Mac OS X vs. Server Edition? :::
was wondering if I wanted to run a home server, should I get the server edition of Mac OS X? or is the basic needs met in the consumer version already? [web/mail/dns server]
What's the general difference between the two?
Does a consumer update/upgrade means the upgrade is available in the server edition @ the same time?
thanks!
What's the general difference between the two?
Does a consumer update/upgrade means the upgrade is available in the server edition @ the same time?
thanks!
Comments
For example, you can turn of websharing with a single click. If you're familiar with Apache, it'll be easy to configure the little things.
As for a mail server or dns, I think Mac OS X includes the necessary tools via the CLI, but I've never used them myself.
The server version offers alot more control over things, like quotas and what not, through the GUI, so it's easier to set up and configure. The server and the client versions are pretty much on the same update schedule, but not exactly. DO NOT update the client version with a server update (I've heard it done before.)
However, *always* install *both* Client and Server updates to a Server installation. You need both. The Client updates upgrade the base OS, the Server updates upgrade the Server pieces only.
I'll concur, as a Server owner, that you don't need it unless you're doing some serious serving. The Client has everything, it's just a bit more tedious to setup. You need to be comfortable with the Terminal, and a command shell, for one thing.
In fact, having Server installed can be a real headache... Retrospect refuses to let you use anything lower than their Workgroup product, at several hundred dollars, instead of, as in my case, the more appropriate Express $70 product, simply because they assume to know what you're doing with your system. Bollocks. Dantz is evil.
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
Have you used rsync? I want a backup solution and I was wondering if that would be a good way to go. I'm not averse to using the CLI, as a matter of fact, I kinda like it.
Kinda destroys a large number of files.
<strong>As far as I can tell, and I may be wrong (if I am, please tell me so I can jump for joy), but rsync doesn't transfer the resource fork in files, just the data fork.
Kinda destroys a large number of files.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.macosxlabs.org/rsyncx/rsyncx.html"; target="_blank">RsyncX</a>. What about this? I'm gonna try it out now. I'll let you know how it works (though I'm sure you could give it a much more thorough testing, as I don't rely heavily on resource forks.)
I'm just curious because if my life will be easier if I was running a server by using os x server, then i'd just buy that.... versus the client ver.
for now, i guess.... i'm leaning more towards the client vers.
thanks!
<strong>If it's more tedious to setup, wouldn't you want to go server then?
I'm just curious because if my life will be easier if I was running a server by using os x server, then i'd just buy that.... versus the client ver.
for now, i guess.... i'm leaning more towards the client vers.
thanks!
I have to admit that I was rather appalled at how much I had to set up in Terminal even after purchasing MacOS X Server. All the DNS setup (required for the mail server, for instance) has to be done manually. I'm sure that if you already have a DNS setup, it's trivial, but for me, as a novice, it wasn't exactly as simple as a checkbox in a preferences panel.
I'll admit that the mail server, and *some* elements of the web server were easier to do in Server, but it also caused some wackiness in Apache (user page support went bye bye, had to workaround).
All around, if I hadn't had to use my system as a prototype for an actual office LAN, I would have wiped the drive and installed the client again.
<strong>If it's more tedious to setup, wouldn't you want to go server then?
I'm just curious because if my life will be easier if I was running a server by using os x server, then i'd just buy that.... versus the client ver.
for now, i guess.... i'm leaning more towards the client vers.
thanks!
I noticed in 10.2 Client that basic serving things like print serving, web and file are a lot easier. just click on and setup in GUI. current version is similar but 10.2 seems to refine it a bit
<strong>
I noticed in 10.2 Client that basic serving things like print serving, web and file are a lot easier. just click on and setup in GUI. current version is similar but 10.2 seems to refine it a bit</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, I was about to ask if there was a DNS tool now, but I suspect that Rendezvous is the suggested method for this, eh?
<strong>If it's more tedious to setup, wouldn't you want to go server then?
I'm just curious because if my life will be easier if I was running a server by using os x server, then i'd just buy that.... versus the client ver.
for now, i guess.... i'm leaning more towards the client vers.
thanks!
Well, it's not as if the server is free. It actually costs quite a bit more, but if you get it from alternative sources, I guess it's all the same to you.
<strong>I don't think you need to fork over the cash for Server -- it'll probably be way more than you need. Mac OS X (client) can do almost everything Server does, but Server just has GUI tools so you don't have to use the command line to configure everything.
For example, you can turn of websharing with a single click. If you're familiar with Apache, it'll be easy to configure the little things.
As for a mail server or dns, I think Mac OS X includes the necessary tools via the CLI, but I've never used them myself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The client version does not include named or and email server program. But, named is easy to compile and manage. Plus, I know from personal experience that you can set up Postfix (screw sendmail) and UW's popd/imapd in no time. Server may be a little overkill for the average network.
Keep in mind, you can take a stripped down Linux install and add all the functionality you need to make it a powerful server. The same applies with OS X client.