The line of not being able to run complex applications is bullshit, I've personally worked at the scotford plant close to Edmonton Alberta and seen the walls of Xserves that drive the upgrading infrastructure and facilities, it's awesome.
Takes and IT manager with some balls to push an all Mac OS X server platform to a billion dollar company. IT guys that specialize in OS X are in scarce supply. OS X has a server market share close to zero and now with zero support from Apple it seems like a rather odd choice for them to make.
Does the cloud make Service Now an inherently better application?
Actually, being in the cloud meant something negative in my mind. After Outlook was moved into the cloud in my company, everyone complained that things became much slower than before. So, I expected a sluggish response when I visited Service Now's demo site. To my surprise, their site is very responsive.
I was commenting on the first impression of the application after I poked around their demo site for a while. The rich set of features compared much favorably with ServiceCenter and Tivoli. I am sure my company can't switch to this tool. There is too much inertia.
Before we had ServiceCenter, I heard that Remedy was in the bidding war and lost it. So, I assume the Remedy is no better.
The largest company in the Canadian oil sands muskrat river deposit also has a complete backbone for mission critical systems built ontop of osx server and Apple hardware. That company enjoyed an operating profit of just over $31.5 billion last year, I'd think it's safe to assume osx is totally capable of being integrated anywhere if you put the correct engineering team behind the steering wheel.
The line of not being able to run complex applications is bullshit, I've personally worked at the scotford plant close to Edmonton Alberta and seen the walls of Xserves that drive the upgrading infrastructure and facilities, it's awesome.
Always liked the idea of xserves. But I wonder what the way forward is for people who have them now that they have been discontinued, are normal Mac computers like the mini capable of taking over when upgrades are needed? I heard some things about chaining Mac Minis thunderbolted together but don't know anything about it.
Always liked the idea of xserves. But I wonder what the way forward is for people who have them now that they have been discontinued, are normal Mac computers like the mini capable of taking over when upgrades are needed? I heard some things about chaining Mac Minis thunderbolted together but don't know anything about it.
Yep, I was also disappointed when they dropped the xServe.
I can understand that it wasn't a major focus for them nor did they likely make any money at it. But there are other alternatives.
For example, as much as they are opposed to licensing in the consumer space, why not license OS X server only for systems with >2 CPUs (or whatever cutoff they want to use). SOMEONE would have been interested in making the hardware to run OS X in the Enterprise and the OS is quite capable.
SOMEONE would have been interested in making the hardware to run OS X in the Enterprise and the OS is quite capable.
I think that is another reason they switched to App store for OS X. People were able to run OS X server in a VM using generic hardware. Probably can still do it but it is much more difficult now. I'm holding on to my dmg of SL server. Never know when it might come in handy.
1. Full disk encryption added with Lion (this is a big MUST HAVE FEATURE for laptops at least)
2. Must join ActiveDirectory (This works rather well, easier than even Windows)
3. Must connect natively to Exchange 2010 (yep and MS Office 2011 Outlook works as well, albeit still waiting on next release)
4. Must be managed remotely and automagically (lock down features, on the fly configurations, etc.)
Unfortunately, Apple's Server products are either discontinued, unusable, or dying slowly.
Third party products like Casper Suite from JAMF Software can actually run in Linux w/Tomcat (Java) and manage the Mac's.
You can even use AD Windows Shares to replicate software repositories, Google has some code out there to escrow the decryption keys, etc.
Puppet and other tools can be used. A Mac Mini OS X Server in a deployment lab can PXE boot and image many Mac's.
Most Tech's versed in Windows haven't looked at a Mac since 1997 when they almost went out of business. Mac OS 9 and prior
is a joke. Mac OS X is totally different. OS X is Unix and is a direct port of NeXTStep/OpenStep technology. NeXT competed with Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, etc.
OS X is a UNIX workstation with a Mac GUI on top. This is why all the Unix/Linux tech's are using Apple MacBook Pro's.
OS X would be enterprise capable if they somehow managed to include a WINE like PC emulator in with the OS. One of the big problems for enterprise is that they have custom applications written for the PC platform. In order to switch, they have to re-write all those applications. That equals lots of development hours and lots of money, which makes it a lot less attractive. Reading email and joining your machine to the domain is about 20% of 'capable'.
and yes, I know about parallels and fusion. I run parallels myself, it's a very good product and recommend it highly.
OS X is very enterprise capable:
1. Full disk encryption added with Lion (this is a big MUST HAVE FEATURE for laptops at least)
2. Must join ActiveDirectory (This works rather well, easier than even Windows)
3. Must connect natively to Exchange 2010 (yep and MS Office 2011 Outlook works as well, albeit still waiting on next release)
4. Must be managed remotely and automagically (lock down features, on the fly configurations, etc.)
Unfortunately, Apple's Server products are either discontinued, unusable, or dying slowly.
Third party products like Casper Suite from JAMF Software can actually run in Linux w/Tomcat (Java) and manage the Mac's.
You can even use AD Windows Shares to replicate software repositories, Google has some code out there to escrow the decryption keys, etc.
Puppet and other tools can be used. A Mac Mini OS X Server in a deployment lab can PXE boot and image many Mac's.
Most Tech's versed in Windows haven't looked at a Mac since 1997 when they almost went out of business. Mac OS 9 and prior
is a joke. Mac OS X is totally different. OS X is Unix and is a direct port of NeXTStep/OpenStep technology. NeXT competed with Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, etc.
