work perfectly? Can you tell me why you can't use OS X for someone like JP Morgan?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Apple can do whatever they want as long as they publish the source code as required by GPL or other respecitve licenses.



Apple has full access to the source code. There's no reason Apple can't offer direct support for those implementations (and they do, by the way.)

My point is that what drives the data for these services is usually environment specific. There are a number of ways to store DNS records, and there are a number of creative configurations for both DHCP and DNS. Because this data often changes on a frequent basis, most companies have automated backends specific to their environment - this is the part that Apple (or anybody else) can't really help with, and this is what I was trying to say. With these backends in place, it is likely that on a day-to-day basis, a GUI for manual creation of entries would have little to no value whatsoever.

Apple has access to the source code, they didn't just decide to implement a bunch of applications as core parts of the OS, then not know what to do with them. They're perhaps a little rougher at the edges, but they're in no different position than Microsoft.

This might be, I suppose I shouldn't have made too many assumptions about how adept Apple is at supporting open source products, but my sense is that rough around the edges is an understatement.

... Apple could write all the GUI they want for Cyrus. They've done quite a bit already and Leopard Server's supposed to expand on it and give the admin more features and control through the GUI instead of the command line. If an application can be configured through a command line, then a GUI can made for it. There's no reason what-so-ever that Apple can't (and does) provide a GUI for the various features for Cyrus. Aqua is just one giant GUI for BSD, so are the tools in OS X Server.

Great, so they can write a GUI for account management and creating 20,000 accounts, setting expiration dates on them, setting up Cyrus for Kerberos authentication, etc.? Maybe, but this would be retarded. What are you going to do, write an Applescript to create these accounts?

Cyradm is simple enough that a monkey could use it, just about. What is more complicated is account creation and maintenance, security, and we haven't even touched SMTP/mail delivery tracing and such. In any semi-large business, the maintenance of accounts would surely be automated via more backend tools - again tools that are environment specific and that Apple would probably not contribute much to. A GUI for cyradm is the least of any administrator's worries, it really is pretty straight forward.

But no less functional. Yes, some of the features you have to access the good old fashioned way. 95% of what you need is in the GUI. That 5% is no different than Windows with some obscure properties tab in some other unrelated section of the OS that has nothing to do with IIS or web.

Nowhere near 95%, sorry. Ever setup any accelerators? Custom directory declarations with custom htaccess rules? Basic authentication to a Kerberos server? Ever wanted to optimize your Apache install? Install other modules? Last I checked the Apache admin didn't even have support for something as basic as the ServerAlias directive.

And what happens when something goes astray in a setup this specific to your environment? There are a lot of Apache-specific tools and common problems: the order in which extensions are loaded, bad modules, etc. All of this sort of stuff is logged, but if you Google one of those error messages you will most definitely find a solution that involves editing your Apache config manually.

Again, this is another example of that Apple bubble. Apple wants to make people think that everything will be rosy and super easy and that you'll always be content using their products, but they don't say that it is more fun poking yourself in the eye once you leave their little bubble. I recommend that everybody learn their Apache config files, and as long as you know the config file, Apple's GUI doesn't offer a whole lot of value except possibly a little extra speed in making certain config changes (providing it doesn't blow up some of the changes you made by hand).

I don't see why not.

Find me a job on Monster.com or anywhere else where this is expected. Now, do the same search for any popular Unix distro. These companies have not rejected OS X because they haven't yet discovered the Apple religion, they are rejecting OS X Server because it is not a good choice for the sort of companies I've been describing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do startups tend to be large in your experience? Most companies I know start out with 1-50 (the low end being far more common) employees and grow from there.

I would imagine that most startups would indeed be small, you're right. However, most startups also have competition, and great pressure to offer a higher quality product than their competitors and to get things right. If I were a company that was very dependent on technology, I wouldn't run training wheels type products, I would get the best people I could afford and run the best operating system that would allow the company room to grow.

If you are in the market looking for System admins, you are going to have a better time finding Unix admins most likely. Moreover, running non-Apple hardware *can* be cheaper, and running a Unix/Linux distro could also be cheaper, in most cases. Where costs would probably escalate is in vendor provided support, but many Unix distros have a significant amount of community support which is well suited for smaller businesses that would absolutely dwarf OS X or OS X Server in its presence.


