Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Fake Your Own .Mac Server 257

Posted by CmdrTaco from the isn't-that-useful dept.
c13v3rm0nk3y writes "A clever fellow named Otto Moerbeek has publish a short article on getting an OpenBSD box to emulate a .Mac server. Using Apache/DAV/SSL and a roll a duct-tape, he describes how you can get most .Mac functionality without paying Apple for it." This is useful because then you can use apple's backup tools to backup to a local server, and not have to backup over your piddly internet connection.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fake Your Own .Mac Server More

Fake Your Own .Mac Server

Comments Filter:

  • Otto Morebeer? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nice name for a geek.

  • I wonder.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Suppafly ( 179830 ) <slashdot@s[ ]afly.net ['upp' in gap]> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:02PM (#4638082)
    I wonder how many comments will get posted here before Apple cease and desists them.
  • Am I the only one who thinks that it is just a little bit irresponsible to publish an article that condones the use software without paying for it? Granted this is a sort of grey area since some people would argue that you're paying for .Mac instead of for the backup software itself but the backup software is designed to be used with the .Mac service so using it without paying Apple is akin to piracy.

    The Slashdot community normally champions the cause of Free Software but ordinarily they limit themselves to legitimate Free Software a la Open Source. I think it is shameful to openly encourage software piracy like this.

    • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:3, Informative)

      by budGibson ( 18631 )
      Actually, I agree with the post just above this. Apple is giving away software, basically because it is *not* the value-added portion of the service. The value-added portion of their service is the provision of a back-up location and other niceties. This article is not how to steal those. Rather it is about how to use their value-less software to your own ends, while *still using their hardware*.

    • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kalak ( 260968 )
      This isn't condoning the use of software without paying for it, it's giving a user a choice of "vendors" including users being a vendor themselves. If this were Microsoft that were being run-around, you'd probably say that it'd be a great thing. By Apple using open standards (the kind of thing /. has been clamoring vendors to do for ages now), they are allowing this as an option.

      Apple has a feature built into their OS. If you like that feature, you have to:
      1. Pay for their hardware
      2. Pay for their OS
      3. Find a service to use for .Mac.

      It's not like they're not getting any money in the deal here. Last I heard #1 & #2 were how Apple has been making it's bread & butter for years now. I'm glad Apple has let this happen, since I don't want to back up my notebook over a slow connection and rely on their server. I'd rather use a LAN, my server and my tape drive to provide extra backups. That's part of the reason I bought OS X. (read: Paid Apple Money for the software.)
      • Apple has written software to be used with their .Mac service. The cost of the software is included in the price of the service. When you use the software without paying for the service you are, in effect, pirating the software. You may justify this in your own mind by claiming that the price of the hardware and the OS should entitle you to the use of the .Mac backup software but that's not how it was intended. The backup software is not a part of the OS. It is not included with the computer. It is a download available to .Mac users. It has built-in safegaurds to prevent use by people who do not pay for a .Mac subscription. By circumventing these mechanisms you are pirating the software.

        Now, I'm not going to chide anybody for software piracy itself. What I am doing is pointing a finger at Slashdot for promoting the act. If you choose to pirate software, there's nothing anybody can do about it short of a lawsuit but when you openly encourage others to pirate software, you have crossed the line of ethical behavior.
        • So by using my AOL cd as a coaster, I'm essentially stealing from AOL because I'm using something that they *gave* me in a way for which it was not intended? If you don't want me to use something, then don't give it to me.

        • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by medeii ( 472309 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:50PM (#4638362)

          This is patently false.

          Apple has written software to be used with their .Mac service. The cost of the software is included in the price of the service.

          No, because the software in question is not delivered upon payment for its associated service. It is delivered upon payment for a different product -- it's a bundle, obviously.

          When you use the software without paying for the service you are, in effect, pirating the software.

          Actually, anyone who does this is simply using the software they own (it came with OS X, and they bought that, right?) in a manner inconsistent with its design. That's not illegal! Requisite analogy: A car manufacturer sells cupholders emblazoned with the Coca-Cola logo. Is it then [sarcasm]piracy[/sarcasm] to use said cupholders to hold a Dr. Pepper, or worse yet, your own no-name water bottle?

