Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology (Apple) Businesses Technology Apple IT

New Apple IT Pro Section 178

Posted by CowboyNeal from the macs-work-too dept.
aqsalter writes "Apple has finally created a new section for information from an IT Professionals viewpoint, with articles about all the good stuff. Previously Apple shied away from having any obvious IT focus, but it seems Apple are acknowledging their influence in the IT sphere, with two high-profile HPC clusters and enterprise class tools for managing open source technologies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Apple IT Pro Section More

New Apple IT Pro Section

Comments Filter:

  • Who cares? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Look [gizmodo.com], shiny iHome pictures.
    • Yeah, apple's new card board box iHome centre is certainly going to sell like hotcakes.

      You know though, in the US we spell it center, not centre. Whoever did this hoax forgot about that one little technicality.
      • Apple also does not make their computers out of cardboard and would not package their new computers in an iBook box with a printed piece of paper taped to the top.

        They forgot about those technicalities as well. ;)
        • Apple also wouldn't be shipping a product with a name it doesn't have trademarked before the packaging was printed. Especially if someone else has the name trademarked for use in "home entertainment systems."

  • Nice :) (Score:1, Funny)

    by Killjoy_NL ( 719667 )
    Good going Apple, just branch out in as many areas as possible and make more people happy :)

    • Re:Nice :) (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vonFinkelstien ( 687265 )
      Apple really needs to change some old die-hard views before it can really penitrate most corporate IT systems.

      Most of the IT guys I know, who are calling the shots, are Windows only. Mention a Mac and they cringe.

      At one school I teach at the IT admin has to put up with Macs, because we have a recording studio. Me (ESL teacher) and the music teacher also bring in our Mac laptops from time to time, which he hates. I find it strange that the music computer lab only has PCs, when it would be better for the

      • Re:Nice :) (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I actually keep hoping that a student will infest the network with a virsus or worm. Then I and the music teacher can say, "You know, if the server and lab boxes were Macs. You wouldn't have this problem."

        Great idea! Cause there's nothing IT admins love more than being told how to do their job!

        • Re:Nice :) (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:48AM (#11319920)
          Great idea! Cause there's nothing IT admins love more than being told how to do their job!

          Maybe they don't love being told how to do their jobs, but they sure as hell love creating job security by standardizing us all on machines that require near constant attention.

          I love when our IT guys try to tell us things like "Macs can't network", "Macs can't use the internet", and my personal favorite... "Apple is going out of business".

          Maybe instead of being told how to do their jobs, they should take it upon themselves to learn how to do their jobs.

          • "Apple is going out of business".

            They'll won't go out of business anytime soon but their market share will keep going down. Every year it drops, it is 1.7% down from 2% in 2002. And because of this, the 3rd party software market is drying up. I can count the number of games released in 2004 on my hand. Luckily apple has itunes and ipod to make up revenue difference.

      • Catastrophe Might Wake Up IT. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:44AM (#11319887) Homepage Journal
        Die-hard views in IT about Apple products may change, as did many ways we do things post-September 11, when (not if) a major computer security catastrophe occurs which could render many Windows operating systems inoperable. It's bound to happen--the laws of chaos and Murphy's Law dictate that something with order will be occasionally paired with disorder.

        IT hasn't had that wake-up call yet. History has shown that lack of diversification leads to fatal results. Having only one way of doing things, or in this case, only one choice in handling services, causes a backlash when elements of the systems are put to test.

        I've been an IT professional specializing in Apple products for over 12 years now. Despite the advances (administratively and competitively) that Apple and other companies have done in providing alternatives that work as well or better than the mainstream products, many IT pros still have NO FSCKING CLUE about the alternatives. They aren't TRAINED to think about alternatives, but only to do what they can with what they have.

        They may be a time where one of the many serious vulnerabilties found in Windows is fully and dangerously exploited, leading to failures of various sorts throughout the country and the world. Data is lost. Networks paralyzed. And all through such a time, computers running operating systems that are much more resistant or immune to these issues will aid in keeping our businesses working despite ourselves and our industry's lack of vision.