Look, I live and breath OS X as a client OS... It is an awesome client OS, and I've recommended it to many people. Let's just call a spade a spade here though, OS X Server is not a very good product for anybody but those who will remain static within Apple's comfortable bubble. Apple is not a server focused company, and thus, they are not a major player. It just isn't their strength right now, although it could be in the future if they wanted it to be.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

This is how I saw things working at the two Apple companies.

At the Windows companies where I work, though, it doesn’t seem to work like that: the concept of ‘minimal hassle’ simply doesn’t seem to exist there. One of them, a building that has about 120 employees, has a 12-man IT department, plus various developers here in there in other departments, who all run around nine hours a day, stressed as all hell, simply trying to keep the whole thing from breaking down completely. They have very little time for actual development; all their time is used on damage containment.

Proportionally speaking, it just seemed a lot easier and less hassled being a sys admin at the Apple companies than at the Windows companies.

Perhaps, I'm not a Windows guy, so I can't really say. However, I do sense that Windows is a little more open ended in its usage, whereas Apple seems to design their products around locking you inside their little bubble. This approach is great, but only up to a point.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My point is that what drives the data for these services is usually environment specific. There are a number of ways to store DNS records, and there are a number of creative configurations for both DHCP and DNS. Because this data often changes on a frequent basis, most companies have automated backends specific to their environment - this is the part that Apple (or anybody else) can't really help with, and this is what I was trying to say. With these backends in place, it is likely that on a day-to-day basis, a GUI for manual creation of entries would have little to no value whatsoever.

Oh, true, true. I misread. That's why everyone has an O'Reilly DNS & BIND book on their shelf.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Great, so they can write a GUI for account management and creating 20,000 accounts, setting expiration dates on them, setting up Cyrus for Kerberos authentication, etc.? Maybe, but this would be retarded. What are you going to do, write an Applescript to create these accounts?

Well, ActiveDirectory is just one gargantuan list by Domain, and you still have to manage them as any other list. You could do scripts and stuff. Maybe Leopard'll be Automater friendly? How else do you do it? Even in Windows.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nowhere near 95%, sorry. Ever setup any accelerators? Custom directory declarations with custom htaccess rules? Basic authentication to a Kerberos server? Ever wanted to optimize your Apache install? Install other modules? Last I checked the Apache admin didn't even have support for something as basic as the ServerAlias directive.

For your average setup, it's fine. For customizing, you're absolutely right.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Again, this is another example of that Apple bubble. Apple wants to make people think that everything will be rosy and super easy and that you'll always be content using their products, but they don't say that it is more fun poking yourself in the eye once you leave their little bubble. I recommend that everybody learn their Apache config files, and as long as you know the config file, Apple's GUI doesn't offer a whole lot of value except possibly a little extra speed in making certain config changes (providing it doesn't blow up some of the changes you made by hand).

So you have to learn how to use a command line? Take a look at the Mac OS X Server certification, it's pretty interesting. You have to know how to manage nearly all aspects of the OS through the command line and not just the GUI (for remote shell/lightsout management.) That includes Apache configs and any number of core services.

Shoot, I say that's a bonus. You're already a leg up on any MCSE because you have to actually know what you're doing.

Yeah, it's a lot of marketing. OS X Server isn't 100% user friendly, but compared to most Linux and UNIX distros, it's cheesecake. Compared to Windows, it isn't any more difficult.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Find me a job on Monster.com or anywhere else where this is expected. Now, do the same search for any popular Unix distro. These companies have not rejected OS X because they haven't yet discovered the Apple religion, they are rejecting OS X Server because it is not a good choice for the sort of companies I've been describing.

If you can manage FreeBSD, then you can manage OS X. The only difference is that Apple's is prettier and has up to 1 hour onsite hardware/software support.

Having come from both large colleges and high school districts, I can tell you that it's not that they don't know about Apple or that it's a viable alternative, it's just that the people in charge are freakin' clueless. We get people from Microsoft visiting our campus with a freakin' disco light show and PowerPoint, with free pens and frisbees. They gobble up all the FUD and horribly innacurate data, then continue paying Microsoft money for services that would be free or cheaper with any other company.

Seriously, the people in charge are the same people who say, "They don't make Office for MAC," or, ironically, "MAC is for people who don't know how to use a computer." Often, IT just shrugs and says, "Well, it's not my money you're wasting."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Well, ActiveDirectory is just one gargantuan list by Domain, and you still have to manage them as any other list. You could do scripts and stuff. Maybe Leopard'll be Automater friendly? How else do you do it? Even in Windows.