          You may justify this in your own mind by claiming that the price of the hardware and the OS should entitle you to the use of the .Mac backup software but that's not how it was intended.

          I don't give a flying fsck about intentions. Apple created a product and bundled it with their operating system; I bought the operating system, and thus I've purchased that product legitimately. It is not their business how I use that product; it's mine, and I don't remember reading a EULA that forbade me to use it with another service. (Even if it did, this comes pretty close to Connectix/Sony for obvious reasons.) As such, I am more than welcome to use my purchase any way I want, even if it means in a way that it's not intended to be used.

          The backup software is not a part of the OS. It is not included with the computer. It is a download available to .Mac users. It has built-in safegaurds to prevent use by people who do not pay for a .Mac subscription. By circumventing these mechanisms you are pirating the software.

          Yes, a .Mac subscription from Apple. But the poster is not cheating Apple; he's not accessing their servers and using their services. And because he's not using THEIR servers, there's no reason that he should pay them anything.

          • Actually, anyone who does this is simply using the software they own (it came with OS X, and they bought that, right?) in a manner inconsistent with its design.

            Here is where your argument is flawed. The software does NOT come with OSX. You get the backup software when you sign up for the .Mac service. You can download it when you sign up for the free trial account but the software disables itself when your trial account expires. By tricking the software into running after the account's expiration (by setting the trialAccountDaysLeft = -1) you are bypassing the subscription model of the software.

            I don't give a flying fsck about intentions. Apple created a product and bundled it with their operating system;

            Hello? Is your IQ above 40? The software is NOT bundled with the operating system. The software is bundled with the .Mac subscription which you are expected to PAY FOR. If it was bundled with the OS, you might have a leg to stand on. But it isn't. You have to sign up for the .Mac service in order to get the software. When your subscription ends, so does your right to use the software.

            Yes, a .Mac subscription from Apple. But the poster is not cheating Apple; he's not accessing their servers and using their services. And because he's not using THEIR servers, there's no reason that he should pay them anything.

            This is ridiculous. So people should be free to use whatever software they want without paying the author as long as they aren't using any of the author's other services? Apple put money into developing the software with the SOLE intention of it being used by paying subscribers to their service. As I pointed out, they even went so far as to make the software disable itself if you stop paying for their service. Someone found a way to disable the subscription check by spoofing server information. That doesn't make it legitimate. It's like software that generates CD keys. Just because it is possible to run Windows without paying for it doesn't mean it's legal. Just because it's possible to run the .Mac backup software without paying for it doesn't mean it's legal either.

            But you're out to get something for nothing and that's an attitude you just can't argue with. You feel entitled to something that someone else made and there's just no persuading you otherwise.

            • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:2, Insightful)

              by medeii ( 472309 )

              And here's where you're wrong:

              You assumed that my argument referred solely to the backup program, and that it is only accessed by downloading software. I can tell you, right now, that when I booted my eMac for the first time one of the Applications sitting on my system was Backup, and it was designed to work with .Mac. Furthermore, even if the Backup program was only accessed via downloading, there are still plenty of other parts of .Mac that do not require a download; to make things even better, go read the license yourself and eat your post. The user is not obligated to fulfill Apple's intentions by downloading the software, and since nothing in the license explicitly prohibits using an alternate server, people are well within their rights to bypass Apple entirely.

              Please, tell me how that's illegal.

      • Let's not cloud the issue with facts... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        From the Apple iCal website:

        "Publishing calendars on the Internet requires a .Mac membership or a WebDAV server. "

        So Apple expects, condones, and appreciates what Morebeer has done.

    • Correct me if I am wrong but (Score:4, Insightful)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris...travers@@@gmail...com> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:15PM (#4638184) Homepage Journal
      Isn't interoperability considered fair use in copyright law (Patent milage may vary). IANAL, however.

      I would assume that the author of the parent post is opposed to SAMBA and the SAMBA Howto information ;)

      (I confess, I don't use Samba anymore-- without Windows systems it sort of loses its appeal ;))
      • Fair use only applies to products you have paid for. The backup software is intended only for people who have paid for .Mac services. Now if the story had been written in a way that suggested that the work-around was for people who have already paid Apple for .Mac and want an alternative method to backup their system then I would say kudos. But read carefully, it says, "...get most .Mac functionality without paying Apple for it." It implies that the intent of the tutorial is to avoid paying Apple.

