Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Review - Mac OS X Server 10.3, Part 2 310

Posted by pudge from the stare-at-the-sky dept.
In yesterday's article, I gave an overview of Mac OS X Server, and described some of the features. Read on for some detail of the specific services that Server offers, and the final verdict.

AFP

The first thing I wanted to do was get file serving up, so I selected AFP (Apple Filing Protocol). My files are all on an external 160GB FireWire hard drive. Photos, (legal) MP3s, tons of (legal) file archives, (legal) games, (legal) movies (I swear!). I am usually the only person who needs to connect via AFP, but sometimes other people do, so I want to make sure I set it up the Right Way.

I quickly discovered that Server Admin does not grant control over what is being shared, and with whom. For this, I must venture forth into Workgroup Manager, and set up a Share Point, and define who has access to it. It is fairly intuitive, and a few minutes later, I set it up and am back in Server Admin, where I make sure Rendezvous registration is on, and allow idle clients to sleep for a long time before being disconnected (good for my PowerBook, which is often asleep). I clicked "enable secure connections" and "enable administrator to masquerade as any registered user."

The masquerading is a neat feature: it allows me to type in any user's name and my admin password, and be logged in as that user. It's not something I'd use often, but it could be handy. Some have complained that this is a security hole. If you think it is, then make good use of that checkbox. Note that this is on by default in Client, where there is no apparent way to turn it off.

To turn on the AFP service, like most of the services, I then clicked the green icon with an arrow in it at the top of the window. When it turns into a red button with an X in it, the service has started; to turn it off, I can click the red button.

AFP in Server as the same as what is in Client. The only difference is that in Server, you have many more options for configuration and control of the service. Last I checked, you could do some of this configuration manually in NetInfo, but it is not for the weak-hearted.

And, as mentioned in the last article, the $500, 10-client version of Server is limited to 10 simultaneous clients on AFP. To get around this, pay double for the unlimited version, or use plain old Panther Client.

MP3s

I wish there were a lightweight music server built-in to Server, one that could use less RAM and CPU, that would just serve MP3s. Alas, there is not. So, I set up iTunes for my music sharing. I won't bore you with the details, for more boring details are yet to come.

And heck, now that iPhoto can share too, it'd be nice to have a photo server as well. What I'd really like to see is the ability to modify the photos via sharing, so I can keep them on the server but manage them with my laptop. I'd also like to download MP3s and use shared MP3s from iMovie and iPhoto. But this is not an iLife review, so I shall move on.

Print

To be blunt: Printer Sharing does not work as I need it to -- as it does in Client -- and it is by far the biggest headache with Server, and almost enough, on its own, to make me revert to using plain old Client.

I have two printers to share: a Canon S820 USB inkjet printer, and the internal fax modem. As you may not know, you can share the fax modem in Panther. Just make sure you have printer sharing on, and that you use your fax modem once to "create" the "printer." It will be shared with everyone else on your network just like any other printer, showing up in the "Fax List" in Printer Setup Utility, and in the "Shared Faxes" popup in the Fax dialog box.

That is to say, all this happens if you are using Client to share your fax modem. This does not work if you are using Server.

Nor does the regular USB Printer Sharing work. Server does not use the same mechanism for sharing. The only way to share my printer with the Clients is to go into the Print service, select the printer in Settings -> Queues, and then share it via LPR (optionally turning on Rendezvous discovery as well).

So when I go to use it in the Client, I can see the printer available, but Client doesn't get any driver information for it. It looks to Client like a generic PostScript printer. You can select from a list of CUPS+Gimp-Print drivers, which may or may not work like the original driver, and may or may not be available for your printer.

For some people, print serving in Panther Server might be fine. You can serve printers via LPR (+Rendezvous), Samba, or AppleTalk. You can have quotas, view jobs, cancel or pause jobs, and do cool things. It's a great tool, but I can't use it.

If I want to share my printer I must either use generic drivers, which is unacceptable to me, or use Client or the AirPort Extreme Base Station. I'd never shared a printer with the Base Station before, but I tried it, and it worked. I am sending faxes through my Panther-based MP3 player in the closet (but receiving them through Server). It's a shame that the $500 Server product can't do what Client can do. Maybe Server 10.4 will fix the problem.

