Apple and Windows Will Force Linux Underground 554
eastbayted writes "Tom Yager at InfoWorld predicts: 'At the end of the decade, we'll find that Apple UNIX has overtaken commercial Linux as the second most popular general client and server computing platform behind Windows.' That's not a gloom-and-doom omen for the ever-popular Linux kernel, though, he stresses. While Apple and Microsoft will grapple for dominance of client and server spaces, Linux will be 'the de facto choice for embedded solutions.' And by 'embedded,' Yager means 'specialized.' With a push of a button and a flip of switch, he predicts, you'll be able to create a configured database and a mated J2EE server — all thanks to Linux."
Not really (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then determine what percentage of the backbone bandwidth is porn.
Also determine who the only paying customers who had significant levels of traffic on the early commercial Internet were.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Funny)
*runs and hides*
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not really (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Not a server OS? (Score:3, Informative)
I think OS X Server operations like this [com.com] disagree with you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then, I better go tell the guys who maintain our Xserves to shut them down and throw them in the trash. Yep, the RAID arrays too. Oh, and the mail server.
MacOS still remains a consumer OS for people unwilling or unable to understand the guts of a microcomputer
I agree, that's why I removed all the gauges on my car's dashboard too, after all gauges still remain for people unable to understand the guts of an engine. Oh wait. That's not right. Gauges are useful. And so is the
Embedded. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Embedded. (Score:5, Funny)
This actually sounds like quite a good idea to me.
Re:Embedded. (Score:5, Funny)
What clubs do you hang out at?
Re:Embedded. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now they run on Windows and they do... the touch screen is (seemingly) required for operation and they stop working all the time.
IF my life depended on Windows... really depended on it... I'd be long dead by now.
Article's author scared of free software (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Article's author scared of free software (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Embedded. (Score:4, Interesting)
Except for the fact (Score:3, Insightful)
OSX is substantially slower on most benchmarks than Linux and Windows.
OSX isn't a serious solution.
-bms20
Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to talk about Apple on the desktop versus Linux then I'd listen to the argument, but in the server world you can't compete. I really just wanted to respond to this article with a gigantic Simpson-esque "HA HA".
Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed - it's ridiculous. You notice the weasel way they have to qualify things as well:
That could mean that 90% of x86 systems will be bare bones by 2008, as OEMs will choose their own version of linux to install
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you saying that Apple-products lasted long because they used PowerPC? Now that they use Intel, they are more likely to break?
Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Insightful)
I would guess that your parent poster would answer 'No. I don't think that. But those who would make that argument, have a much weaker argument to make.' But that's just my guess. The point is, settle down and be graceful with the posts of other people.
-Combatjuan
Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no "probably" to it. Why would Apple support something they didn't sell? They don't qualify MacOS X to run on anything but their own hardware. This is not to desparage Apple - it is their business model.
Oh, you do realize that the entire article is just a troll to get Mac fans and Linux fans angry at each other, right? There is no factual basis for this arguments presented in the article at all.
Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Insightful)
What's that about laptops again? the GP was talking servers, are you running your servers on MacBooks? And speaking of facts-checking, do show me a 4P+ XServe, please. I'll not even ask for heavy-hitter systems with almost everything being hot-pluggable. Yeah, XServe is a very economic choice - if money is your main concern.
And to justify my 4P request - the hot thing nowadays is server virtualisation (you know, more efficient use of resources and all that jazz) and 4P-8P systems are just what the doctor ordered. Running
apple has always been reasonably priced they just appear expensive due to the face they don't do the low end tower which best buy flogs for $299
Again, you seem slightly confused about what server hardware is. Let me fix that for you: "Apple does flog low-end servers (well, they will as soon as they start shipping xserves) at $2999". The funny thing is, Linux is making a killing in that market and Apple has nothing to stop it.
Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Interesting)
Slower than Linux or Windows? I'd like to see those numbers, please!
As for serious, by what standard? I'd readily admit I would not recommend running OSX on servers unless OSX adds geniune value (as it might in a Mac-based business).