        The software is a premium designed to be used only by subscribers to the .Mac service. That is why there is a check built in to the software to verify your account status, etc.
        • Hey, cloudscout! Here's a dead horse, now beat it.
          The check is in the server to prevent people from using theirserver without paying.
          Do you know how many people are going to do this instead of using .Mac? None. The guys that are going to do this are the ones which have absolutely no intention of paying anyone to backup their data. Macs are not generally targetted at geeks, but mostly business users. The geeks that have macs are going to back up data in either the easiest or the hardest, most obscure way they can find. This case just happens to be the latter which turned into the former.

          Suck it up, nobody's buing this "You're stealing" shit. Especially on the third post about it.
      • You're under the false assumption that the backup software is a part of Mac OS X, though. It isn't. The software is offered only to .Mac subscribers. Using it without subscribing to .Mac is piracy.

    • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Emugamer ( 143719 )
      I think there is a difference here. This isn't stealing software, Someone already paid for Mac OSX and the apple hardware, this is replicating a service locally. You aren't getting a service for free ala directv card hacking, you are using your own server to provide the service instead of the companies, much like replacing windows update with your own -less broken version ( does anyone not block those ip/dns addresses?)

    • Re:Irresponsible? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Samosmatiker ( 199857 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:20PM (#4638505)
      From the author's main page:
      Is this illegal? As far as I know, it is not. I am not changing Backup, I am only changing the environment in which it runs. I am not trying to hack the iDisk or .Mac servers. The license does not even mention a .Mac subscription. While technically easy, I am not offering this as a service to the public. I've written these pages only to educate, showing that Apple has taken a short cut to proper server authentication.
    • Well, there is a legitimate use for this information - you might well want to backup a number of machines against your own server - so I think this is ok. Assuming you own the machines and have a ".Mac" account.

      Apple suggest using their service to sync your laptop, home Mac and office Mac - so I don't see an issue installing "Backup.app" on all the Macs you own. Anyone know if I'm reading this correctly?
    • Granted this is a sort of grey area since some people would argue that you're paying for .Mac instead of for the backup software itself but the backup software is designed to be used with the .Mac service so using it without paying Apple is akin to piracy.

      Speaking as someone who shelled out money for .Mac, I don't want my data going on Apple's servers... so this helps me without reducing the money Apple gets. Piracy? Or Fair use?

      Of course, I've long been hoping that they'd roll out ".Mac for Corporations", or something, to push OS X Server. Sell you the software they use in .Mac (IMAP, DAV, web publishing, the whole bit), and let you provide the .Mac service to employees/clients/whatever. If it were per-seat, but cheaper than .Mac, they'd make money hand over fist because it was cheaper for end users and cheaper for Apple (and we IT guys would be able to eat the hardware cost pretty easily, too, because we wouldn't have as many clients as Apple).

  • Open servises. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Space Coyote ( 413320 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:06PM (#4638102) Homepage
    This kind ofstuff is great. Appletakes advantage of open protocols like webDAV to implement their services, and they'll still make lots of money off of .Mac. But for those who want to put in the time and have a spare machine lying around they can now get a lot of the advantages of .Mac, which might entice them to buy a new mac where they wouldn't have if it meant forking over for .Mac.

    I'm sur eApple saw this coming, and if they really wanted to prevent it they would have just added an authentication mechanism or something to block unauthorized servers.

    • Re:Open services. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Cardbox ( 165383 )
      Yes, it seems very reasonable for Apple to leave the possibility open and not block it. That way they don't deprive their expert users of a useful facility, but at the same time they don't have to document, explain, support... something that gives them no revenue and would be hell to support anyway because it involves non-Apple machines.
    • If Apple sold the .Mac clients as a client-suite, they would have to commit publically to open protocols, not merely use them. The way it is, they can change things around whenever they like and leave any intranet that has come to rely on them high-and-dry. And change around things they can because of the update pipeline that every Internet-connected Mac more-or-less has to subscribe to.

      But Apple probably will never commit to using specific protocols that because then third parties could make a business of offering .Mac services for a fraction of Apple's service. And intranets and corporate users would end up using their own internal servers.
    • This kind ofstuff is great. Appletakes advantage of open protocols like webDAV to implement their services, and they'll still make lots of money off of .Mac.