FTP

After wasting a lot of time on printing, I picked something simple: FTP. I do backups with Retrospect via FTP, or else I wouldn't even bother. I know, I can do it over AFP too, but I've been using FTP for awhile (I used to do backups to a Linux box), and I just stick with what works. Besides, I need a reason to enable the service for the purposes of the review.

The path setup was a bit awkward at first. I needed access to the file server via FTP, but I didn't want to define it as the FTP server root. I could have set up a symlink to it, of course, but it was already a share point for AFP, so I set FTP to use "Home Directory with Share Points" for authenticated users. This dumped a symbolic link to the FTPRoot in my home directory, and symbolic links to all the share points in the FTPRoot. That'll work.

I turned it on, tested Retrospect with the new path, and it was all good ... unlike printing, which I am still bitter about. Onward and upward. Breathe in, breathe out.

Mail

I often have issues with various SMTP servers, so I decided I should have my own. Server switched over to Postfix from Apple's proprietary server, and Cyrus for POP/IMAP, Mailman for mailing lists ... but I need only SMTP.

I clicked on Settings and selected Enable SMTP, and told it my ISP as relay host. I could send mail directly, but some servers these days don't like mail coming from home boxes. Then I went over to Filters, and to make sure I am not used as a spam relay, I allow only 127.0.0.1/32, 10.0.0.0/22, and 192.168.0.0/24 to send mail.

Now, I just need to add my external hostname to my local host aliases in Advanced, and I am all set. Turn it on, and it works.

This is getting to be fun. Except for printing! (You can't see it, but I am shaking my fist at the sky right now.)

DHCP

Just for fun, I decided to serve DHCP from here too. My hardware router did it before, but I want to have as many services running as I know what to do with. Besides, I'd like more control over IP ranges and such than my little router offers. I do know a little bit about DHCP; I hope it's enough.

I click on Settings, and I add a subnet to the list. Interface en0, start at 10.0.1.200, end at 10.0.1.239. Router -- that which used to distribute IPs -- is 10.0.1.1. Lease time ... a month. Sure, why not? Set up default domain, name server addresses. No LDAP, no WINS. OK, all set turn it on. It works.

I am starting to feel mighty confident, I tell you what. And for the moment, I forget about printing.

DNS

I have a lot of local hostnames on my network. And true, I could use .local to deal with them all, but not all of them are Macs (the horror!), and I like using the same names for my machines when I am outside the LAN. I previously shuffled around hosts files, like we did back in the day. I know not a thing about DNS. Well, now's a chance to learn, right?

Emboldened by recent successes, I bravely clicked on the DNS service and Settings. It asks if I want to allow zone transfers and recursion. Um, I guess so. I feel like a Holiday Inn Express patron.

Then I clicked on Zones, and here's where the real "fun" begins. Again, I know not a thing about DNS. Well, enough that I know what I am looking at, in general. But after playing around a little and reading some online docs about DNS and PTR records and the like, I eventually figured it out. And once I realized what I was doing, the interface made a lot of sense.

OK, I don't feel quite as good about myself as I did before, but still feeling good. Have I the stamina to try Firewall?

Firewall

My router's firewall limitations are more severe than its DHCP limitations. It can only redirect a handful of incoming ports, and set a single default IP. I would like more control than that, so I figured I could set the router to send everything to Server, where Firewall can handle it.

In retrospect, it actually worked well. I have had even less experience with firewalls than with DNS. But I just, for quite awhile, could not get it to work. In Settings, there are default IP address groups, and I selected "10-net" to open all sorts of ports on the local network. But I didn't look closely enough, and it was set up for 10.0.0.x, and all my machines are on 10.0.1.x. Those wasted hours are what I get for using the defaults and not looking at them closely.

Another problem I ran into is that there is a rather handy list of services to allow for the given addresses: merely select an address group, and check the boxes. But the list of services is not configurable, so if I want to do something simple like allow local access for remote Apple events (port 3031), I can't merely hit a checkbox, because it is not already in the list. I need to manually configure that port in the Advanced section.

