Call me stupid ("okay, stupid") but I think the only people who care what flavor the rackmount is are the IT people working on it. Everyone else just cares if it works. Unix works great as a server platform with or without the mac veneer on top, and end users are none the wiser. IT geeks should know their way around a unix terminal without needing some shiny veneer. Hence, no need for a mac rack-mount server.
This further reinforces the stereotype that Mac server hardware and software have no place in server rooms, and that IT admins should not bother touching Apple products. So basically, you think IT admins should be denied the chance to use rackmounted Apple servers, in much the same way that end users in many companies are denied the chance to use Macs?
I work at a small liberal arts college with a mixed IT environment. We have three Xserve's and while we have many more Windows based servers (a choice made before my time), the Xserve's manage our 200+ Mac's. They also represent a better deal because we don't have to pay for CAL's. If you use the Xserve or are concerned about the future of Mac OS X Server please let Apple know:
Best of luck to anyone building a server infrastructure using Mac Mini's... Remember to keep your resume up to date.
This. XServes sold very well considering Apple's almost total neglect of that segment. Steve Jobs really needs to remove that iDevice from his rectum, though. If the iGadget market becomes more competitive Apple stands to lose a lot of market share and they'll have alienated enough professionals that they'll have nothing to fall back on.
Not that I really care anymore, though. We're moving away from Apple on the server side and watching the client side very closely. If SJ does eventually merge OSX into iOS, then we'll be a it better prepared this time.
People like you are fortunately not the ones making decisions in data centers. When Apple supports mirrored machines running concurrently or virtualisation, and fibre channel networking with the mac mini, then it might be taken into consideration for something beyond giving customers cheap dedicated (and not mission critical) web servers.
Apple fans are really sad. They're just like the Microsoft they all used to hate so much.
Apple fans are really sad. They're just like the Microsoft they all used to hate so much.
1) Are you saying you created an account to post on this site but are not a fan of Apple in some way, or are you including yourself in your comment?
2) You stated that ?Apple fans? ?used to hate? Microsoft. Doesn?t that imply they aren?t just fans of Apple if they no longer hate MS, or are you saying that they are indifferent toward MS now. How is that sad?
I am a college teacher who has used iWeb from the get-go to create websites for my many online classes. I also have enjoyed the extreme convenience of MobileMe hosting being basically "built-in." You can imagine my dismay when I learned that iWeb was no longer going to be developed, and that I would have to find a new, non-Apple, solution to hosting. This is a scary proposition as I have relied on Apple's ease of use for my work for years. Now there is an iCloud on my horizon. Is there any way you can see that these vital services could be retained? For me that would be the silver lining.
Even if you cannot find a way continue upgrading iWeb and offering hosting, perhaps you could ease the way for those of us being stranded by handing it off to a trusted third party who could offer continued development and hosting rolled into one.
Even if you cannot find a way continue upgrading iWeb and offering hosting, perhaps you could ease the way for those of us being stranded by handing it off to a trusted third party who could offer continued development and hosting rolled into one.
Most sincerely,
First, what's wrong with iWeb now?
Second, you can publish iWeb sites to absolutely anywhere, not just Apple hosting. They have no obligation (or reason, since iCloud's free) to keep doing that.
Second, you can publish iWeb sites to absolutely anywhere, not just Apple hosting. They have no obligation (or reason, since iCloud's free) to keep doing that.
Nothing now, but they have stated that they are no longer going to be developing it. It would be foolish to assume that it will continue to be useful (or even functional) as Lion and other cats evolve.
I am aware of alternate hosts, as I tried to imply by the wording of my post. There are also other OSes out there too, other site tools, other word processors, etc. But that's not the point. I want Apple solutions, not someone else's. The links to Gallery are also going away--a major feature of my teaching sites. In short, it can all be patched together some way or another, but that's not what I want. And I have been paying for the convenience and am certainly willing to continue paying. Even paying more if that would ensure the status quo for me.
The best WYSIWYG HTML editor available? Not being useful anymore? Oooookay.
We're done changing architectures. There's no Rosetta, there's no Universal Binaries, it's just iWeb. it will keep working.
Apple's solution is to find different hosting because they don't want to do it anymore and they're not as good at it as other hosting services.
It worked better for me than anything else I tried. I found it, was happy with it, it just worked. You can argue that I'm wrong. If it makes you feel better I will agree with you. How's this:
I was wrong in being happy and content with iWeb because it's not the best WYSIWYG HTML editor available. I don't know what is, but that doesn't matter. You are right and I am wrong.
Apple is not as good at hosting as others. I never had a problem, but I guess ignorance is bliss.
Comments
Call me stupid ("okay, stupid") but I think the only people who care what flavor the rackmount is are the IT people working on it. Everyone else just cares if it works. Unix works great as a server platform with or without the mac veneer on top, and end users are none the wiser. IT geeks should know their way around a unix terminal without needing some shiny veneer. Hence, no need for a mac rack-mount server.
This further reinforces the stereotype that Mac server hardware and software have no place in server rooms, and that IT admins should not bother touching Apple products. So basically, you think IT admins should be denied the chance to use rackmounted Apple servers, in much the same way that end users in many companies are denied the chance to use Macs?