      It's still counterproductive. Consider the following business model:
      1. Invest time and money in the development of a commercial product that uses an open protocol
      2. Wait for some random hacker to reverse engineer the product from his parent's basement and give it away for free
      3. Profit!!!

      Or, not. If the Open Source community wants to encourage the use of open protocols, this isn't the way to do it - unless the intention all along was just to make it easier to wait for a commercial entity to create a product then clone it.

  • Neat but... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by MNJavaGuy ( 619805 )
    How long do you think it will take Apple to crush this little workaround? On a side note, this would be an excellent backup solution for medium sized companies using Macs. Is there a way to get it to work on mixed Windows/Mac networks? A Windows backup client that would work with this?
    • Windows backup:

      Mount smb share
      find invent -print | cpio -oBcv >/dev/rStp0
      umount smb share.

    • Re:Neat but... (Score:3, Informative)

      by tres ( 151637 )
      Apple can't "crush" this workaround. Once you have the software, you can use it. And you can use any WebDAV capable client to access your "iDisk" server.

      Yep, it would be pretty easy to do this on a Windows/Mac network, if Windows actually handled WebDAV folders as well as, say OS X, or Mandrake Linux. But since Microsoft has decided that WebDAV filesystems are neither web-pages or mountable filesystems, you can't really automate backups to WebDAV servers with your Windows machines. In WindowsXP you can do something like this, so long as you have a server that understands Microsoft's perversion of WebDAV.

      Someday Microsoft might "innovate" real WebDAV mounts into the filesystem (think flying pigs now), but until then, they are only good for point-and-click uses.

      It would be extremely easy to write a batch file to do this if you could mount the remote WebDAV server (like you can with a mac). After you write your batch file, you could just set up a scheduled task to copy the files over to the WebDAV server (basically what the Backup utility makes so easy).

      If you can use OS X or Mandrake Linux (probably other distros to--but I can't say for sure) you can have this functionality right now.

    • Re:Neat but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @07:57PM (#4639322) Journal
      Is there a way to get it to work on mixed Windows/Mac networks?

      I always hate hearing this... IT'S A FRIGGIN' UNIX BOX!!! You can set it up to do anything a Unix box can do.

      You can have it e-mail an obscene message to Apple or Microsoft when the backup finishes. You can have it DoS slashdot.com every five minutes. You can have it insert a different virus into each file after the backup has finished... You can do anything with it that you can do with Unix.

      In conclusion: IT'S A FRIGGIN' UNIX BOX!!!
  • before the author's served with a DMCA complaint (q.v. the threat against the dealer that provided a patch to allow Mac users to use the iDVD software they paid for with an external burner). Get the information while you can.
  • ...getting a fixed IP costs way more than a .mac account.

    • Re:Too bad... (Score:5, Funny)

      by platypus ( 18156 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:14PM (#4638175) Homepage
      ...getting a fixed IP costs way more than a .mac account.

      Well, I can sell you 192.168.0.1 really cheap, just mail me you kredit card number.

      Livetime access granted.

    • Re:Too bad... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Znonymous Coward ( 615009 )
      You don't need one, just use dyndns.org
    • getting a fixed IP costs way more than a .mac account

      You don't need a static IP, or at least you do not need a routable one. Unless, or course, you intend to serve .Mac to a bunch of friends on different networks. The point of the article was to make a local .Mac-like server for iCal, and iDisk access.

      Remember, you always have 10.x, 192.x and friends to play with all you want at home. This article interests me because I have a stable of Macs on my internal network. Implementing this means that it is trivial to get folks to do regular backups, publish calendars and such without having to install any new software.

      It's all about leveraging existing Apple software with open standards.

  • Magic Number (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Inthewire ( 521207 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:10PM (#4638145)
    According to the article you need to configure your server to return trialAccountDaysLeft = -1 How long before Apple changes that variable name, or obfuscates it somehow?
    • Or, in the next build of OSX pushed out through software update, they'll make it check for an Apple SSL certificate. Now that can be patched, but they'd use the DMCA to quash it.