As it turns out, the Advanced section isn't too bad, even for someone, like me, largely unfamiliar with firewall configuration. Once I figured out my problem with the default 10-net group, the rest went smoothly.

VPN

As I was configuring my firewall I decided to close off everything to the outside world except for a few mostly secure and essential services, and try out VPN for the rest. Most of what I wanted to keep open were for my own sake, when I am away from home with the laptop. So if I just close it all off, then I can use VPN to get access to mail, FTP, even faxing.

I read up a little bit and decided L2TP over IPsec, instead of PPTP, would be best. So I hit a checkbox to enable it, and I restricted access to my personal group ("pudge"). I added a shared secret and added a block of IP addresses.

Then I went into Internet Connect on Client, selected "New VPN Connection" under the File menu, and put in the server address, account name, password, and shared secret. I dialed up on a PPP connection so I could test it, and clicked Connect in the VPN window, and it just worked. Very nice.

Of course, my measly cable modem is slow, so when I was at a coffee house "hot spot" the other day, I could get on the network, but it was excruciating to do anything requiring significant bandwidth. I can't find a way to blame Apple for that, though.

Web

I serve various things from the local web server: MP3s (for downloading MP3 files, since iTunes assumes that is stealing), documentation, books and periodicals, a local CPAN mirror, personal photos, etc.

The web server is serviceable for basic HTML and file serving, but it is a pain to configure. It won't let you put things where you want them in the config files, and sometimes just breaks things.

For example, I want to turn use mod_rendezvous, so I add a couple of RegisterResource directives. They work fine. But the next time I edit my configuration through Server Admin, it removes one of the directives, apparently thinking that I can only have one.

The best thing to do is to use Apache's Include directive and put all the custom configurations in a separate file, wherever possible. Then Server Admin should be less likely to throw its weight around.

And then there's mod_perl, which is severely broken: normal print statements don't work. For some reason, the print() never gets tied properly to $r->print(). Thanks to the always useful macosxhints.com, I found a servicable workaround, though the only proper and decent fix is to get a nonbroken mod_perl build. Once I did this, my custom mod_perl scripts, plus Apache::MP3 and Apache::Pod, seemed to work well.

Also, I set up some directives to Deny services unless the remote address is in 10.0. In the access log, they showed up as 10.0., but in the error log, when denied, the address was 127.0.0.1. I traced this to the Performance Cache, which is turned on by default. I don't need it, so I turned it off.

In figuring this out, I discovered that a side effect of having every client appear to come from 127.0.0.1 is that the mod_status data (at the "server-status" path) was open to the world. The server-status resource is, by default, restricted so that only clients from 127.0.0.1 can access it. I don't think this can be used to directly exploit a system, but it might make private information available, such as client IPs and URLs (which may include session IDs, or other private information). It would be wise to turn off Performance Caching, or lock down your services that may be restricted by IP.

One nice feature is that the Apple-supplied mod_auth_apple uses, in addition to standard htpasswd files, the system user and passwords (if the same user is in both places, with different passwords, either password is acceptable). There's also a mod_sherlock_apple that provides web access to Sherlock content indexes, though I couldn't get this to work, and the documentation wasn't much help.

Hardware Revisited

The initial test machine was the dual G4/1.25 GHz I described earlier, but I also had the opportunity to test it on a dual G5/2 GHz. Man, is that a sweet machine. But my needs are so few, I didn't notice any substantive difference in the serving (though when I was actually working on the machine, or compiling software, or playing games, I noticed huge differences, as one would expect).

I've now got everything set up on a comparatively wimpy PowerBook G3/500. I thought it would squeal and keel over, but it's been stable and plenty fast. The one exception is when I am doing large file transfers: it seems the data moves through the PowerBook pretty slowly. Still, the CPU load stays low all the time, although it sometimes ran out of free memory pretty quickly; once I upped the RAM from 256MB to 640MB, that problem went away.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised: after all, I used to use a 486 for a server, doing mostly the same sorts of things, and this G3 is faster than that was. I expected it to be slower because of the Mac OS X GUI overhead, I think, but Panther's speed improvements over Jaguar, especially for G3s, are probably helping out here. If I had this in a business environment though, I can't imagine anything less than a dual G4.