OS X is a UNIX workstation with a Mac GUI on top. This is why all the Unix/Linux tech's are using Apple MacBook Pro's.
Comments
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylersdad
Does the cloud make Service Now an inherently better application?
If SN is cloud based does it matter what platform its users use? Or are we talking back-end here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Market_Player
The line of not being able to run complex applications is bullshit, I've personally worked at the scotford plant close to Edmonton Alberta and seen the walls of Xserves that drive the upgrading infrastructure and facilities, it's awesome.
Takes and IT manager with some balls to push an all Mac OS X server platform to a billion dollar company. IT guys that specialize in OS X are in scarce supply. OS X has a server market share close to zero and now with zero support from Apple it seems like a rather odd choice for them to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylersdad
Does the cloud make Service Now an inherently better application?
Actually, being in the cloud meant something negative in my mind. After Outlook was moved into the cloud in my company, everyone complained that things became much slower than before. So, I expected a sluggish response when I visited Service Now's demo site. To my surprise, their site is very responsive.
I was commenting on the first impression of the application after I poked around their demo site for a while. The rich set of features compared much favorably with ServiceCenter and Tivoli. I am sure my company can't switch to this tool. There is too much inertia.
Before we had ServiceCenter, I heard that Remedy was in the bidding war and lost it. So, I assume the Remedy is no better.
"our notebooks, laptops and so on" - Wow their notebooks AND their laptops are Macs! (And this is an IT company?)
Always liked the idea of xserves. But I wonder what the way forward is for people who have them now that they have been discontinued, are normal Mac computers like the mini capable of taking over when upgrades are needed? I heard some things about chaining Mac Minis thunderbolted together but don't know anything about it.
Yep, I was also disappointed when they dropped the xServe.
I can understand that it wasn't a major focus for them nor did they likely make any money at it. But there are other alternatives.
For example, as much as they are opposed to licensing in the consumer space, why not license OS X server only for systems with >2 CPUs (or whatever cutoff they want to use). SOMEONE would have been interested in making the hardware to run OS X in the Enterprise and the OS is quite capable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
SOMEONE would have been interested in making the hardware to run OS X in the Enterprise and the OS is quite capable.
I think that is another reason they switched to App store for OS X. People were able to run OS X server in a VM using generic hardware. Probably can still do it but it is much more difficult now. I'm holding on to my dmg of SL server. Never know when it might come in handy.
"Not just on the iPhone, also our notebooks, laptops and so on."
> I wonder what they use for Servers?
OS X is very enterprise capable:
1. Full disk encryption added with Lion (this is a big MUST HAVE FEATURE for laptops at least)
2. Must join ActiveDirectory (This works rather well, easier than even Windows)
3. Must connect natively to Exchange 2010 (yep and MS Office 2011 Outlook works as well, albeit still waiting on next release)
4. Must be managed remotely and automagically (lock down features, on the fly configurations, etc.)
Unfortunately, Apple's Server products are either discontinued, unusable, or dying slowly.
Third party products like Casper Suite from JAMF Software can actually run in Linux w/Tomcat (Java) and manage the Mac's.
You can even use AD Windows Shares to replicate software repositories, Google has some code out there to escrow the decryption keys, etc.
Puppet and other tools can be used. A Mac Mini OS X Server in a deployment lab can PXE boot and image many Mac's.
Most Tech's versed in Windows haven't looked at a Mac since 1997 when they almost went out of business. Mac OS 9 and prior
is a joke. Mac OS X is totally different. OS X is Unix and is a direct port of NeXTStep/OpenStep technology. NeXT competed with Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, etc.
OS X is a UNIX workstation with a Mac GUI on top. This is why all the Unix/Linux tech's are using Apple MacBook Pro's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
You've apparently never used Remedy.
Yes I have (and do). I feel your pain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBrickley
OS X would be enterprise capable if they somehow managed to include a WINE like PC emulator in with the OS. One of the big problems for enterprise is that they have custom applications written for the PC platform. In order to switch, they have to re-write all those applications. That equals lots of development hours and lots of money, which makes it a lot less attractive. Reading email and joining your machine to the domain is about 20% of 'capable'.
and yes, I know about parallels and fusion. I run parallels myself, it's a very good product and recommend it highly.
OS X is very enterprise capable:
1. Full disk encryption added with Lion (this is a big MUST HAVE FEATURE for laptops at least)
2. Must join ActiveDirectory (This works rather well, easier than even Windows)
3. Must connect natively to Exchange 2010 (yep and MS Office 2011 Outlook works as well, albeit still waiting on next release)
4. Must be managed remotely and automagically (lock down features, on the fly configurations, etc.)
Unfortunately, Apple's Server products are either discontinued, unusable, or dying slowly.
Third party products like Casper Suite from JAMF Software can actually run in Linux w/Tomcat (Java) and manage the Mac's.
You can even use AD Windows Shares to replicate software repositories, Google has some code out there to escrow the decryption keys, etc.
Puppet and other tools can be used. A Mac Mini OS X Server in a deployment lab can PXE boot and image many Mac's.
Most Tech's versed in Windows haven't looked at a Mac since 1997 when they almost went out of business. Mac OS 9 and prior
is a joke. Mac OS X is totally different. OS X is Unix and is a direct port of NeXTStep/OpenStep technology. NeXT competed with Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, etc.
OS X is a UNIX workstation with a Mac GUI on top. This is why all the Unix/Linux tech's are using Apple MacBook Pro's.