        It was a lack of imagination that led to the some of the world's notable disasters like the Titanic, the recent tsunamis, the Apollo 1, Shuttle Challenger and Columbia tragedies, the Macerena and Anna Nicole Smith. Someone in the IT world has to wake up and see that putting all the eggs in a basket may be cheaper, but that it is still one basket.

        I try to educate and never preach about the use and capabilities of Apple products, and I'm sure others try with Linux and other operating systems. I hope a site like this, sanctioned by Apple itself, adds a bit more professionalism to the mix of offerings.
      • Most of the IT guys I know, who are calling the shots, are Windows only. Mention a Mac and they cringe.

        Then do what I do: Don't mention "Mac". Mention "Apple" instead.

        For whatever reason, it seems like those of us who have negative reactions to "Macs" (including myself, until recently) don't react as strongly to "Apple". Possibly because of the long-standing tradition of describing the company as an underdog, etc. I can' really explain it.

        All I know is it's been easier to talk to Windows guys about

      • Re:Nice :) (Score:3, Funny)

        by gb506 ( 738638 )
        Most of the IT guys I know, who are calling the shots, are Windows only. Mention a Mac and they cringe.

        That's because the Mac would set them free - free of a job, that is...

    • still, that gives /. plenty of time to catch up

  • About time! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:06AM (#11319685) Homepage
    This is really long overdue. Apple has been an force for innovation in the desktop market since its inception, but they've never been taken all that seriously in the enterprise-class server market until recently. This shows that Apple really does want to be taken seriously.

  • Nobody ever reads the article... (Score:5, Informative)

    by IO ERROR ( 128968 ) * <error.ioerror@us> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:07AM (#11319688) Homepage Journal
    Since you probably didn't RTFA, here's some more good stuff:

    Security Guide for OS X [nsa.gov] - by the U.S. National Security Agency [nsa.gov]
    Email virus protection [apple.com] - setup SpamAssassin, ClamAV and Amavisd-new with Postfix on OS X
    Linux Magazine gives OS X five penguins [apple.com]

    The nice thing about this site, as a developer, is that everything I was looking for regarding OS X is all here. Tools, manuals, FAQs, discussion boards, you name it, it's here.

  • Another useful site... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:15AM (#11319719)
    A good site for managing OS X servers that seems to be getting better all the time is http://www.afp548.com/ [afp548.com]. I'm not affiliated with them btw, but it's worth checking out if this is your business.
  • In the Government section : Security guide for Mac OS X [nsa.gov]
    The page cannot be found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

  • If you have a hammer ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:19AM (#11319740)
    every problem is a nail.

    Historically, Apple had its own operating system(s) developed in-house. Creating enterprise systems would have been a huge extra burden for them. Now, their os is basically _nix. Existing enterprise systems can be easily integrated with Apple's stuff.

    Bottom line: Apple can more easily do this now and so they are doing it.
    • Historically, Apple had its own operating system(s) developed in-house. Creating enterprise systems would have been a huge extra burden for them.
      Historically, Microsoft had its own operating system(s) developed in-house. Creating enterprise systems would have been a huge extra burden for them.

      Oh, wait...

  • That does it !! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Fred_A ( 10934 )
    I'm switching to Windows !
  • Anyone who challenges any monopoly is a kind of a hero in my book. Monopolised world = communism = you are owned. Competition = free market = you choose.
    • Let's analyze some well-known monopolies.

      Microsoft = communism? Yes, sure. But, going back in time to other famous monopolies...

      Rockefeller's Standard Oil = communism

      Thanks a lot for opening my eyes!

    • Re:One of the things that are desperately needed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:58AM (#11320020)
      "Anyone who challenges any monopoly is a kind of a hero in my book"

      Within the Apple enclave, there is even less "freedom" than in the Microsoft world. Using the "communism" analogy, what you are doing is cheering on North Korea as compared to China.

      There is much more of a "you must use this hardware to run this software!" thing going on. You can also check with the PlayFair folks about Apple's tendencies. If you want "Competition = free market = you choose.", look to the Linux world. They bend over backwards for such "freedom": interopability, hardware flexibility, and open standards, and user participation in major developments. You don't have everything being handed down from a "Politburo" like you do with Apple and Microsoft.