Verdict

I like Mac OS X Server, and apart from printing, would rather have it than not have it. Server Admin has its problems, but it is worlds better than the Jaguar Server version, and I expect it to continue to improve: more stability, UI fixes, faster response. Maybe it could even integrate more monitoring features, or make Server Monitor work with non-Xserves. What I really want is ProcessViewer to work with remote machines.

I am well aware Server is not geared toward home use, but I was hoping it might, despite the price, be something a lot of home users could benefit from. Maybe as Server improves in its ease of use and security policies are easier to enforce and audit, through Server or third-party software, it can be such a product.

For now, as much as I like Server, the price tag and knowledge requirements keep me from recommending it for home use. I want to say "if you can't figure out this stuff on your own, then buy Server," but if you really lack that ability, then you shouldn't be configuring Server anyway.

For commercial use, however, Server is an excellent product that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend. It can offer the majority of services any business environment needs, for much less than the cost of Windows alternatives, and the man-hours cost saved with Server Admin is worth the price alone.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review - Mac OS X Server 10.3, Part 2 More

Review - Mac OS X Server 10.3, Part 2

Comments Filter:

  • Ayieeee (Score:4, Funny)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:51PM (#8056039) Homepage Journal
    ...(legal) MP3s, tons of (legal) file archives, (legal) games, (legal) movies (I swear!). I am usually the only person who needs to connect...

    I hear the RIAA police on their way now. Shoulda left out that one word....

  • Although it sounds interesting to play around with (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:51PM (#8056041)
    I can't help but feel that the strength of an Apple lies in its desktop features, and that the type of computing muscle necessary to run more than the meekest fileserver would be either more cheaply purchased in PC components or more reliably purchased in IBM iron.

    This strikes me as being a solution in need of a problem. Most people would agree it's far better to hire somebody to install the right server solution than to buy special hardware/software for the sole purpose of making it easier for yourself to do it.

    • Re:Although it sounds interesting to play around w (Score:4, Insightful)

      by superdan2k ( 135614 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:29PM (#8056559) Homepage Journal
      Most people would agree it's far better to hire somebody to install the right server solution than to buy special hardware/software for the sole purpose of making it easier for yourself to do it.

      Have you looked at what networking consultants get paid? As a small business owner, I can't afford that. I'll just buy an XServe and set it up myself.

      In fact, I'll bet you're a consultant...or work for the marketing department of a consulting firm...or you're an alien communist infiltrator. :-)

    • Re:Although it sounds interesting to play around w (Score:5, Informative)

      by wchin ( 6284 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:32PM (#8056607)
      Again, you have to prove that you can find an equivalent cheaper solution. The Apple Xserve G5 compares quite favorably against your common x86 Xeon or Opteron solution, especially if you are going to run Windows of some flavor. Plus, Mac OS X Server is far more approachable for for non-UNIX admins than most Linux distributions as long as what you want to do falls within the GUI. Actually, Mac OS X Server may act as a stepping stone to other UNIX flavors. :)

      Have you priced IBM iron? Or Sun iron? Compared the features, performance, and reliability? For the SMB market, Apple's solutions are quite compelling especially if you are looking at centralized storage.

    • Re:Although it sounds interesting to play around w (Score:5, Informative)

      by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:38PM (#8056668)
      Most people would agree it's far better to hire somebody to install the right server solution than to buy special hardware/software for the sole purpose of making it easier for yourself to do it.

      You just hit the problem on the head. G5 XServe is $2,610.00, IT person's salary is how much? I don't think you will get your IBM box for 3K, or will be able to manage it by itself. PC - well let's just not mention all the "management" software that will install itself unless you keep patching the box.

      Even if you already have an IT department, their time is better spent on supporting users and installing more software rather than mundane tasks like configuring a VPN.

      Me, I don't see who wouldn't want to go with XServe, provided that their application is ported to MacOSX. Maybe companies like Google that have thousands of nodes and calculated that Intel hardware will be cheaper.