In my world, Linux is best for backend. OSX is best for front-end. (while Windows is probably best at the standard business desktop)
Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Informative)
MacOS X has infamously bad threading, which makes it an absolute dog for many important server apps. Anandtech, what I regard as one of the most trustworthy hardware sites on the Internet, has an article outlining the problems:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&
Unless MacOS X for Intel has gotten miraculous improvements in this area, and I'm not aware it has, you'd be an absolute fool to use MacOS X for any server apps requiring high performance threading.
-Erwos
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would also expect things like this to change a lot when you change architechtures as Apple recently did
Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Informative)
install linux on a G3 or G4. Massively faster than OSX on that hardware.
On it's own hardware, ubuntu kicks OSX arse hard.
Graned you dont get the nice-y OSX and I do like OSX. but it takes a killer machine to handle it.
Dual G5 2.5ghz runs it nicely.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm going to guess you're talking about like 2-5 threads. I'm talking about many, many more than that, like any normal web server would have.
-Erwos
Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, not so much [sourcefrog.net]. Saying you "didn't think about threads [computer.org]" is like arguing that you went with protected multi-tasking OS and "didn't think about DOS". Adding memory protection and compartmentalisation is the only difference between a thread and a "process". In most cases, you just don't care anyway ... all you want is to not block, and threads are the worst fix for that problem [and.org].
Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Insightful)
As I recent migrant from Windows to Ubuntu - I found Linux to be far more enjoyable than my iBook (or Windows) ever was. And this is not a grab for karma, I have more than enough already. Just look at the stuff modern Linux has:
- XGL/Compiz - more impressive than OS X, although admittedly in alpha.
- Screensavers - (don't laugh, apparently new computer users spend a lot of time messing with these) xscreensaver comes with dozens of impressive, customisable screensavers.
- Installation - on Ubuntu, almost everything installs with one click of the mouse, with browsable game/app libraries.
- Game support is a little lower than OS X but neither are worth mentioning compared to Windows.
- Takes the better parts of OS X (Expose, Spotlight/Beagle) and drops the ones I personally dislike (Dock, Finder)
- Unique apps like Amarok, which is more enjoyable to use than iTunes; Tomboy, etc.
Plus if you're into development and compiling stuff yourself, you get the rewards that come with that as well. I was a long-time Windows user, and I've tried a whole bunch of distros that were completely horrible to use, or bug-ridden, or bad at detecting my hardware. But I really believe that desktop Linux is beginning to emerge now, and it's actually becoming that can be used by your average consumer (if it weren't for MP3/etc. licensing restrictions). Apple will always have the lead in music/video/graphic production, but for desktop use, Linux is rapidly catching up to OS X, and considering the price difference, I don't see the scenario in TFA happening.Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and if companies can save money on technical staff by having an OS that's more user friendly, they'll do that. That means more to most businesses than benchmarks.
OSX is a potential solution to anyone using Windows who doesn't like it. It's more secure, more stable, and doesn't require the technical retraining (or rehiring) that a migration to Linux would. Sure, some people and companies require more power and freedom than OSX has, but many don't. As OSX becomes more popular for personal use, it will become more popular for business use.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think this is true at all. OSX is different enough from windows that your usual run-of-the-mill Windows admin would go crazy trying to admin it. Even the usually desktop admin stuff is so different than windows, not even getting into the differences in server administration. Notice i'm saying it's dif
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends entirely on what you mean by 'business use'. Those of us running high-traffic and/or computationally intensive services in our data centers are unlikely to switch to the Apple brand of Unix any time soon. The fact that many of us are using it on our laptops and desktops doesn't make us any more likely to use it on our servers. It just doesn't perform. And the GUI -- the only real selling point of OS X, IM
The myth of vendor lock in. (Score:5, Insightful)
ANY choice made in IT means some kind of lock-in. If I go all OSS I lock myself into something else. Of course one could argue that with OSS you can alwais "fix or change it yourself", but then again, most companies and users do not want to do that, they want to use functionality. By chosing OSS you lock yourself into that path, which is effectively no different from the vendor path.
Sometimes it can me more cost effective to do this, sometimes the option with "evil vendor lock in" is actually more cost effective.
The longer I am in IT the more just pick the tool for the fucntion. looking at the staff available, strategy of the company etc..