      • Re:One of the things that are desperately needed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @10:23AM (#11320846)
        Within the Apple enclave, there is even less "freedom" than in the Microsoft world. Using the "communism" analogy, what you are doing is cheering on North Korea as compared to China.

        That's a pretty funny analogy.

        And apt, too! Apple is just like a North Korea, except that they have fair trade (open source kernal), human rights (well-designed consistent UI), a market economy (PCI, AGP, USB, SATA, IEEE 1392, GigE), a free press (TCP/IP, OpenTalk/ZeroConf, Apache, Jabber, Kerberos, SSL).... but other than that exactly like North Korea, yes.

        • "That's a pretty funny analogy"

          The parent made the communism analogy. I was not particularly happy with it, but I ran with what was there.

          "except that they have fair trade (open source kernal)

          Are modifications from the user/developer community being incorporated into Mac OS? Not last time I heard (a dictatorship and not a democracy?).

          ..."a free press (TCP/IP, OpenTalk/ZeroConf, Apache, Jabber, Kerberos, SSL)...."

          Hmmm. Where is FairPlay/AAC on that list? Speaking of a free press, click here [slashdot.org] to see

          • Hmmm. Where is FairPlay/AAC on that list? Speaking of a free press, click here to see the latest Apple stories on Slashdot. 2 or 3 on the first page alone are about Apple censoring users and closing communications. Definitely more Kim Jong Il than Johnny Appleseed here. This just does not happen nearly as much in the OSS world.

            OSS seems to have it's own brand of censorship. People who have legitimate grievances OSS usability and with how damn hard OSS is to used are attacked by the OSS community and are c
            • "OSS seems to have it's own brand of censorship. People who have legitimate grievances OSS usability and with how damn hard OSS is to used are attacked by the OSS community and are called whiners and their posts are often removed from forums"

              Whining is one thing. Filing frivolous lawsuits (as Apple has done) is another.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • "except that they have fair trade (open source kernal)...

            Are modifications from the user/developer community being incorporated into Mac OS? Not last time I heard (a dictatorship and not a democracy?).

            The answer is yes. Go have a look at apple.com/opensource, there's a handy (and verifiable) chart there.

            ..."a free press (TCP/IP, OpenTalk/ZeroConf, Apache, Jabber, Kerberos, SSL)...."

            Hmmm. Where is FairPlay/AAC on that list? Speaking of a free press, click here to see the latest Apple stories on Sla

      • Especially when it comes to server-side or server-type software, I find myself having more freedom on the Mac - for one reason. I can use industry-grade, stable open-source unix servers such as Apache, diverse SQL databases, mail servers, you name it. I can also run hundreds of programming languages without having the 'Cygwin' mess, or difficulties compiling things on Windows. If I had to switch to Linux, I could. I wouldn't like the UI, but the underlying tools would be similar.
    • State-owned monopolies are part of the communist way of doing things; competing companies for dollars who break rules about monopolies can be punished by the government in a way a state monopoly can't.

      May I assume you're part of the USA population who grew up in the Cold War hearing that Commies were going to destroy the precious freedoms your forefathers fought for? If so, may I ask you to lay that prejudice to rest?
    • "Anyone who challenges any monopoly is a kind of a hero in my book."

      Apple is a monopoly. Can you (legally) run OSX on a x86 PC? No. Can you legally run Windows on a Mac (via emulation)? Yes.

      I am in no way a Microsoft fanboy. The market has spoken. The problem is that most people don't choose Windows, they choose a computer based on price. Until recently you couldn't get a Mac for under $999. (I may be wrong.) Then the eMac came along and I considered buying one when they became available to the g

  • I always wonder why Apple seems to be so popular for HPC? I mean, Apple makes good hardware and a very nice OS an all, but each compute node is so expensive that it doesn't seem worth it. To buy an compute node with roughly the same power costs half as much if you use Xeon or Athlon processors with support contracts with a large company. I had to design several clusters with a price limit of of $120,000. We could get 45-60 Apple boxes, or 240 Intel boxes. Yes the Xeon boxes where slower, but with almost 5 t

    • Time = Money and the Apple solution saves you a LOT of time.