    • Re:Although it sounds interesting to play around w (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:38PM (#8056670)
      One of the reasons NT/2000 took off was that people were able to reuse the skills they had gained running their home desktop computers to also run the server. I can see this server taking off in small Apple shops for the same reason.

      Why learn a different platform for the servers if you don't need to?

      TW

    • Re:Although it sounds interesting to play around w (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:59PM (#8056961) Journal
      This strikes me as being a solution in need of a problem. Most people would agree it's far better to hire somebody to install the right server solution than to buy special hardware/software for the sole purpose of making it easier for yourself to do it.

      Most people would refuse to answer this question without in-depth knowledge of a particular situation. At least most of the reasonable ones. It's not that diffucult to imagine a small company with a small network, say - an independent design or advertising studio or an editorial office of a local newspaper - that ALREADY has a Mac network and one guy, who generally services all the dozen-or-so Macs in this network. It might be _more_ feasible to purchase XServe + MacOS X Server and give it to this guy to set up rather than hire an external networking consultant. Obviously, it's not a solution for everyone and I think in many cases indeed it would be cheaper to get someone just to put Linux on any given beige-box; but that's what Apple succesfully does since Steve's return - profitable exploration of niches.
    • What about small businesses, who cannot afford to hire an expert?

    • Re:Although it sounds interesting to play around w (Score:4, Informative)

      by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:29PM (#8057404)
      Well my place of work just dropped $150K on a SAN that dosn't do nearly as well (or hold half as much) as a $15K XServe RAID would.

      Apple hardware is 'heavy metal', all their pro-desktops are workstation-class hardware, and the servers are rock-solid.

      As for file serving, I haven't seen a properly-configured file server have more than 10% CPU load from just serving files in over five years now. File serving for our entire school (over 1000 users, about 2TB data) would be just as fast from the end-user perspective with a 400MHz G3 as it is with our dual-Xeon PIII monster.
    • Ummm... lemme rehash it once more...

      [...]and that the type of computing muscle necessary to run more than the meekest fileserver would be either more cheaply purchased in PC components[...]
      I would not want to sound redundant here, but have you ever heard of VT [vt.edu]? Speaking of "computing muscle", these guys have built the world's third-fastest supercomputer with G5's, for pocket money (as far as supercomputers go). Yeah, Moore's Law and whatever but your statement is definitely arguable nowadays (really a

  • Masquarading a security hole? Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:53PM (#8056079) Homepage
    The masquerading is a neat feature: it allows me to type in any user's name and my admin password, and be logged in as that user. It's not something I'd use often, but it could be handy. Some have complained that this is a security hole."

    Why would this be any more of a security hole than someone being logged in as root and then doing "su - " ?
    • That should have read "su - (username)"
    • Why would this be any more of a security hole than someone being logged in as root and then doing "su - " ?

      Because you don't need to be logged in as anyone to do this. Any user who has access to the machine can do it.

      • Not quite... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:04PM (#8056233)
        Not just any user can masquerade. Only a user who has Admin access can.

        This would be like using "sudo su - username" in Linux or any other place that sudo is installed. In fact, I have a suspicion that this is exactly what happens behind the scenes.

        Is this a security hole? Depends on who you hand Admin accounts to, I guess.

        • Re:Not quite... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hattmoward ( 695554 )
          But there's no audit trail! I know exactly who ran that sudo the moment it's run. That way I can tell if a specific password is compromised.

          If someone masquerades as suzy and puts cusswords in all her docs, who do I blame? Yes, I know, most admins will blame it on network ghosts and not change their admin passwords, but that wouldn't fly with me! I'd have all admin passwords changed and masquerading disabled faster than you can say "Holy backdoors, Batman, look at that Xserve!"

          If i'm using sudo respon
          • > If i'm using sudo responsibly, only few users will have ALL access or access to su. If I have such an incident with sudo,
            > I can find out that jacob was the culprit, and start investigating from there. Masquerading? Better get out your
            > fingerprint kit.