Vendor lock in as such is a myth, there is alwais a path that's being closed with every choice of tool...
To be honest, in a lot of cases MS actually provides a good sollution...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but its what you are locking into and to what degree.
UNIX and Linux (excluding OS X) is much more stable in terms of APIs, backwards compatibility, open standards, and the like than Apple OSes or Microsoft OSes. No, this is not absolute. Yes, I've frantically debugged some code I wrote after applying patches to an AIX box. Yes, I have had much more issues with Windows and OS X (with and before OS X) with gotchas after updates.
To put this in perspect
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me explain the difference with an example (If it's too long just skip to the last two lines):
"Hi, we bought your product X but we have a serious problem with it..."
"Sorry, that product is discontinued."
"But it is mission critical to us!"
"You must exchange it with something else then."
"Sure, we will. But that takes time and costs millions. Until then..."
"Good luck."
"No, I mean, can't you help us with the p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is a rather different definition of "lock-in" than is typically meant. Here's an example: a company has a six-year-o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I choose Linux as my server platform, I can run it on hardware produced by Dell or HP or IBM or any one of about a hundred other OEMs, in any combination I choose. I can choose Fedora Core, or Ubuntu, or Debian, or any other distro.
If I choose OS X as my server platform, I can run it hardware produced by Apple, or by Apple. I can use either this year's model, or last year's model. If they still offe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a real world example to you: VB6. Thousands of corporate internal programs are written in it. And there's no more support. It's dead. Now all those companies have to rewrite their code, or keep using it and hope it still runs on Vista or whatever comes after that. If Vista happens to break something important (say, ADO, or some big vital third party component) you'll be stuck in a very nasty situation.
Compare with say, C. MS may drop their C compiler, but so what? You have lots of oth
'..fact'?? Dude... you forgot the fact(s)... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still more Open Source [macosforge.org] than Windows.
On the server?
On the destkop?
Care to elaborate?
Links perhaps?
Really?!?! Based on all the facts you provided I suppose we will have to believe you!
Re: (Score:2)
If by "not many" you're willing to include the >90% of computer users and businesses that use Windows - another lock-in solution that's even more more so than OS X. How many open source apps for *nix can you run without modification on Windows?
I'd counter that the market seems to love vendor lock-in.
For almost all applications - even server applications in small businesses
Re: (Score:2)
Windows is a vendor lock-in solution, and not many people like that.
Windows is substantially slower on most benchmarks than Linux and OSX.
Windows isn't a serious solution.
-bms20
Do you see the pattern here mods? No? I'm not surprised.
Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have an 8 core Dell that's old enough to be cycled out of service.
Is this bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this bad? (Score:4, Informative)
He also mentions the idea of "embedded" Oracle and IBM databases. While this idea might work in a limited capacity for small businesses, it just doesn't fly for the enterprise clients, which are those companies' bread and butter. Enterprise clients wants to customize EVERYTHING. Trying to sell them a push-button cookie cutter solution just isn't going to fly. It's been tried, and it hasn't worked. You sell them a cookie cutter solution, and by the time you're done making everything just the way they want it, it would have been far cheaper and easier to just start out building a customized solution to begin with.
As for Apple taking over in the server space, I haven't seen anything to indicate that. No one I know even mentions Apple as a general server solution, much less gives any serious thought to it. Where I work now, we have tens of thousands of servers, 90% of which are running Linux. The remainder are running Solaris and HP-UX, with a very small number running other proprietary Unix-based systems or Windows. None of them are Apples.
Also, all of our systems are sold to us without an OS, and we install our own custom images on to them, so they wouldn't show up in pre-installed system sales. I would imagine most data centers and large hosting environments would be doing the same thing.
What he really means (Score:2)
Now before anybody goes nuts, understand what I'm saying: Apple isn't going to win or even wage a religious war with Linux. The market will bring about the adjustments to which I'm referring. There will be more money than ever to be made with Linux, but sales won't derive from a model fashioned to compete with Windows and OS X. Microsoft and Apple will be the top-seeded fighters in general client and server computing platforms. Linux doesn't need or want to be the third man in that ring.