We have an identity management department that tracks the status of university accounts, and their application communicates to ours via SOAP calls. There are a number of other ways this can be done.

We manage over 180,000 accounts in our environment, but even with a small percentage of this, most companies have some sort of HR/hiring department that tracks personel data, and ideally this would speak directly with the IT backend so that an account could instantly be blocked for security reasons, if necessary, for instance...

For your average setup, it's fine. For customizing, you're absolutely right.

I'm not sure what an average setup is then. Any high traffic setup will benefit from Apache optimization, an accelerator, possibly gzip compression. There are a number of apps that use things like FastCGI. To be honest, I'm not sure what environments would *not* require this sort of tweaking, unless performance, bandwidth, and security are all non-issues.

So you have to learn how to use a command line? Take a look at the Mac OS X Server certification, it's pretty interesting. You have to know how to manage nearly all aspects of the OS through the command line and not just the GUI (for remote shell/lightsout management.) That includes Apache configs and any number of core services.

Shoot, I say that's a bonus. You're already a leg up on any MCSE because you have to actually know what you're doing.

Agreed, but my point is that if you are going to operate via the standard command line, there isn't much point in running OS X at all. I don't see any particular advantages to doing so.

If you can manage FreeBSD, then you can manage OS X. The only difference is that Apple's is prettier and has up to 1 hour onsite hardware/software support.

And Apple doesn't have FreeBSD ports system, a completely braindead software update mechanism, the flexibility, or the ability to only run the components you wish, and upgrade them when you wish. True, FreeBSD is a community driven project though, but there is far more community support than there is doing server stuff within OS X.

Seriously, the people in charge are the same people who say, "They don't make Office for MAC," or, ironically, "MAC is for people who don't know how to use a computer." Often, IT just shrugs and says, "Well, it's not my money you're wasting."

We have some clueless people here too, and it sucks, but we also have pretty good Unix support and a significant research computing department. Mac support basically revolves around using OS X as a client OS.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not sure what an average setup is then. Any high traffic setup will benefit from Apache optimization, an accelerator, possibly gzip compression. There are a number of apps that use things like FastCGI. To be honest, I'm not sure what environments would *not* require this sort of tweaking, unless performance, bandwidth, and security are all non-issues.

As a webserver, well, you're right. OS X needs some serious work on that. That's best left to any major Linux distro, I think. If Apple really wanted to blow peoples' minds, they'd make a plugin manager as a part of the Apache GUI so you can toggle them on/off, process order, etc. OS X has some other serious issues as well. However, for intranet websites, it's fine.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Agreed, but my point is that if you are going to operate via the standard command line, there isn't much point in running OS X at all. I don't see any particular advantages to doing so.

OS and application support. Most of what you're doing will be in the GUI, and that's still nice. Often the pointy-haired-boss will ask how easy the system is to maintain (is it like Windows?) OS X provides the ease of use of Windows with the power of Linux/UNIX. OS X is also scaleable enough from small to large businesses. You won't need to hire a UNIX or Linux adminsitrator for your small business if you're going to run OS X Server; on the other hand, the enterprise level operation we expect from a UNIX server is there for experience administrators.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We have some clueless people here too, and it sucks, but we also have pretty good Unix support and a significant research computing department. Mac support basically revolves around using OS X as a client OS.

That's a good start, though. Just having the client machines around and people seeing that they really are interoperable with both Windows and Linux services is a good thing. I think Apple still has a ways to go before nearly everything can be managed via a GUI like in Windows. It takes a little elbow greese just like any UNIX or Linux system, but OS X Server is a viable alternative to Windows (it's certainly a helluva lot cheaper.)

I especially think the next few releases of OS X Server are going to be really exciting. Apple is really starting push OS X Server on the useability front. I say by 10.6 they'll have the GUI mastered just like Windows Server.

On a side note: The XServe is just a damn sweet server. Compared to the sh*t that comes out of Dell's orifice, I just don't see how Dell can justify their prices. We had a plastic HDD sled break on the 2850, and the right clip on the plastic Dell cover thing on our 1750 just broke. I love the aluminum sleds on the XServe.