            If you're using the OS responsibly, almost NOBODY should have admin access, and those who do have it should be people you'd trust. Because if someone can sudo, they can dick around with the logs.

            In essence, your audit trail depends upon the pers

          • Re:Not quite... (Score:4, Informative)

            by pudge ( 3605 ) * <slashdotNO@SPAMpudge.net> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @03:47PM (#8058588) Homepage Journal
            No, there is an audit trail, a decent one. This is me logging in as "don" from 10.0.1.177 and copying a file to the server, then deleting it.
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:03 -0800] "Login don" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:09 -0800] "OpenFork .DS_Store" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:29 -0800] "OpenFork .DS_Store" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:32 -0800] "CreateFile bar" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:32 -0800] "OpenFork bar" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:32 -0800] "OpenFork bar" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:32 -0800] "OpenFork bar" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:32 -0800] "OpenFork bar" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:33 -0800] "OpenFork bar" 0 0 0
            IP 10.0.1.177 - - [22/Jan/2004:11:44:35 -0800] "Delete bar" 0 0 0
            What it doesn't say is who I am, where these files are, or that I logged in with an admin password. But it's something.

            But yeah, if I have a group of users, esp. in a business setting, this is a feature I'd turn off.
        • You misunderstand what I meant. What I meant is that anyone on the network can use this feature, whether they are on the machine or not, as long as they have an admin password, whereas with su - username, the person needs to be actually on the machine as a user. It's not a huge difference -- if you have an admin password, chances are you CAN get on the computer as a user -- but it is a difference.
      • Also, should a user choose the same password as you're using for your admin user, they get elevated privileges.
      • Only any user who has your admin passowrd (or an admin account) and if someone has that and is acting maliciously, you have bigger problems than that person loging into Joe User's account.
    • This is not a security hole on your home network but it is definitely a big problem for any organization that needs to do resource auditing. Any organization that handles confidential information is going to want to know exactly who had access to that information and when. Allowing any user, even the administrator, to masquerade as a different user renders auditing useless.
    • Isn't it? It is one thing for the administrator to be able to access anything; it is another for him to be able to do it under the name of another user. In traditional Windows environment, an admin can access pretty much anything, but usually he has to set himself as the owner first. Since one cannot give a file back once it is taken, an administrator cannot for example set someone up acting on his behalf or access people's personal files unnoticed. I think this is better than the god-like root model...
    • Think of "ownership" and "accountability". If the administrator had the right to log in as any user, accountability gets thrown out the window. The administrator would then be able to sabbotage the clients files and the client would "seem" to be accountable. This could be a HUGE security hole in a world where not everyone INSIDE the company can possibly be trusted.

      Think of the opposite, where there can be no Masquarading... if a client creates or edits a file, the file ownership attributes are tagged

  • AFP (Score:4, Informative)

    by RadioheadKid ( 461411 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:56PM (#8056128)
    Just in case you were wondering, I know I was...
    AFP = Apple Filing Protocol

    • Re:AFP (Score:2, Informative)

      by pauljlucas ( 529435 )
      Actually, it's "AppleTalk Filing Protocol."

      • Not According to Apple (Score:5, Informative)

        by RadioheadKid ( 461411 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:41PM (#8057605)
        From the Mac OS X Server Administrator's Guide [PDF] [apple.com] glossary:
        AFP (Apple Filing Protocol) A client/server protocol used by Apple file service on Macintosh-compatible computers to share files and network services. AFP uses TCP/IP and other protocols to communicate between computers on a network.
        • Well, then they changed it. Waaaay back in 1984, it was AppleTalk, complete with its own cabling system and connectors [mac512.com]. At some point, it got renamed to LocalTalk. At some much later point, it was renamed back to AppleTalk and prepended to Filing Protocol. They probably dropped the "Talk" relatively recently because it didn't add anything to the name.
          • Well... AFP now is runs primarily on TCP/IP. The AppleTalk networking element has been deprecated and is only used if you need to maintain legacy compatibility (that is, with OS 9 or earlier clients).

            So it's not AppleTalk filing protocol, because it's not using AppleTalk. Been that was since OS X was introduced, in fact may have been earlier.