    • Re:Why does everybody love Apply for HPC? (Score:5, Informative)

      by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:37AM (#11319837)
      Actually the Virginia tech cluster cost WAY less than any of the other clusters of similar speed - a mere $5,000,000 compared to $380,000,000 for similar speed clusters made from x86 boxen. The G5 is a stonking chip - especially for what these guys want to do - lots of floating point work.
      • The wierd thing is (and I say this as a Blacksburgian)...

        No one here really cares about the BigMac. (Just for those mods who don't know what Blacksburg is, it's a wide spot in the road with this little college called Virginia Tech in the middle of it.)

        Seriously, unless you are a CS major, no one on campus cares about it all that much. I don't know why, especially how we are supposed to be a tech-y college, but there's just no local interest in it beyond the obligatory "Hey, wonder if we can have a lan par
        • I work for the University of Pittsburgh, which is part of the consortium that runs the Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center (along with CMU and Westinghouse). I don't really care about the lemieux terascale cluster which was once the 3rd fastest computer in the world. You know why? They won't let me play with it. I suspect no one at VA Tech cares about BigMac for the same reason.
        • You know, it could actually be *gasp* that no one on campus other than CS majors really gives a rat's ass about computers in general... but that might be just too obvious, eh?

          Some biz majors are interested in learning how to drive MS Office, and some math and science majors want to learn Excel -- but not a damn one of them cares in the slightest what platform those run on.

          They want a machine that does those things as cheaply as possible. They don't care that there's a machine out there that does it "bett
    • With your calculation (Xserve 2400,- vs Intel 500,-) you leave a lot out of the equation. What kind of casing (sizes) and and reliable powersupplies are we talking about in a $500 intelbox? You won't even get near the quality of the parts and power/heat difference is HUGE. http://www.apple.com/xserve/ G5:55W, Xeon:110W, (Opteron:89W) So that means double powerbill per CPU (Thats a whopping 1KW per CPU per day extra! That's a lot) In your case: 240 CPU's consuming 240KW a day (extra) and the extra heat (cool
    • Apple gives good prices to educational & government researchers.
    • Actually, only maybe a dozen sites have done sizeable Mac-based HPC clusters (>100 nodes), but Apple has made inordinate amounts of noise about them. The driving factor is usually marketing, as the actual costs of the Apple h/w (once you consider everything, including racks, power control, etc.) is at best comparable with (and at worst 20-40% more than) similarly specced P4 or Opteron hardware from a dozen different large cluster integrators.
      --Troy
    • After having worked with XGrid [apple.com] for a few months, I would say because Apple recognizes that the time and difficulty to set the thing up and the dedicated staff you have to pay are also costs, and they make their stuff 5 times as easier to set up as their competitors.
    • $2K per node price differnce? A dual 2.3 GHz Xserve cluster node is $2999. I'm not sure where you're getting dual Xeon nodes for $999. (Of course you'll need more RAM for both machines, probably, but that's the same price for either platform.)

      California Digital [californiadigital.com] offers pre-configured Mac and Intel clusters. Turns out an Xserve cluster will cost you less per flop than a Xeon cluster. And their performance figures are using the 2 GHz Xserve models, which were replaced with 2.3 GHz models last week at the sam

  • I hear they're coming out with a new product... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bloggins02 ( 468782 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:28AM (#11319775)
    iT :)