[besson3c]

Well, I'm still not seeing the draw to OS X Server, but I respect your opinion... I'd just be restating mine making the same sort of case, so I don't want to pull a marden on you

I will say this though, I think there is a sort of sliding scale between user friendliness and raw power and capability. It is possible to have both usability and an incredible feature set, but in general when you start cramming in features the complexity of the product often increases, sometimes in proportion. A good interface will obfuscate advanced features from newbie users, but this is difficult and sometimes a cop-out, I mean often advanced users get tossed in an "advanced" tab or something in a pretty incomprehensible manner. If they are intended to be used, shouldn't they be explained and clear as to their usage?

However, when you get to explaining these sort of features and presenting them to novice users as features which they may or may not want to take advantage of, doesn't your product after a while become like doing your taxes online where you have to deal with questions like "did you import farm equipment from out-of-state during the last tax season that wasn't reported on your adjusted claim in form 18b?"

In a command line Unix environment, issues of interface are often left up to somebody to decide - the *mechanism* is made available to do feature x or y, but the policies in which these are presented are not dictated. Also, systems are generally built out of several basic pieces that work together, rather than one big monolithic thing.

All of these issues present challenges. Perhaps they will be never be properly addressed, because perhaps it simply doesn't make sense to make every interface into a GUI, just because. If many administrators had the choice of having a relatively complex config file to learn and wade through once during initial setup, or having a pretty Mickey Mouse system where security is obfuscated and operation is not transparent and pretty much WYSIWYG, they will probably choose the former.

My point here is that perhaps your dream of making a truly user-friendly Enterprise class OS that will work in all environments - no matter how complex is simply unrealistic. I'm just not convinced that the Apple approach you are describing will ever work in this area.

[besson3c]

Moreover, honestly, if you were to do a poll as to how many experienced Unix/Linux admins would *want* a GUI, I think you'd be surprised to find out that most honestly would not, they work just as fast and productively without one. I know this is certainly the case of many around here... For starters, a command line shell is often much faster than a VNC connection, especially outside of the LAN.

Even our Windows Exchange admins here to stuff via their command line and probably make changes to their registries and junk too... They are also pretty limited and restricted in how their services work.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I think it is mostly valid.

MS isn't the scary company that buys or muscles out any competitor anymore. They are still a monopoly but it is starting to hit people how much their **** stinks and there are other options.

If they would have come out with the Zune years ago they might have beet the iPod but there is little chance of that now.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I will say this though, I think there is a sort of sliding scale between user friendliness and raw power and capability. It is possible to have both usability and an incredible feature set, but in general when you start cramming in features the complexity of the product often increases, sometimes in proportion. A good interface will obfuscate advanced features from newbie users, but this is difficult and sometimes a cop-out, I mean often advanced users get tossed in an "advanced" tab or something in a pretty incomprehensible manner. If they are intended to be used, shouldn't they be explained and clear as to their usage?

That paragraph starts out sensible and then quickly goes into the completely absurd.

A novice user is not going to set up a DNS server.

An interface should scale with a user's needs.
Most people will deal with an application until it does what they need. It should supply basic users' needs in the standard interface. If your needs go beyond the basic and there's certain details you need to tweak, then you click on the "Advanced..." tab for more options.

That's it. There is nothing broken with that; there is nothing "cop-out" about that.

Witness iSquint for an excellent example of how well that works.

What you appear to be describing are applications with BROKEN INTERFACES.

Such as the latest versions of Azureus 3.0/Zudeo (has it now been renamed "Vuze" or what? The ****ing morons.). There, the application is in fact completely unusable and confusing until you hit the "Advanced" tab.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

That paragraph starts out sensible and then quickly goes into the completely absurd.

A novice user is not going to set up a DNS server.

An interface should scale with a user's needs.
Most people will deal with an application until it does what they need. It should supply basic users' needs in the standard interface. If your needs go beyond the basic and there's certain details you need to tweak, then you click on the "Advanced..." tab for more options.

That's it. There is nothing broken with that; there is nothing "cop-out" about that.

Witness iSquint for an excellent example of how well that works.

What you appear to be describing are applications with BROKEN INTERFACES.

Such as the latest versions of Azureus 3.0/Zudeo (has it now been renamed "Vuze" or what? The ****ing morons.). There, the application is in fact completely unusable and confusing until you hit the "Advanced" tab.

I was making a general observation, not specifically related to DNS servers or anything else.