      • Re:AFP (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *
        It used to be. Apple has since changed it to "Apple Filing Protocol". Shades of Dave Winer and "RSS," except that Apple had a good reason behind its change. I spelled out the acronym in Part 1, should've re-spelled-it-out for Part 2. Maybe I will do that now!

  • How to stream media files (MP3, MPEG, etc) (Score:5, Informative)

    by NatasRevol ( 731260 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:58PM (#8056147) Journal
    Right from apple [apple.com]

    Granted it's not quite as easy as iTunes, but it's much more powerful.
  • I am running jaguar + apache + tomcat + mysql on a G3 350 with 512M RAM. It is only a desktop edition OS X but runs not bad. Some people told me that Panther on G3 is slower than Jaguar, but here the information is that the Panther actually quicker, so could somebody with experience shred some light on me?

    Which one is quicker?

    • Yes. (Score:5, Informative)

      by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:56PM (#8057821)
      Panther is FASTER on the same hardware. OS X is getting better and better about resource management, optimization, etc. as time goes on. Remember that the whole system benefits from improvements to GCC, binutils, and other OSS projects, because the whole system is compiled with them. Opening apps in Panther on older hardware seems much snappier than when using Jaguar, and I chalk it up to better disk-access, caching, optimization, prelinking, and drivers.

      Also, Apple really rushed to get OS X out the door, now the developers are getting their hands dirty with tweaks, getting much more proficient with Objective-C, and they have a user base to check things with.

      I think this will continue for some time too, possibly until Apple stops supporting G3 CPUs. The architecture of the whole system seems to lend itself well to growing without 'bloating'.

    • Panther (10.3) is MUCH faster than Jaguar (10.2) (Score:5, Informative)

      by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:59PM (#8057875) Homepage
      Subject says all... but be sure to run Software Update and let it update to 10.3.2... fixes a few bugs and security holes, but more importantly, it also contains new gfx drivers that bring OpenGL back up to speed. (10.3.0 was only slower than 10.2.8 in one area -- OpenGL... but 10.3.2 fixes that).
    • My personal experience is that Panther is noticably faster on a low-end G3 than Jaguar. It's bigger, but things like the Finder are far less annoying than 10.2.

  • I use OS X Server daily for my job (Score:5, Informative)

    by taybin ( 622573 ) <taybin@taybi n . c om> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:00PM (#8056190) Homepage
    We have a computer lab with about 50 computers and about 500 users. I've found 10.2 Server to be great. 10.0 was rough to work with, but 10.1 and up have been easy to work with.

    The Workgroup Manager program can be a bit tricky with setting up shares and network mounts, but overall is a good program.

    The DHCP doesn't work in an environment when you have few spare IPs and the machines are restarted constantly.

    I like that it includes PHP and MySQL, but you might want to compile your own PHP with support for more libraries such as PNG and zlib and stuff. The provided one is a bit sparse.

    Overall, it's fairly painless to work with if you have the foresight to setup user policies and stick to them. It's nicely cross platform with NFS support; I wouldn't be hesitant to use it in a Unix only environment.

  • MP3 Server (Score:5, Informative)

    by iomud ( 241310 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:02PM (#8056203) Homepage Journal
    Your lightweight mp3 server: Slimserver [slimdevices.com]. It's free, it's pretty, it's open source. More info [slimdevices.com]. Fairly easy setup, very configurable and best of all if you really don't like something about it you can change it.

  • FYI: There is a built-in streaming media server (Score:5, Informative)

    by hargettp ( 74445 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:02PM (#8056208)
    It's called QuickTime Streaming Server 5 [apple.com] and it comes bundled with Panther Server. Checking out Apple's website, in addition to supporting video it also handles MP3 audio, among many other formats.

    To be fair, I haven't used QTSS so I can't speak to it's utility. And you did say "lightweight," so it's possible this isn't it.... ;)

  • This is a review? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... .com minus punct> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:04PM (#8056234) Journal
    Forgive what may sound like a troll, it's not. Just a serious reaction to a lengthy article.