There is no law that says that a server must be rack mounted.
Good point. Likewise, there's no law that says that a server cannot be mounted outside, next to the air conditioning unit.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bringbackxserve/
Please read, sign if you agree, and forward the URL to other concerned parties. Be sure to look at the other petition's as well. Thanks!
I want to know why Jobs' email is at apple.com instead of me.com.
Um, cause he works at Apple maybe? :P Anyone can get a @me.com address!
Best of luck to anyone building a server infrastructure using Mac Mini's... Remember to keep your resume up to date.
This. XServes sold very well considering Apple's almost total neglect of that segment. Steve Jobs really needs to remove that iDevice from his rectum, though. If the iGadget market becomes more competitive Apple stands to lose a lot of market share and they'll have alienated enough professionals that they'll have nothing to fall back on.
Not that I really care anymore, though. We're moving away from Apple on the server side and watching the client side very closely. If SJ does eventually merge OSX into iOS, then we'll be a it better prepared this time.
Perhaps you should tell these guys: The State of the Mac mini
http://www.macminicolo.net/state2009.html
Perhaps you could tell them a thing or two: Tips on Running a Remote Mac Server http://www.farawaymac.com/
Perhaps their facilities are too outdated for you. Nevada Facility http://www.macminicolo.net/facility.html
Perhaps my reference library is missing something.
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/04/05/tuaw-...lo-for-a-spin/
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews...er-review.ars/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365699,00.asp
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-...-719349/review
People like you are fortunately not the ones making decisions in data centers. When Apple supports mirrored machines running concurrently or virtualisation, and fibre channel networking with the mac mini, then it might be taken into consideration for something beyond giving customers cheap dedicated (and not mission critical) web servers.
Apple fans are really sad. They're just like the Microsoft they all used to hate so much.
Apple fans are really sad. They're just like the Microsoft they all used to hate so much.
1) Are you saying you created an account to post on this site but are not a fan of Apple in some way, or are you including yourself in your comment?
2) You stated that ?Apple fans? ?used to hate? Microsoft. Doesn?t that imply they aren?t just fans of Apple if they no longer hate MS, or are you saying that they are indifferent toward MS now. How is that sad?
Dear Mr. Cook:
I am a college teacher who has used iWeb from the get-go to create websites for my many online classes. I also have enjoyed the extreme convenience of MobileMe hosting being basically "built-in." You can imagine my dismay when I learned that iWeb was no longer going to be developed, and that I would have to find a new, non-Apple, solution to hosting. This is a scary proposition as I have relied on Apple's ease of use for my work for years. Now there is an iCloud on my horizon. Is there any way you can see that these vital services could be retained? For me that would be the silver lining.
Even if you cannot find a way continue upgrading iWeb and offering hosting, perhaps you could ease the way for those of us being stranded by handing it off to a trusted third party who could offer continued development and hosting rolled into one.
Most sincerely,
Even if you cannot find a way continue upgrading iWeb and offering hosting, perhaps you could ease the way for those of us being stranded by handing it off to a trusted third party who could offer continued development and hosting rolled into one.
Most sincerely,
First, what's wrong with iWeb now?
Second, you can publish iWeb sites to absolutely anywhere, not just Apple hosting. They have no obligation (or reason, since iCloud's free) to keep doing that.
First, what's wrong with iWeb now?
Second, you can publish iWeb sites to absolutely anywhere, not just Apple hosting. They have no obligation (or reason, since iCloud's free) to keep doing that.
Nothing now, but they have stated that they are no longer going to be developing it. It would be foolish to assume that it will continue to be useful (or even functional) as Lion and other cats evolve.
I am aware of alternate hosts, as I tried to imply by the wording of my post. There are also other OSes out there too, other site tools, other word processors, etc. But that's not the point. I want Apple solutions, not someone else's. The links to Gallery are also going away--a major feature of my teaching sites. In short, it can all be patched together some way or another, but that's not what I want. And I have been paying for the convenience and am certainly willing to continue paying. Even paying more if that would ensure the status quo for me.
It would be foolish to assume that it will continue to be useful
The best WYSIWYG HTML editor available? Not being useful anymore? Oooookay.
(or even functional) as Lion and other cats evolve.
We're done changing architectures. There's no Rosetta, there's no Universal Binaries, it's just iWeb. it will keep working.
I want Apple solutions, not someone else's.
Apple's solution is to find different hosting because they don't want to do it anymore and they're not as good at it as other hosting services.
The best WYSIWYG HTML editor available? Not being useful anymore? Oooookay.
We're done changing architectures. There's no Rosetta, there's no Universal Binaries, it's just iWeb. it will keep working.
Apple's solution is to find different hosting because they don't want to do it anymore and they're not as good at it as other hosting services.
It worked better for me than anything else I tried. I found it, was happy with it, it just worked. You can argue that I'm wrong. If it makes you feel better I will agree with you. How's this:
I was wrong in being happy and content with iWeb because it's not the best WYSIWYG HTML editor available. I don't know what is, but that doesn't matter. You are right and I am wrong.
Apple is not as good at hosting as others. I never had a problem, but I guess ignorance is bliss.
There, you won.