My point was that it is very hard for an app to be an app well suited for both novices and expert users. Usually, it's one or the other - a ton of features, or simplicity/user-friendliness.

[anonymac]

Unless apple makes it's hardware cheaper than PC's or it makes OS X available for all hardware, it will never overtake the market or come close to overtaking it. If Apple released Mac OS X as a free download and charged only for DVD copies and tech support, Windows would be destroyed overnight. You will never argue your way past these basic points.

My sources tell me that Apple is developing an office suite that rivals Microsoft Office. Apple will then launch Mac OS X as a free OS and move into application development, with it's office suite being the cash cow. Think of it from a business perspective: why make an OS your main product? Operating Systems are just a set of basic software that works together. People today are more focused on what an application can do for them, not what a bunch of limited basic software can do for them. Apple will move to application development as it's main business strategy.

[Oisín]

Unless apple makes it's hardware cheaper than PC's or it makes OS X available for all hardware, it will never overtake the market or come close to overtaking it.

Who says they’re even interested in that?

If Apple released Mac OS X as a free download and charged only for DVD copies and tech support, Windows would be destroyed overnight.

No, it would not. It would, however, very likely destroy OS X.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was making a general observation, not specifically related to DNS servers or anything else.

My point was that it is very hard for an app to be an app well suited for both novices and expert users. Usually, it's one or the other - a ton of features, or simplicity/user-friendliness.

That's just badly-written software IMO.

The Mac attitude puts all that burden on the developer.

The big difference between Microsoft's approach and Apple's approach seems to me that on a Mac, if the user doesn't "get" something or is confused by an interface, this is first and foremost the DEVELOPERS' problem. THEY ****ed up.

This basic understanding is what appears to me to drive everything that Apple is doing.

And iSquint is a perfect example of how it works.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Unless apple makes it's hardware cheaper than PC's or it makes OS X available for all hardware, it will never overtake the market or come close to overtaking it. If Apple released Mac OS X as a free download and charged only for DVD copies and tech support, Windows would be destroyed overnight. You will never argue your way past these basic points.

Actually, we argue our way past these basic points every two weeks or so, when somebody completely ignores fiscal reality to argue what you're arguing.

Maybe Windows would be destroyed overnight - I think that idea is complete bogus and reeks of middle-school logic - but what good would that do IF APPLE DIED IN THE PROCESS as they surely would?

Two points that make your scenario utterly impossible (and that come up EVERY TIME this is discussed):

1.) Apple makes their money off hardware. Their business model is the OPPOSITE of Microsoft's. If they don't sell hardware with their OS, their operating system might gain market share, but they themselves LOSE market share. Proof of concept: The clones in the 90s. Almost killed them.

2.) One primary reason OS X runs better than Windows is because Apple has very clear support requirements: their own machines, and whatever they put in them. One of Microsoft's major problems is that they need to support every little PoS CD-burner ever made. They have to do everything, and thus cannot focus on doing anything properly.

Originally Posted by anonymac 

My sources tell me that [...] Apple will then launch Mac OS X as a free OS and move into application development, with it's office suite being the cash cow.

Personally, I think your sources are full of **** on that point.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Unless apple makes it's hardware cheaper than PC's or it makes OS X available for all hardware, it will never overtake the market or come close to overtaking it. If Apple released Mac OS X as a free download and charged only for DVD copies and tech support, Windows would be destroyed overnight. You will never argue your way past these basic points.

My sources tell me that Apple is developing an office suite that rivals Microsoft Office. Apple will then launch Mac OS X as a free OS and move into application development, with it's office suite being the cash cow. Think of it from a business perspective: why make an OS your main product? Operating Systems are just a set of basic software that works together. People today are more focused on what an application can do for them, not what a bunch of limited basic software can do for them. Apple will move to application development as it's main business strategy.

I'm sure these are the same sources that told AppleInsider Leopard would come out last month.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

Microsoft and changing, they are starting to produce some decent products (Vista, XBox 360, Office 2008 etc.).
Its unlikely they will die, they will just change more.

Um I haven't used Office or XBox 360. But Vista is hardly decent products.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

It's just as stable as Mac OS X.

No

It's just as productive.

Studies prove otherwise.

Windows Vista is being bought by consumers like no other Windows and is a fierce competitor and equal to Mac OS X.

You've been taking too big of hits off the MS pipe. Slow down.