  • I'm all for the BSDs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by (Not)Hellbourne ( 601754 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:11PM (#4638148)
    ....but I think it should be noted that this doesn't depend on any BSD specific stuff, and can (pretty much, gotta get that https server up) just as easily be done under the /. championed linux.

  • We need more fake servers (Score:5, Funny)

    by Istealmymusic ( 573079 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:11PM (#4638150) Homepage Journal
    I like this idea. So we can emulate .Mac [drijf.net] servers, BNETD [bnetd.org] servers, advertising servers [smartin-designs.com], Cydoor [cexx.org] servers, and even :CueCat [ultradrive.com] servers. Setting up independent servers has the obvious advantage of being independent from an ultimate authority, decentralizing the service and making it more useful to the Internet community. So I ask Slashdot, what commericial or otherwise propertiary server will be reverse-engineered and cloned next? My vote is in for an Oscar/TOC [aim.com] server so one could use AOL-IM to communicate with one's LAN.

  • We need a new mod option... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:13PM (#4638170)
    "-2, didn't read article". :)

  • Another trick: Using iSync without .Mac (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ford Fulkerson ( 223443 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:16PM (#4638190)
    Jeremy Beker [confusticate.com] has more informations about using iSync to syncronize calenders, addresses, etc. without using .Mac

  • How about this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <nokrog>> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:19PM (#4638213)
    I am more interested in figuring out how to make a PC (Linux, Windows or whatever) appear as a mac to .Mac. Of course the other way is cool too! :)
  • Does this mean it will be down half the time and slow as hell?

  • Duct tape? (Score:4, Funny)

    by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris...travers@@@gmail...com> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:27PM (#4638254) Homepage Journal
    "A clever fellow named Otto Moerbeek has publish a short article on getting an OpenBSD box to emulate a .Mac server. Using Apache/DAV/SSL and a roll a duct-tape, he describes how you can get most .Mac functionality without paying Apple for it."

    Is it just me or is anyone else trying to figure out what the duct tape is for?

  • No Duct Tape? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kscguru ( 551278 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:29PM (#4638266)
    Am I the only one who was disappointed that he DIDN'T actually use a roll of duct tape?

    Really. I wanted to see an innovative use of duct tape on a Mac.

    Lousy Slashdot editors. Convincing me to read a story when there's actually no duct tape involved.

  • Woohoo! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:43PM (#4638326)
    Now I can charge myself $99 a year!

  • .Mac's security is bad (Score:5, Informative)

    by slamb ( 119285 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:43PM (#4638327) Homepage
    I saw this in the article:

    A self signed certificate will do, since Backup does not check the certificate.

    That's really bad. It means that anyone can launch a man-in-the-middle attack against someone using .Mac for backup purposes. I'm sure people are using .Mac to backup their Quicken financial data and other things they'd consider sensitive.

    I hope Apple fixes that...I'd be pretty pissed if I were a .mac user.

  • O'Reilly Did It First (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WatertonMan ( 550706 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:45PM (#4638337)
    Actually O'Reilly had a set of instructions for putting together something like a .Mac server quite a while ago. Admittedly it wasn't as comprehensive in mimicking .mac as this article is. But a lot of the functionality was the same.

    The fact is that a lot of people want .Mac functionality but with a little bit more control on their part. I think that Apple may initially fight this but eventually will be forced to allow user controlled .Mac servers. Hell, perhaps they'll see it as an opportunity and sell a XServe.Mac.

  • ok, what about the rest? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @04:53PM (#4638377) Journal
    It's hardly emulating a .mac server. What about the other stuff? How can I upload my iCal to it and have it magically generate the calendar html files? How can I publish my iPhoto stuff and have it build all the web pages that puts it all together and lets me manage the web account?

    ok, it's faking one bit of it so you can make backup work.

    I'm one of those that thinks .mac is a decent value and paid my money for it. I also find it ironic that Microsoft has yet to find any .Net services that people want to buy. MSN 8? I still haven't figured out what you get with MSN 8 that is so special. Spam filtering? You could do much better and get better filtering results by spending $30/year on a spamcop.net e-mail account.

    I originally thought that .mac was a cheesy ripoff of the .net name, but now I am loving the irony of Apple ripping off a Microsoft idea instead of the other way around.

