[Macworld]

Post your comments for Mac OS X Lion Server here

[jpellino]

Is it a given that the upgrade path is 10.6 to Lion as with the client, or can we jump from Leopard server to Lion? Anyone had experience with actually doing this?

[tfrogh]

Thank you for the thorough analysis. It confirms my suspicion that this iteration of Server was probably not ready for Prime Time. I have been using Apple Server software since ASIP 5. There have been very few hiccups. I am by no means an expert. I would call myself a rudimentary user as all we really need is File Sharing with groups.

Sounds like sticking with 10.6 is the way to go. It just works. I have some understanding of how to make it do what I want it to do. Compared to 10.5, 10.4 and all the previous server versions, 10.6 is wonderfully refined.

Still no 10.7 in the wild here at the office and still no plans for it to be allowed in. The lack of Rosetta makes it pussycat non grata here. Apple should wake up and smell the upsell money it is missing out on. Make Rosetta a $30 add-on and we will be glad to pay it in order to keep buying new Macs. Otherwise, we are done for a few years on any further investment in hardware.

[jcwelch]

jpellino, on 28 September 2011 - 04:23 AM, said:

Is it a given that the upgrade path is 10.6 to Lion as with the client, or can we jump from Leopard server to Lion? Anyone had experience with actually doing this?

If you were to do a blank media install, you theoretically could go from Leopard to Lion in one step. however, (and no, I haven't tried it, I don't get that jiggy with servers), there's a good chance you'd have to wipe the drive first. It might work, but I would REALLY want a good full backup of the server before I tried.

[jcwelch]

tfrogh, on 28 September 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:

Thank you for the thorough analysis. It confirms my suspicion that this iteration of Server was probably not ready for Prime Time. I have been using Apple Server software since ASIP 5. There have been very few hiccups. I am by no means an expert. I would call myself a rudimentary user as all we really need is File Sharing with groups.

Sounds like sticking with 10.6 is the way to go. It just works. I have some understanding of how to make it do what I want it to do. Compared to 10.5, 10.4 and all the previous server versions, 10.6 is wonderfully refined.

Still no 10.7 in the wild here at the office and still no plans for it to be allowed in. The lack of Rosetta makes it pussycat non grata here. Apple should wake up and smell the upsell money it is missing out on. Make Rosetta a $30 add-on and we will be glad to pay it in order to keep buying new Macs. Otherwise, we are done for a few years on any further investment in hardware.

Rosetta was never marketed as a permanent thing, and the intel move started what, six years ago? waiting over half a decade to remove rosetta isn't something I can really agree with bagging on Apple for.

I think in a rev or two, OS X Server 10.7 will indeed be where it should be, but keep in mind that not even the "wonderfully refined" Mac OS X 10.6 Server was what I would term usable until around 10.6.5 or so.

[arekdreyer]

The most frequent concern I've heard from Mac system administrators has been the fear that Apple is abandoning them in favor of consumers. As you point out, Profile Manager is pretty sweet, and this is a feature that is simply not aimed at consumers. The Open Directory Locales feature is also pretty sweet, and really only applicable if you have multiple networks, physical locations, or VLANs. So, no, Mac administrators, you're not being abandoned. If you like using the command line, you can keep using the command line. It's just that you don't have to use the command line. Want to change your host name or IP address? OK, the Server app's Change Host Name assistant does a pretty good job; you don't need to use the command line and use changeip and changeDirData.pl, although you can if you want to do it that way.

[jmincey]

Given what you list as the "cons" in the brief capsule summary above, it seems that 3.5 stars is generous. Some of these cons are likely to be deal-breakers for many administrators and IT professionals.

Based on your analysis, I'm inclined to wait until Apple gets these issues sorted out.

Jeff Mincey

[rob53]

I don't think most people understand the impact software licensing has on Lion Server. Once Oracle bought MySQL, it was doomed. The same with the changes to Samba. Unless you want to pay a lot more for Lion Server, especially for commercial users, Apple made the only decision they could--don't include those applications that used to be free open-source packages. Yes, there are changes to Lion Server that will make the stodgy IT people angry but times change, which is something IT people have a hard time doing. As for problems with OpenDirectory and ActiveDirectory, this isn't limited to Lion Server. Apple made a big change, going from Directory Services to merging all of it into OpenDirectory.

Overall, I'd say Lion Server is well worth its $50 price tag. Try and find a replacement for everything it does, including Xsan for free (not mentioned in article but included), on any platform. You won't find it. Any Windows server software is a lot more and charges for every client, something Apple doesn't do.

[jcwelch]

rob53, on 28 September 2011 - 05:47 AM, said:

I don't think most people understand the impact software licensing has on Lion Server. Once Oracle bought MySQL, it was doomed. The same with the changes to Samba. Unless you want to pay a lot more for Lion Server, especially for commercial users, Apple made the only decision they could--don't include those applications that used to be free open-source packages. Yes, there are changes to Lion Server that will make the stodgy IT people angry but times change, which is something IT people have a hard time doing. As for problems with OpenDirectory and ActiveDirectory, this isn't limited to Lion Server. Apple made a big change, going from Directory Services to merging all of it into OpenDirectory.

Overall, I'd say Lion Server is well worth its $50 price tag. Try and find a replacement for everything it does, including Xsan for free (not mentioned in article but included), on any platform. You won't find it. Any Windows server software is a lot more and charges for every client, something Apple doesn't do.

Oh absolutely licensing is huge. Once Samba went to GPL 3, it was a dead thing on Mac OS X, at least Apple distributing it. You can still install and use Samba, but you're doing all the work yourself for it.

[mvallance]

re. Sounds like sticking with 10.6 is the way to go. It just works.

I agree.

What about QuickTime Streaming server (QTSS) and Broadcaster? Any developments worthy of comment?

Ta.

[Dan Chapman]

You never even mentioned the hobbled AFP service. The fact that 10.7 has no apparent way to monitor AFP connections or to disconnect them. I can not believe Apple would be so foolish to hobble this native protocol. It is like giving us a car that runs .. but with no windows to see things, or brake to stop the connected users. Unacceptable from my point of view as a network IT guy for s school District

[hayesk]

Dan Chapman, on 28 September 2011 - 06:58 AM, said:

You never even mentioned the hobbled AFP service. The fact that 10.7 has no apparent way to monitor AFP connections or to disconnect them. I can not believe Apple would be so foolish to hobble this native protocol. It is like giving us a car that runs .. but with no windows to see things, or brake to stop the connected users. Unacceptable from my point of view as a network IT guy for s school District

I believe you can via command line, so it's likely a GUI feature that will be added back in.

[LJSLJS]

John,
Nice job on this, I've been running Lion Server since it came out (on a test XServe) mainly for the Profile Manager, it works as advertised. I have an open case with apple on frequent crashing where the video goes wiggy and freezes the GUI completely, though you can still ssh into the box to restart it. Apple needs to provide the same level of documentation they have provided with SL Server, hopefully the Apple training guides will be released soon.
LJS

[jcwelch]

mvallance, on 28 September 2011 - 06:40 AM, said:

re. Sounds like sticking with 10.6 is the way to go. It just works.

I agree.

What about QuickTime Streaming server (QTSS) and Broadcaster? Any developments worthy of comment?

Ta.

Other than QTSS is out in favor of HTTP live streaming? not really.