  • But will they be less secritive? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:29AM (#11319780)
    While I admit Apple makes quality products and IT could really use systems of that quality. But the primary problems preventing costomers to switch to Apple are the following...
    1. Vendor Lock in: When you switch to Apple for an IT strategy you will be stuck with it. And switching to an other platform is expensive. Sure right now Apple is making good quality products but down the line some other platform may exceed the quality in a large scale. Much like the Macs of the Early to Mid 90s where the Classic OS while once was top of the line started to be come antiquated, and just couldn't adapt to today needs weel. You buy the Apple Computer most likely you will be using OS X (Yea Yea you can use Linux but there is a lot of stuff not proven to work on PPC), so in the future when Apple sucks again you will be faced with a daunting upgrade task. This is the reason why Microsoft is so big, and the reason why Linux is so strong. With Windows and Linux you can buy whatever hardware and still keep the same software, reducing the risk of needing a major upgrade. With apple you are stuck with apple.
    2. Only Apple knows what the future holds:Apple loves to make the big press release and get all the people drooling at their new product. Companies want to be able to plan for things usually a year in advance. So if there is going to be a 5 ghz G5 coming out within a year or so they want to know that so they can budget the upgrade or wait an other year.
    3. Short life cycles: Wow those G4 Powermacs didn't last long. And when their supplies run out that is the end of them other then buying them used on ebay. Some companies may not need to have the best of the best. They often want to extend there system life to 4-10 years between upgrades. We need to be able to get parts for these system when they break, and not just extra harddrive spare Processors, motherboards, video cards. Basically all the stuff to make a Mac by itself.

    • Re:But will they be less secritive? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by njfuzzy ( 734116 ) <ian.ian-x@com> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:59AM (#11320022) Homepage
      G4 PowerMacs didn't last long?!

      They went from 350 MHz in 1999, to dual 1.42 in 2003. Honestly, most Mac users think that was too long, not too short.

    • Re:But will they be less secritive? (Score:5, Informative)

      by TomorrowPlusX ( 571956 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @09:14AM (#11320141)
      I agree with you on everything except the short life cycles. We have a number of 1999/2000 era g4 powermacs running OS 10.2/3 happily running Illustrator CS, Photoshop CS and Quark 6.

      These machines are slow by todays standards, but they *work*, and reliably. The only upgrades they've seen are extra memory and firewire hard disks.

      This is a lot more than I can say about any of the > 3 year old PCs at my office. Some of those machines can barely boot XP, much less run office effectively.
      • That's not what is meant by short life cycles. I've got a (circa 1989) Mac IIci with a 40mhz 68040 processor, 48MB RAM, and a 2GB hard drive. It's chugging along happily; does that mean it's got a really, really long life cycle?

        No.

        Long life cycles mean that there will be parts and support available from the OEM. I don't want to buy an expensive server and find out that next year I won't be able to replace a motherboard/cpu on it because the new G6 is out, and they don't make the G5's anymore.

        The act

    • If it's not Apple hardware then it's Microsoft software lock in. The entire argument in this paragraph is ridicules - "so in the future when Apple sucks again", so you're implying that PC hardware has NEVER sucked? Ever? Apple hardware dating back to the Mac SE are still in use today. It has a GUI and can connect to the web WITH NO MODIFICATIONS! Can *you* run Windows 95 on a 286 today? No, even if you could you'd be cheating because Win95 was not available when the 286 came out. If I am correct, the
      • Yes yes I see you like your Mac... I like mine too. But still it is not good for business usage.

        It is more like Apple Hardware and Software lockin vs. Microsoft Software Lockin. So choose 2 possible future devils or one.

        No I am not implying that PC hardware has Never sucked? But with PC there are hundreds of companies making compatible systems. So when Gateway began to suck people switched to Dell. Now that Dell is sucking people are starting to go to switch to something else, while keeping your existi
      • Andrew Tanenbaum - Linus Torvalds TEACHER!

        Not really. Andrew Tanenbaum was not Linus' teacher [fluidsignal.com]. Linus studied in Finland and Tanenbaum is teaching in The Netherlands.

    • Re:But will they be less secritive? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sootman ( 158191 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @09:24AM (#11320232) Homepage Journal
      "Vendor Lock in: When you switch to Apple for an IT strategy you will be stuck with it."

      How is this different from *anyone* else? You think my company can easily migrate away from our combination of AD, Notes, Outlook, and EMC? At least Apple's products are, for the most part, based on open-source products, so you could go from OS X to any other *nix pretty easily. Apple may be no better than anyone else, but they're certainly no worse. To claim otherwise is absurd.