    • I can't speak for the iPhoto stuff, but PHP iCalendar handles iCal quite nicely. You can find it here:

      http://phpicalendar.sourceforge.net/nuke/

      For instructions on setting up WebDAV to play well with iCal see this:

      http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200 20 912065811863

      In many respects it's actually better doing this from your own server, letting you customize a lot more than .Mac does.

  • Big Whoop (Score:4, Informative)

    by maggard ( 5579 ) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Sunday November 10, 2002 @05:04PM (#4638437) Homepage Journal
    1. This backup trick has been well known/well documented amongst Mac-folks for awhile now. It hasn't been earth-shaking news even though it has finally hit Slashdot. Doubtless Apple's folks have read the same reports and to date haven't changed anything.

    2. However there likely will indeed be a change to the authentication in the future. As the hack's author writes Apple's current method really is pretty lame and better ones should have been used from the start. At that point it'll be stick with the old backup client or go with the current and more secure/featureful.

    3. For all the sheep bleating on about Apple cease-&-desisting this etc. Apple has litigated to protect their trade dress, not this sort of material. After awhile repeating that same sort of foolishness just becomes trolling and unworthy of "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters"

    4. While this is indeed a clever hack to make the backup function work to other servers it doesn't replicate .Mac, there's a whole lot more to it then that. Among other things it does offer WebDAV, software distribution, good website templates, virus-scanning, an excellent webmail client, superlative integration with their Mail client, IMAP, and of course ties throughout their OS. Whether or not it's worth what Apple is charging is worth suffering the limitations Apple has imposed (unannounced/uncontrollable email filtering, undefined bandwidth quotas, less-then-impressive availability, poorly implemented "family accounts") is open to question.

    5. Also note that this whole thing is a bit of a pain to enable for a somewhat useful utility. It prevents the Mac(s) from connecting to Apple's .Mac and frankly there are equally good or better backup methods. Again, clever hack but hardly useful as a serious long-term solution.

    • The thing that's unforgivable about .Mac is that Apple discontinued free iTools: Apple had advertised that "every new Mac comes with free iTools services", implying that this was a regular part of their customer service and support, not with "three months of free iTools services".

      If you think this is legitimate, maybe Apple will next start charging for iTunes. They can wipe it from your disk any time they please (through one of their software updates), and they never promised you that you could keep using it for free. Or maybe the whole OS will just stop working on Jan 1 2003--nobody ever guaranteed that you could keep using it indefinitely.

  • I don't know anything about .Mac, but if the main point is backups and file synchronization, why is proprietary software necessary? Hfspax [mac.com] works great for archiving files without losing their macintosh resource fork, and unison [upenn.edu] is a wonderful file syncrhonization that I use to sync up my various Linux and MacOS X accounts.
  • Can anyone who knows of other free imap email accounts please list them here? Apple cut off my Mac.com email account after twice asking them not to, and since they have chosen to wrap up Mac.com email accounts with .Mac and charge me $160 for one useful email account and a bunch of other completely useless services, I would like to see what sort of other IMAP accounts are out there, preferably ones that can be interfaced with Outlook Express.

    Thanks.
  • You know, this isn't really giving you all of the functionality of .Mac. Some of us aren't HTML-fluent, and this doesn't let you use the homepage programs (which made me a much nicer page for my newborn than the ATT Broadband tools did). I'm sure that here on Slashdot most people will scoff at this, but I personally find it to be the best way to build a relatively nice looking place to post movies, pictures, sounds, etc. for the grandmother to download... and those of you with children will most assuredly agree this is a big deal.
    • You know, if you really wanted to, you could just spend the next 2-3 hours and learn html.
      When there are 8-year-old kids who can pick it up at summer camp over the course of 3 days, you should be able to handle it.

      A place to start: HtmlGoodies [htmlgoodies.com]
    • That's why this is not a threat to .Mac - people like you who can see the added value of using the paid service that Apple is offering.
      (Not to mention using Apple's incredible bandwidth to store the 50MB quicktime movie of the kids...)

      This is just a sort of neat hack for those of us who like this kind of stuff...
  • There are lots of neat things that .mac does (I paid my $50), but it'd be great if I could do them locally. Backup is a HUGE one - 100Base-T is a lot better than DSL! But being able to use the pretty slick webmail for my own mail domain would be very useful as well, instead of having to forward to my mac.com address. Local iCal would be very nice as well.

