computerworld.com — Look for Leopard to be an exciting release. Recently, I had a chance to sit down with a few folks from Apple Computer Inc. who gave me a guided tour of Apple's upcoming server operating system, which is slated for release sometime in the spring of 2007
Dec 7, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountDec 8, 2006
who the f**k would want to use a smackintosh for a server. almost as bad of an idea as using linux.linux:free piece of s**t os. it's stable because it's too complicated to break. you better hit the books if you want to learn how to use it because there's no way to just figure s**t out. documentation is skimpy and poorly written. not like these hacked-together teams can afford to pay technical writers. stuff is mostly open-source. you are expected to compile some of your apps but just read the man pages and know that inroads are being made in that department. one of the benefits of open source is you can reuse the source in your apps if you're a programmer and if you can agree to a longwinded list of license terms.apple:beautiful, stunningly beautiful. nobody likes to write software for it because it's a pretty s**tty ordeal and nobody knows objective c, the language of choice for writing gui apps for smackintosh. oh, and u'll be tied to apple hardware. it's shiney tho!windows:1990 - 1999 they had some stability and performance issues but that's all in the past. ms is a multibillion dollar company, it's very very organized and recruits some very smart people (even tho some leave for google). s**t is easy to use, extremely well documented, and is somewhat expensive. you get what you pay for, though. not everyone can afford it, which is a bummer. but there's always piracy.
joe90210Dec 8, 2006
well obviously apple uses, it's not like they have choice, if they didn't it, it would plummet the server's credibility even lower than it is now.
funkywitdasystmDec 8, 2006
what is this? opposite day?
Closed AccountDec 8, 2006
That's not charging for an upgrade. That's charging for server maintenance, which probably includes support. $999 for 3 years of support on a server isn't bad at all.
dmolsenDec 8, 2006
@geronimoin looking at Xserves we've looked at them for specific applications. i don't think Xserves really match up well in a pure web server set-up vs. LAMP. so for us we've looked at the streaming capabilities (which we've used and been happy with) plus we're curious about the podcast producer. also, as a university signed up for iTunesU and a rumor that at some point they'll offer the software to schools directly we'd like to position ourselves to support it. 'cause you just know it's going to be Xserve + Xserve RAID only.
tobyjoeDec 8, 2006
Simple question: Why do so many of you trolls care which servers I buy?Is it a game, where you pretend you're my spouse with full rights to an opinion of how I spend my money?On topic, though, Leopard Server does sound great. I doubt I'll be using any XServes for Web servers, despite the simple Rails set up they mentioned at WWDC. I tend to stick with FreeBSD or Linux for Web boxes, but we're a dev shop, not a host. I prefer my machines to be stripped down to offer only the minimal services, and honestly, removing software from an XServe isn't fun.They make great Windows + Apple network file share boxes, XGrid machines, LDAP servers, iChat servers, Quicktime servers, Tomcat servers, Maya render servers, and XSAN servers, though.
kethraalDec 8, 2006
Interestingly enough, OS X server has a major problem with MySQL performance (MySQL uses a type of threading that sucks under Mach), but PostgreSQL works great.
emerDec 8, 2006
I love carpet........., I love chair......I love lamp!
ultralameDec 8, 2006
Why do we care? If someone had told me what I was signing up to when I bought my XServe, I would have made a different decision!