But don't g
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know of any half way reliable numbers
overtaking linux at whose expense (Score:5, Insightful)
And have they figured out how to count Linux installations yet? (A very hard problem since you can just download Linux off the internet for free, so there are many more ways to get it)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux install count : (Score:4, Insightful)
So you just have to ask Redhat, Mandriva, Suse... without any consideration for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, Gentoo and others...
Worthless if you ask me. I wonder if Apple hasn't already more market share than combined commercial Linux distributions (in units) (*). And the end of the decade is in four years. Big deal.
Now IMHO, the whole author opinion is worthless...
(*) From what appears in some web hits statistics
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So you just have to ask Redhat, Mandriva, Suse...
Not true! I can install my commercial linux several times without telling them. This "commercial linux" is nevertheless still GPL'd!!!!
C//
skewed vision? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:skewed vision? (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. Sales data!=Market share.
And just to bring that point home, OS X fans believe OS X's share of the market is rising because Mac sales are rising. One does not lead to the other.
Everyone I know who's 'switched' to a mac has bought it expressly to run windows. Sad, but true.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but wtf? Why would you buy an expensive computer that comes with an OS just to buy (or pirate) another OS when you could have bought a cheaper computer with your OS of choice? Is it 'cuz Macs are sooo pretty? How dumb are people w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty dumb.
That said some mac configurations are pretty hard to get in that ff from another vendor. It's the 13" that people seem to be getting - and purely for the weight.
If it was me buying, I'd probably go for the equivilant Asustek model. Smaller, lighter, made in the s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it ends up being an embedded solution on the server and whether the web interface is running on a Linux, Apple or windows client, doesn't really make much difference it is still a Linux server and because it will provide by far the cheapest per client model in the small business enviroment, Linux wil
Re: (Score:2)
This is also the very reason why Apple will overtake Linux, although it may be at the expense of Windows rather than Linux. "Joe Public" doesn't want to buy a computer and have to install an OS on it. Right now there aren't any mainstream vendors of computers that preinstall Linux. However sales of Macs are on the rise, and Joe Public is a big buyer, so mainstream "UNIX" sales go up, even though the buyer probably has no idea
My prediction (Score:4, Funny)
ADD rocks.
Not following the "logic". (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
You're making "predictions" without explaining the "logic" behind them. Why will all those countries / governments / cities currently deploying Linux drop it?
If they don't drop it, why will other ones go with Apple?
And this will fail to drive Linux adoption
If anything, that would seem to me to be something that would drive Linux adoption.
Current Commercial Investments (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish to make a very learned comment here : (Score:3, Funny)
O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever tried to get Oracle running on anything but Red Hat? When are we going to face the fact that Linux distros are different from each other? When I say "I run Linux" I've really said something as vague as (here comes the car analogy) "I drive a car" (as opposed to "I drive an Oldsmobile"). When people pick on "Linux" what are they really picking on?
Re: (Score:2)
http://oss.oracle.com/debian/ [oracle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A little while ago, I would have agreed that Oracle has the most unfriendly installation ever. But look at the Oracle Express product. Here's how I installed it:
I'm not kidding, either. Check it out here [oracle.com]. (The article applies to Kubuntu, I think, but I installed it on vanilla debian just fine)
Entrenched in Serverland (Score:2, Interesting)
I've never touched an OSX box that did anything really important.
Most don't take it seriously, and Apple has not built many 1u rack mounts, but I guess they have a new product now? I just checked..
Apple Picking (Score:2, Insightful)
With all of the Mac crowd self-gratification going on, perhaps it's time we stopped calling Cupertino's golden child "Apple", and instead refer to them as "Fapple".
Reality Check: No change here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask a bloke on the street if they've heard of windows, or apple. Even if they don't own a computer, they probably have.
Linux has made great strides in the past 10 years, but let's not confuse what it is. Linux is the survivalist to windows' soccer mom.
O RLY? (Score:2)
GNU/Linux adoption can only grow on the desktop. Just look at the trends fo
I too can be a short-term futurist! (Score:5, Funny)
In the future, the only colors allowed will be those based on citrus. This will be mandated by the Tangerine Council world government, headquartered in Morocco. In an effort to reintroduce all the beautiful colors of the world into human products, scientists will genetically engineer strains of lemon with tunable 48-bit color, with the exception of mauve, and there will be much rejoicing.