    • Re:But will they be less secritive? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Flamebait or troll? Not sure, but just in case you are SERIOUS about this, here goes.

      Vendor Lock in: When you switch to Apple for an IT strategy you will be stuck with it.

      And this is different than Windows exactly... how? Actually, it's not even true. Since the MacOS X Server is essentially a UNIX-alike, it will run most OSS that can also be run on... oh, Linux, *BSD, Solaris, blah blah blah. That's a lot of choices. Sure there will be some non-OSS software, but if Apple is serious about the IT de
    • Most big IT vendor's are very secretive about their future's. But having worked for large IT shops in the past I can tell you there's a little thing called an NDA. After you sign one of these, future's become clearer... sort of...

      Most of the time you get a lot of information about a lot of future products. The problem is that somewhere south of 50% of those products ever see the light of day, and your left asking: "What happened to so and so product? I really liked that one" Usually the response is som

    • Re:But will they be less secritive? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by larkost ( 79011 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @09:46AM (#11320475)
      1. Windows isn't a vendor lock in? And with the exception of some binary-only ODBC drivers I really haven't run into much that dosenot compile on PPC for linux and OpenBSD/NetBSD (not to mention Darwin). The problems are comparable to the myrid of problems when you start to look over the different linux distro's out there.

      Apple has always made it a point to be interoperable with as much as they can, so you are not really "locked in" to a single platform like Windows tries to do. Apple computers have read PC disks for well over a decade, and PC's still don't read Mac disks. Who is locking you in?

      Apple's major software has always been cross-platform: AppleWorks, QuickTime, WebObjects, iTunes (ok, a subset of QuickTime). And they tend to use standards far more than Microsoft (thus mitigating lock-in).

      2. Care to tell me what will be coming out from Dell in 6 months? Can you give me their price-list? Or are you talking about the features of Longhorn... or it's ship date? How useful is that information when you know it is not going to be remotely close to true.

      People expect things out of Apple that they don't expect out of other companies (or fool themselves into thinking they are getting).

      3. The G4's were out for a while... Apple just moved the marketing name to G5 now. There were several different versions of the G4 processor in there. Just like there is a long list of very different processors that bear the Pentium 4 name... that too is simply a marketing name (and also don't fit in the same [processor sockets/slots).

      If you are talking about service hardware, Apple has a service department that keeps on-hand hardware for a long time. While working for a repair shop I was always amazed at the old stuff that we could get. It cost a lot... but if you need it it is there.

      And lets be honest. Do you think that a 4 year old Dell motherboard is more easily replaced than an Apple board? It is just as specific. The hard drives, memory, and processors (look at the Mac upgrade market) and all just as available (since they are mostly the same parts). And the graphics cards may have a smaller selection, but they are readily available.

      The 4-10 years between upgrades is going to make Mac's much more valuable... they tend to last better than PC's (both from a usability and a durability standpoint). Just look at schools for that, they are using ancient Apple hardware next to brand new PC hardware... guess which gets more maintenance calls?

      The real reason that IT has not made the switch is inertia. The people in IT have their certifications from Microsoft... that is why they got the job. They don't know anything about maintain an Apple computer, and it would be work to educate themselves. So even if the results would be better, they don't feel the need to do so, and have some incentive to try and prevent it.

    • Vendor Lock in: When you switch to Apple for an IT strategy you will be stuck with it. And switching to an other platform is expensive.

      How is this less true for any other platform? It's not like Linux has dismantled the MS monopoly overnight, and it's not like Linux is cheap enough (despite being free) to have people defecting in droves.

      With Windows and Linux you can buy whatever hardware and still keep the same software, reducing the risk of needing a major upgrade. With apple you are stuck with

    • I'll only do it with the first one, buy you get the idea:
      • Vendor Lock in: When you switch to MS for an IT strategy you will be stuck with it. And switching to an other platform is expensive. Sure right now MS is making good quality products but down the line some other platform may exceed the quality in a large scale. Much like Windows of the Early to Mid 90s where the Win3.1 while once was top of the line started to be come antiquated, and just couldn't adapt to today needs wheel. You buy MS most likely
    • When you switch to Apple for an IT strategy you will be stuck with it.