    I can certainly understand why Apple doesn't want to make these available everywhere for free, but it'd be great if MacOS X Server 10.3 or whatever made it possible to provide some .mac services to my local users. Sure, there are variety of ways to hack it together, but if it all "just worked" that'd be better yet.

    This would certainly give me a reason to pay $1K to upgrade from the 10.1.5 server I'm running right now.

    And on an unrelated note, 10.3 REALLY should include a graphical DNS admin. It's really jarring to have all these great, simple controls for the whole server experience, except DNS. Webmin works, but still, that's hardly the MacOS X vision!

    • But being able to use the pretty slick webmail for my own mail domain would be very useful as well, instead of having to forward to my mac.com address.

      Well, if you use Entourage or Outlook Express, check this out. [rampellsoft.com] It'll give you web-based control of either of those mail apps, as well as iTunes. I haven't given it as thorough a test as i'd like yet, but if it's customizable enough, I'm hoping I can scrap the Entourage web access stuff I've written in AppleScript for my own use.

      ~Philly
    • I'd much rather they spend the time and make Apple Mail Server not suck. Maybe replace it with a GUI for Postfix or something. ;)

      The DNS service works ok, you just need to tinker with vi & the zone files.

      I'm sure they'll add a GUI to DNS eventually. It's been a commonly requested feature for quite a while now.
      • What's wrong with the mail server? My needs aren't complex, but it's been running without a hitch for me for ages.

        As for t"just tinker with via & the zone files," that is rather antithetical to whole reason why I'd use MacOS X Server in the first place! Back in the summer of 1989, I worked at a company that did banking software, and the whole company was on SCO. vi was the standard word processor!

        I'm a pico man now.
        • with AMS? Check out the Mac OS X Server mailing list (at lists.apple.com) archives. The vast majority of users have replaced it with Communigate Pro or Postfix/uw-imap/ipop3d

          *spam filtering is too limited
          *pitiful support for multiple domains
          *no logical way to add server-side mail filtering, like procmail or spamassassin.
          *handles mail like ASIP used to.

          It's fine for a small office, and I have my OS X Server getting mail for 1 subdomain that I've had for years, but now that they're touting it as they are, the mail server could definately use an upgrade.

          And you can still use pico on the zone files! ;) Like I said, I'm pretty sure they'll add some sort of GUI to the DNS server. It's a commonly requested feature and honestly, I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't take a stab at it with the next rev of OS X Server. I'm surprised that 10.2 Server didn't get an upgrade in that realm. At least 10.2 Server got webmail built in. :-)
    • And on an unrelated note, 10.3 REALLY should include a graphical DNS admin. It's really jarring to have all these great, simple controls for the whole server experience, except DNS. Webmin works, but still, that's hardly the MacOS X vision!

      If you want a good, easy to use DNS server, try MyDNS [bboy.net]. It includes a nice PHP based web interface [bboy.net].

  • And for MacOS 9 users... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gorthaur ( 155589 ) on Sunday November 10, 2002 @11:30PM (#4640193)

    Neat. Under MacOS 9 you'll have to use a real WebDAV client (!= Network Browser) such as Goliath [webdav.org]

    In case someone is interested, I created a quick and dirty how-to here [sorviodunum.com]

  • What about iSync ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tjp($)pjT ( 266360 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @01:26AM (#4640631)
    I just want an iSync replacement server instead of .Mac. I find it odd that if I buy a third party handheld, I can sync to it just fine, but I need a .Mac account to sync to my Apple hardware (Powerbook). Doesn't this just discourage Powerbook and iBook sales in favor of PDAs for those people who are borderline (well, that would mostly be iBook sales, but still). Seems an odd approach to marketing to lose some $1000 sales to make a few $100 sales. As my dad was fond of saying, "If it doesn't help make a sale, don't do it!" I'll be waiting for the bean-counters to settle it out with the actuaries.
    • You can sync your PDA and Apple hardware just fine using iSync, you just can't store the synched info on a remote server, unless you hack one up as described in other posts.

  • tsk tsk, rob... old news. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BiOFH ( 267622 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @02:49AM (#4640907)
    this is ancient news (and... didn't you gys already cover the o'reilly version ????).

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close