In the future, spammers will form a revolutionary movement to fight for their right to speech, and incite a rebellion. The rebellion will be crushed mercilessly, but create the foundations for the great Spam Wars of 2015.
That's all for now.
-Laxitive
Developing world? (Score:4, Insightful)
The article also fails to explain why companies such as IBM and HP, who've invested much in the server side of Linux, would just walk away from that investment. I'm sure that IBM consultants will sell Apple products in the times where they are the exclusive fit for the need, but they can't control or steer Apple's direction the way they can Linux, which is one reason they push it so hard.
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Well duh, Apple OSX (or whatever it's called by then) costs 100$. Ubuntu Linux (for example) is free as in gratis. How many Ubuntu licenses do you have to sell to reach the revenue of one "Apple Unix" license?
By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux.
That's very well possible, since there are hardly any systems (specifically in the Desktop realm) which come pre-installed with Linx. Usually you flatten the hard disk of a Windows taxed box, or you build from scratch if you want to run Linux.
You sir are either dim, dishonest or just a plain old idiot.
US-centric outlook (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Don't These Guys Just Hold Up A Sign? (Score:2)
Fine print: The previous statements represent what X would like to happen and have nothing to do with what might happen.
I disagree... (Score:2)
The greatest thing about "apple's UNIX" (to quote the article) is that it plays nicely with linux. Now I can have OS X and Linux boxen on the same network and it's fairly easy to jump back and forth.
I think apple and Linux can both exist and give the end user <gasp> choices. </gasp>
Can't afford it... (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Client-OS'es are a different matter. OS X has about 3-5%
The AOTFA misses the point (Score:2)
And it's big enough to scare Monoposoft. Consider:
A) The Web is where it's at. One competent, cross-platform browser that supports a very high level of Web interactivity makes the choice of client OS much less important.
B) Where the above is true, the unspecialized user with limited funds will choose piracy or FOSS. Monoposoft and the US government are chasing pirates (any except China) and suing families.
C) There
This is YOUR fault (Score:5, Insightful)
When I found this place I didn't even know how to SAY linux. I said it "LINE-ix."
Over the past 6 or 7 years I've heard a ton of predictions about linux breaking into the home market. A million reasons have been given, and later, a million excuses.
I use linux lightly in my (development) job. I'm occassionaly tasked to do website stuff and all of our webservers run LAMP.
I enjoy using it. Partly because I'm an elitist prick who likes things that other people don't know much about. Also because it's sort of straight-forward. Things are a heirarchy, not an unorganized collection of windows, tabs, dialogs, and buttons.
I enjoy windows, as well. I make a living developing windows software. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that for the huge portion of users, Windows is a superior platform to Linux. If for no other reason then it's actually USABLE by mortals.
My point in this is not to make 1000 people hate me. My point is that SOMEONE needs to do to linux what NeXT/Apple has done to BSD.
Yes, I know that Linux has shells, but these are after-thoughts. They don't come close to the experience of OSX or even Windows XP.
If all the OSS guys HATE microsoft so much, and they think Microsoft sucks so badly, then why the hell can't they build an OS that is actually able to beat windows at its own game?
The strength of Linux is in it's stable and secure kernel and low-level "plumbing." The same as BSD. An OS that includes a "Windows" experience on top of this solid foundation would for teh first time attract real attention and a real user base.
I know this isn't easy, but look at all the time you've had. People slam MSFT for taking 6 years to put out a consumer OS. How is it better to take six years to NOT put out a consumer OS?
Right now Linux is like a Hamm Radio. Adored by hobbyists but foreign to the public. Everyone has a radio, but it's closed-source. They can't tinker with it. They can't do much at all, except press its buttons and turn its dials. The Hamm operators know that their setup is superior, but that's a fact that's lost on the population as a whole.
I would LOVE to have a real alternative to Windows. But I don't. Maybe I never will, at least not in the form of linux. But the way people grasp linux with religious fervor makes me wonder why they don't do what it takes to actually build it into a windows-killer.