      I've seen this comment a lot with regard to apple. Me personally, I don't get it. You aren't ever "stuck" with something. You choose what you choose. If you're going to regret it before you even try it, then you'll never be happy, because no product/solution/etc. is ever perfect. It's pretty simple, really. You weigh the pros and cons, and if apple seems like the best solution, then you choose apple. If you're feeling that apple isn't f

    • Short life cycles: Wow those G4 Powermacs didn't last long. And when their supplies run out that is the end of them other then buying them used on ebay.

      Which is still better than Dell offers today. More companies buy from Dell than anyone else.They have very good prices, but if you order 200 desktops (as companies I worked for have done in the past) you have no guarantee that what is inside all the cases is the same. We had not only different hard drives, but completely different network cards show up i

  • Welcome Apple (Score:3, Funny)

    by p0 ( 740290 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:46AM (#11319900)
    Dear Apple,

    Welcome to the field of Information Technology. Heh.
  • Apple had IT tracks at the last couple of WWDCs as well. Too bad that the main focus was Windows/AD compatibility and integration and not anything unique to Apple's platform.

    --saint

  • Shame (Score:4, Insightful)

    by (shea48) ( 676627 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @08:58AM (#11320013)
    I have supported Apple products for years and have always had problems with the quality and amount of documentation Apple creates. Just for curiosity I went to the new section http://www.apple.com/itpro/ [apple.com] and clicked on their featured article "Integrating MacOSX and Active Directory." This page is a sales pitch. It clearly explains that OS X is capable of authenticating to AD, but offers no advice on how to set up that authentication. Next to this sales pitch are several links to the websites of enthusiast and Apple employees who have developed documentation for Apple products and features in their personal time. I think it is shameful that Apple has to link to enthusiast sites for concise documentation of their products. Apple has never done a good job of creating useful documentation. To defend Apple, the do provide a link to their 190 page PDF detailing Open Directory and it is required reading for true professionals. But for questions regarding specific issues or general questions, it can be amazingly difficult to find the information you need. I have become accustom to searching independent Mac resources before I turn to Apple for information. Hopefully, this will change with the new IT Pro focus. Shea

    • Re:Shame (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Definately Apple falls even behind Linux for proper documentation.

      I was trying to develop a simple applescript application so that my users could click on that and have shares mounted automaticly. This was needed because the IT folks were moving around servers so I needed a easy and quick (and temporary) way to have it so that users can log into their network shares quickly.

      It was a most painfull experiance. There were several versions of applescript. Many of the commands were legacy and obsolete and left

      • Re:Shame (Score:3, Informative)

        by rns3 ( 539553 )
        I do work with OS X Server/Client (as well as Solaris and Windows Server). Of the the three, OS X Server is by far the easiest. It is as reliable as Solaris, but without the extra expenses and MUCH better management tools--by better, I mean I can get the task done quicker without having to remember arcane commands.

        As to documentation, I find that if you know where to look (and this can be said of Sun, too) there is a boat load of documentation. The place to start with OS X Server is to go to Apple.com =

      • AppleScript is one area where the documentation is a bit patchy, but it's the only area. Final Cut Express came with a 900 page manual. The Cocoa documentation is superb (although inherited from NeXT to a large extent), as are most of the developer.apple.com docs.

        Your problem with AppleScript is that AppleScript is actually a very simple language, and most of its power comes from the fact it can send messages to other applications. Your problem could be solved either by telling Disk Utility to mount t

      • While I disagree with the statement about Linux in general having better documentation (Apple has no stigma against putting pictures in their documentation; can't say the same about how-tos and most linux books), I do agree that Apple developer documentation is exceptionally bad in some areas. Often, those areas where they have sucky documentation are for C-based API's. It really sucks when you're looking for documentation on QuickTime and you have to refer to a 1997 edition of Inside Macintosh or you need

    • Re:Shame (Score:3, Informative)

      by cozagada ( 848538 )
      This site is for marketing purposes. Use the support for good docs : http://www.apple.com/support The doc you are looking for should be http://images.apple.com/server/pdfs/Windows_Servic es.pdf I just LOVE apple docs, always written like stuff for dummies, not like obscure HOW TOs...

