I am currently running a preview of Tiger Server and am having a bit of difficulty locating the ichat and weblog servers that are supposed to be included. Does anyone have an idea how to set these up
No, because those are supposed to use Tiger Server, which comes with much more sophisticated controls.
Tiger Client, however, when used stand-alone, is for family use - think "Family Pack license" and "Fast User Switching".
No, the servers at a school would use server, but the 30 machines in a classroom would be running OS X, most likely networked, but still its OS X. (Oh, and that assumes they're running OS X Server at all, and not Linux or Windows).
It should be either named something generic, or be changeable upon the location.
No, the servers at a school would use server, but the 30 machines in a classroom would be running OS X, most likely networked, but still its OS X. (Oh, and that assumes they're running OS X Server at all, and not Linux or Windows).
It should be either named something generic, or be changeable upon the location.
Uh, you don't understand. In such a situation, you wouldn't use the clients' security controls at all, because user account management would be handled server-side. Whether on Windows using Active Directory, on Linux using Samba + LDAP, or on Mac OS X Server using Open Directory.
So kids that have learned about Poisoned or BitTorrent don't flood the family hard disk with useless crap.
A bit more work, but couldn't you partition the drive and assign each user to a limited partition?
Not the most elegant 'home quota' solution, but if you set limitations on the ability to mount remote volumes other than Optical drive, it might result in the functionality you're looking for.
Haven't tried this method, but it seems logical that it might lead towards a solution.
Various implementations of disk quotas have graced the unix landscape for decades. I suspect that, at some point, apple will include this with their distro along with a GUI front-end.
Unless... do they do this already? I haven't looked at OS X server in a couple revisions.
So kids that have learned about Poisoned or BitTorrent don't flood the family hard disk with useless crap.
That and to prevent the kids from having a screen tan because they spend too much time on the computer instead of doing social things, homework and exercise.
But I wouldn't want my hard drive filled with crap without having access to the other one's account to delete stuff... If we limit the space, then I'll have room to breath!
By the way, I hope they would include rendez-vous recognition within the same machine... have a general itunes library that is accessible by everyone on the computer, general iphoto library, etc...
Comments
Originally posted by dahacouk
iChat will have the same capabilities as fire in Tiger. See:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...14&postcount=7
Cheers Daniel
Untrue. Proteus and Adium use libGaim to communicate to networks; Fire uses a group of other libraries (libicq2000, libyahoo, etc., I believe).
Jabber uses a *server-side* gateway technique to communicate with non-Jabber networks. This only provides *limited* functionality.
Originally posted by ipenguin
Am I the only one who thinks it shouldn't be called 'Family Controls'? It could just as easily be for a network at school or home.
No, because those are supposed to use Tiger Server, which comes with much more sophisticated controls.
Tiger Client, however, when used stand-alone, is for family use - think "Family Pack license" and "Fast User Switching".
Originally posted by Chucker
No, because those are supposed to use Tiger Server, which comes with much more sophisticated controls.
Tiger Client, however, when used stand-alone, is for family use - think "Family Pack license" and "Fast User Switching".
No, the servers at a school would use server, but the 30 machines in a classroom would be running OS X, most likely networked, but still its OS X. (Oh, and that assumes they're running OS X Server at all, and not Linux or Windows).
It should be either named something generic, or be changeable upon the location.
Originally posted by Louzer
No, the servers at a school would use server, but the 30 machines in a classroom would be running OS X, most likely networked, but still its OS X. (Oh, and that assumes they're running OS X Server at all, and not Linux or Windows).
It should be either named something generic, or be changeable upon the location.
Uh, you don't understand. In such a situation, you wouldn't use the clients' security controls at all, because user account management would be handled server-side. Whether on Windows using Active Directory, on Linux using Samba + LDAP, or on Mac OS X Server using Open Directory.
Originally posted by Bouba
I wonder if the parental control will support utilisation quotas?? as in: maximum home space, maximal utilisation this day/week, etc...
Why do you need such features on a client OS?
Originally posted by Chucker
Why do you need such features on a client OS?
So kids that have learned about Poisoned or BitTorrent don't flood the family hard disk with useless crap.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So kids that have learned about Poisoned or BitTorrent don't flood the family hard disk with useless crap.
You have a point.
Well, parental controls might have quotas, but I really doubt it.
Originally posted by Chucker
You have a point.
Well, parental controls might have quotas, but I really doubt it.
I'd doubt it too...and I'd just set 'Safari' to not be able to download anything...so the pesky kids can't download Poisoned or BitTorrent.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So kids that have learned about Poisoned or BitTorrent don't flood the family hard disk with useless crap.
A bit more work, but couldn't you partition the drive and assign each user to a limited partition?
Not the most elegant 'home quota' solution, but if you set limitations on the ability to mount remote volumes other than Optical drive, it might result in the functionality you're looking for.
Haven't tried this method, but it seems logical that it might lead towards a solution.
YMMV
Unless... do they do this already? I haven't looked at OS X server in a couple revisions.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So kids that have learned about Poisoned or BitTorrent don't flood the family hard disk with useless crap.
That and to prevent the kids from having a screen tan because they spend too much time on the computer instead of doing social things, homework and exercise.
But I wouldn't want my hard drive filled with crap without having access to the other one's account to delete stuff... If we limit the space, then I'll have room to breath!
By the way, I hope they would include rendez-vous recognition within the same machine... have a general itunes library that is accessible by everyone on the computer, general iphoto library, etc...
Well, I think it is a nice move. However there are many issues which should be handled.
1. File transfer between different IMs through the Jabber.
2. Video / Audio conference
3. USB Webcab support!!!!!!
4. Voice chat (Oh... at least we have the skype. )
Probably I think that the initial version will be about "text chatting" among IMs.
Let's see what will happen.
Originally posted by jongampark
Probably because the Fire developer now works at the Apple?
Is this true? I know the Proteus developer works for Apple now but the Fire dev?
Anyways...if it *is* true then there are two really good IM devs on the iChat team (assuming the Fire dev is actually working on the iChat team.)