Maybe linux-devs and linux-fans really don't want to supplant Windows. As crazy as that sounds, I think it has some merit. What I'm suggesting is that you work to "dumb down" linux a bit. Build a linux that appeals to the novice. But I think the linux camp is waiting for the novices to "smarten up" and adopt linux. I just don't think that's ever going to happen.
Before you slam me, understand that I'm advocating linux. Yes, I'm criticizing the Linux community, but I'm doing it because I (somewhat) agree with the goals of that community.
I would love to see a world where Windows has a 75% market share.
Re:This -is- (Y)OUR fault, kinda (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is YOUR fault (Score:4, Informative)
I've yet to see any 'mere mortal' who really can USE Windows without guidance from some friend or relative that happens to know a bit more than this 'mere mortal'. I think it's quite telling that people choose Windows over Mac because they are afraid of problems, and feel more comfortable with an OS that is used by more people (and thus the chance of finding a helpful hand is higher).
I'm not trying to argue that Linux would be more usable, but I think the usability argument is a joke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lack of ambition.
The aim of all the GNU project was to re-create Unix. It wasn't to create something new and original that's significantly better than what has come before - it was to create free versions of the tools that made up a typical Unix system. Sure the tools got tweaked and improved, but the same basic model was followed. It was a project aimed at making tools for hackers, not for making a gener
What's that when it's at home? (Score:4, Insightful)
Missed the point (Score:2, Insightful)
First off, the headline for this article has flamebait written all over it.
Secondly, I've seen some interesting things from Linux in terms of how they're handling support issues. I think the press about the whole community driven support is intended to speed up the development process more than that of providing adequate technical support for commercial use. If you really want commercial support from Linux you're going to have to pay between $50-$2500 depending on your needs. I think the article attempts
What a Useless Article (Score:3, Informative)
By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux. At the end of the decade, we'll find that Apple UNIX has overtaken commercial Linux as the second most popular general client and server computing platform behind Windows.
And what the fuck is that based on? Fresh air? Given the fact that Apple has showed no signs of being able to get this mass growth at any stage, largely because, oh err, they have their own proprietary hardware which can't hope to compete with the massive supply of the Windows and x86 Linux world......... Everybody who knows anything about the computing world, and professes to write about it, should know this.
Push a button, you've got an enterprise database, configured, loaded with sample data and listening for connections. Want a J2EE server with that? Flip this switch, it'll unpack itself, sniff out that database you installed and mate with it....Plug in a drive, and within a few milliseconds you have a self-contained instance of an enterprise application. If you need more database instances, put in a blank flash drive and tell the existing database instance to replicate itself.
There are no words.
Jesus H. Christ. I'm definitely in the wrong job. Feel free to sign me up for a job as an online 'technical' journalist where I can stick my finger in the air and throw whatever shit that comes my way from the pulpit.
I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X is not my choice for a server. (Score:3, Insightful)
* It doesn't run on generic server hardware, like all of its competition do.
* It's much easier to administer through a command line than Windows, but far harder than any other modern UNIX platform.
* It shares Windows' poor support for "headless" operation.
* It is missing a lot of APIs that its competitors have retained, including the ability to easily run native servers chrooted and standard UNIX tape drive interfaces.
* The native file system, HFS+, is far more fragile and easily damaged than the typical modern UNIX file system like UFS. It doesn't have Linux' wide variety of file system support.
* Its NFS support is extremely nonstandard, and running a normal automounter on it is a recipe for disaster.
* It's missing the "super-chroots": things like FreeBSD's jails and similar facilities in Linux that give you the encapsulation advantages of virtualization without the overhead.
* The Mach kernel still gives it far more system call overhead than its competitors.
All in all, OS X is a mediocre server platform when compared to other variants of UNIX, even if the inability to run it on generic hardware wasn't holding it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, big huge companies with million dollar IT budgets don't care, but companies where the IT is limited to one guy or half a guy will care. If they can have a homebuild solution cheaper than an out-sourced solution, they'll go for it.
You assume Apple's looking at all markets. They aren't. I'm trying to highlight a market (small businesses) that Apple could reasonably shoot for with some work.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes! Who set us up the bomb?
WE HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE OUR TIME.