Comments on: Leopard on ESX Would Be Nice http://lonesysadmin.net/2008/06/17/leopard-on-esx-would-be-nice/ im in ur data centrz patchin ur serverz Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:17:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Dean Blackburn http://lonesysadmin.net/2008/06/17/leopard-on-esx-would-be-nice/#comment-74350 Dean Blackburn Sun, 06 Jul 2008 01:24:37 +0000 http://lonesysadmin.net/?p=1303#comment-74350 I think it might be prudent to separate the discussion between the desktop and server OS X... As much as I love the 1U Xserves compared to the other hardware in that class, I'd rather pay for more OS licenses and put them on ESX. Having OS X app server hosting for things like Filemaker, as well as the nice Exchange/groupware/OpenDirectory/etc in VM would be a godsend, especially for disaster recovery and failover for SMBs... Also lots of potential for selling "prefab" ESX image bundles. The OS X client OS, however, is something that I have a little more of a problem with. I really like the hardware/software integration on the client side... And I really don't "get" the virtual desktop, at least not yet. I think a lot of my workflow is splitting between the extremely hardware intensive, and the stuff that's all moving to the "cloud" anyway... I'd like to see a more sophisticated MobileMe take this idea further with beautiful renditions/equivalents of the GoogleApps Suite. But whether you agree with me or not on the desktop virtualization issue, I think it's fair to say that Apple has a much stronger ongoing desire to push physical hardware on the desktop side. Keep in mind, too, that OS X Desktop is $129 retail, versus $499-999 for Server - with virtually ALL of the same capabilities/performance under the hood. If I were Apple, I'd definitely want to make sure that my first forays into virtualization on ESX didn't completely undercut my efforts to build on the moderate success of my server-specific OS. Why they're holding off on server virtualization (especially after gutting their internal RAID development to work with partner Promise on a more up to date enterprise-class solution), is really puzzling. In some ways, virtual servers are the zenith of "hardware consistency", which has always been the reason Apple hasn't farmed the OS out to a diverse crew of hardware manufacturers. It's also the most requested OS X Server feature at every conference/developer/IT event hosted by Apple. I'm not sure it'd really even BE Apple if they listened to their customers 100% of the time. But they are taking longer than usual to develop the "Apple-ized" 90-degree solution to this problem. Maybe with Snow Leopard, Bill gone from Microsoft, and a few more technologies in place to help Exchange/AD houses make the switch, they can roll out the VM carpet, say 3-4 days before the Windows Server 7 release. ;) I think it might be prudent to separate the discussion between the desktop and server OS X… As much as I love the 1U Xserves compared to the other hardware in that class, I’d rather pay for more OS licenses and put them on ESX. Having OS X app server hosting for things like Filemaker, as well as the nice Exchange/groupware/OpenDirectory/etc in VM would be a godsend, especially for disaster recovery and failover for SMBs… Also lots of potential for selling “prefab” ESX image bundles.

The OS X client OS, however, is something that I have a little more of a problem with. I really like the hardware/software integration on the client side… And I really don’t “get” the virtual desktop, at least not yet. I think a lot of my workflow is splitting between the extremely hardware intensive, and the stuff that’s all moving to the “cloud” anyway… I’d like to see a more sophisticated MobileMe take this idea further with beautiful renditions/equivalents of the GoogleApps Suite.

But whether you agree with me or not on the desktop virtualization issue, I think it’s fair to say that Apple has a much stronger ongoing desire to push physical hardware on the desktop side. Keep in mind, too, that OS X Desktop is $129 retail, versus $499-999 for Server - with virtually ALL of the same capabilities/performance under the hood. If I were Apple, I’d definitely want to make sure that my first forays into virtualization on ESX didn’t completely undercut my efforts to build on the moderate success of my server-specific OS.

Why they’re holding off on server virtualization (especially after gutting their internal RAID development to work with partner Promise on a more up to date enterprise-class solution), is really puzzling. In some ways, virtual servers are the zenith of “hardware consistency”, which has always been the reason Apple hasn’t farmed the OS out to a diverse crew of hardware manufacturers. It’s also the most requested OS X Server feature at every conference/developer/IT event hosted by Apple.

I’m not sure it’d really even BE Apple if they listened to their customers 100% of the time. But they are taking longer than usual to develop the “Apple-ized” 90-degree solution to this problem. Maybe with Snow Leopard, Bill gone from Microsoft, and a few more technologies in place to help Exchange/AD houses make the switch, they can roll out the VM carpet, say 3-4 days before the Windows Server 7 release. ;)

]]> By: Bob Plankers http://lonesysadmin.net/2008/06/17/leopard-on-esx-would-be-nice/#comment-74303 Bob Plankers Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:39:28 +0000 http://lonesysadmin.net/?p=1303#comment-74303 Um, no. Their Intel hardware is where it's at, to the extent Apple is where it's at at all. Um, no. Their Intel hardware is where it’s at, to the extent Apple is where it’s at at all.

]]> By: Matt Simmons http://lonesysadmin.net/2008/06/17/leopard-on-esx-would-be-nice/#comment-74301 Matt Simmons Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:07:12 +0000 http://lonesysadmin.net/?p=1303#comment-74301 Hi! Can I interest you in 12 XServes (all G4-G5 headless node servers?). They're worthless to me now. They were semiworthless when they were new. I appreciate what Apple was trying to do, but OSX is awful as a server OS in a heterogeneous environment. The administration is ghastly, the standard Unix compatibility is non-existent, and I'm not sure who's idea it was to use headless displays without CDROMS, having to turn your server into a firewire drive in order to reinstall the OS was a Bad Idea(tm). Sorry, touchy subject for me. Hi! Can I interest you in 12 XServes (all G4-G5 headless node servers?).

They’re worthless to me now. They were semiworthless when they were new. I appreciate what Apple was trying to do, but OSX is awful as a server OS in a heterogeneous environment. The administration is ghastly, the standard Unix compatibility is non-existent, and I’m not sure who’s idea it was to use headless displays without CDROMS, having to turn your server into a firewire drive in order to reinstall the OS was a Bad Idea(tm).

Sorry, touchy subject for me.

]]>