    • Re:Shame (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dragonfly ( 5975 )
      Mike Bombich [bombich.com] is not an "enthusiast", he is an Apple Employee and his tools NetRestore and Carbon Copy Cloner form the basis for Apple's new Setup Assistant and network imaging tools. I have his Apple business card on my desk as I type.
  • Couple weeks ago there was a slashdot article about an interview with Microsoft CIO, and he said his job was easy with regards to which vendor to choose from... they just use everything by Microsoft.

    Makes me wonder, does Apple use all Mac stuff themselves? WebOjects for their website? What about database, do they even have a DB product?

  • WebObjects Please (Score:1, Informative)

    by jimijon ( 608416 )
    WebObjects is absolutely phenomenal Java Framework. About six months ago I started a new development for a hosted web application. After reviewing our choices and budget we opted for WebObjects. Wow where we delightfully surprised. WebObjects Rocks! I cannot tell you how much better it was then other application frameworks I have worked in. Now if Apple would do some marketing there, I could maybe find more jobs using my new tool of choice. Go WebObjects.
  • excluding of course Mac OS X Server?

    I've been looking into setting up a Sparcstation running OpenStep 4.2 here at work as a Netinfo Server, but keep coming across reports of people not being able to connect which is a bit off-putting.

    I'd be willing to use FreeBSD or Linux though if it could be set up easily (and inexpensively!) enough.

    William
    • Why OpenStep on that Sparc?

      I wouldn't suggest running Solaris on it, but I've got a SparcStation 5 that has run both NetBSD and Debian Linux during various times of its life. It's held up like a champ with both OSes as a simple fileserver/gateway.

    • Assuming you have a SPARC32 machine, don't even think about running Linux on it. Linux has completely broken MMU code on SPARC32 (unless it's been fixed recently) and NetBSD is around 50-100% faster (subjectively).

      While you could use NI, OS X supports NIS for account information and it would be a lot simpler to set up a NIS and NFS server on the SS and use that for log on and home directories. That would have the advantage that you can also use it for other *NIX systems. You could also configure Samba

  • Smart! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @10:13AM (#11320754)
    Looks like Apple is trying to capitalize on IT departments' relative unhappiness with Windows. I actually have a Mac at home, and I think it's a great desktop machine. From an admin point of view, you can lock down anything you want, and it's stable. Of course, any advantage regarding spyware and viruses will go away once enough people start using MacOS...right now most hackers can't be bothered. One of the biggest problems we deal with is Windows patch management and virus/spyware control.

    Plus, the good thing about MacOS is that the desktop/window manager is fully mature. Recent advances in the Linux kernel really help the whole plug-and-play thing, but it seems like a unified set of desktop apps or an accepted One True Window Manager is a ways off. It's going to take a Red Hat or an IBM clamping down on feature creep and version control to make that happen.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Apple managed to sneak a few XServes in as departmental file/print servers or other low-end tasks. MacOS is very cool under the hood as well as on the surface.
    • The whole "security through obscurity" argument about Mac OS is pure Redmond FUD. Sure, hackers aren't attracted to Macs yet, and sure, there will be more exploits when they are. However, it is also true that the OS is inherently more secure than Windows. Executing downloaded stuff automatically requires an Admin password, for example, and no one is ever logged in as root. Very few of the global things we see done to Windows are even possible.
    • Let's test your hypothesis-stated-as-fact... assuming that all systems are equally vulnerable, then the number of viruses should be proportional to the market share of those particular systems.

      For instance, let's say that Windows has 92%, Linux has 5%, and OS X has 3% (these numbers aren't right, but since nobody can say with any certainty what the exact percentages are, and these fall into the generally accepted current market share percentages, we'll go with these.

      I'm not going to get real persnicket

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close