    This lengthy point-by-point breakdown of every feature is probably fascinating to someone who has just installed the OS. But I can't feel enthusiastic about this data dump.

    Some points of comparison with what we know would be useful. What are the alternatives, and how does it compare? Is there a compelling reason for existing Windows and Linux users to migrate? If not, is this intended only for Mac users?
    • Introducing interested readers to a system's features is a Good Thing by itself. Comparisons tend to convey a message of superiority of one system over another, which may or may not be good.

      Reading this review, you can decide for yourself whether whatever your system you would like to compare with has these features. My guess: windows doesn't ship the plethora of standard technologies that OS X Server come with, and your average *nix doesn't have the user-friendly configuration tools.

      Which system is best

    • Re:This is a review? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      What *I* wanted to know about Server is what it offered in terms of tools, so that is what I researched and did a review on. I didn't think I was alone in wanting to understand this better, and from the comments, I am sure I was right. Yes, a comparison would be nice, but I don't really have the time to do it, and the readers have offered their own opinions on that anyway. :-)

  • NAT And Server Admin (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lordDallan ( 685707 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:04PM (#8056248)
    First off, Panther Server is an awesome product. I find it markedly better compared to Jaguar server (esp. the mail, Cyrus IMAP kicks butt over the old Apple Mail Server).

    One area that's still week is NAT, specifically port forwarding. The server admin app configures natd by parsing a plist file called natd.plist located in etc/nat/. And the only way to set up port forwarding is to manually edit this plist file or not manage natd with Apple's Server Admin app.

    First boo is having to even go and configure the natd.plist file (a plist file is an XML file that many OS X apps use as a preferences file) instead of just being able to edit NAT settings in Server Admin.

    Second boo is that I have never personally, nor have I heard of anyone being able to get a natd.plist file with port forwarding instructions (you have to set up an array of dictionary keys for port forwarding... for more info read the natd.plist.default file located in /etc/nat/) working. My experience is that Server Admin always incorrectly parses the natd.plist file, only parsing the alias IP objects but never the target IP objects.

    Now I know that there are plenty of easy workarounds (like an airport sitting on the outside, handling the port forwarding) - but it would be nice if this worked, it would make using an older Mac as a firewall/router much more feasible IMHO.

    On the other hand, the fact that this is my only gripe with Panther Server speaks volumes to how pleased I am overall with Panther Server.

  • Notes on the Print Server (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dragonfly ( 5975 ) <jddaigleNO@SPAMmac.com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:12PM (#8056350) Homepage
    The Print Server in OS X Server is designed to manage network-capable printers. Client computers must have the correct drivers installed on their systems for the printer who's queue they are connecting to.

    Although you can create a queue for a non-networked printer (like the USB printer Pudge was using), the client computers won't be able to use the printer's driver with the queue because the driver assumes a directly-connected USB printer.

    OS X Client's USB printer sharing is a completely different mechanism that essentially tricks other computers into thinking that a shared USB printer is in fact connected directly to the local machine. This allows USB printer drivers to work correctly.

    I don't know for a fact why USB printer sharing was disabled in OS X Server. It would be nice if it could be integrated into the Print Server in OS X Server, but Apple probably made the decision that the vast majority of customers would be using workgroup-sized, networked printers with OS X Server, and the time it would have taken to add USB Printer Sharing to the LPD-based Print Server wouldn't be worth it.

    Workarounds include Pudge's solution of connecting the USB printer to an AirPort Extreme base station; connecting the USB printer to another computer on the network that runs OS X Client; or purchasing a simple print server for the USB printer. Many printer manufacturers sell add-on network adapters (both wired and wireless) for their USB printers.
    • OS X Client's USB printer sharing is a completely different mechanism that essentially tricks other computers into thinking that a shared USB printer is in fact connected directly to the local machine. This allows USB printer drivers to work correctly.

      The world needs more information on how this is accomplished. I have a Canon i960, which has drivers of that sort which prevents me from sharing it with the one lone Windows machine we have sitting around (for my wife's work), so far as I can tell. What I r

    • I have an hp USB printer connected to my windows 2000 desktop. I'd like to print to it from my Powerbook G4 over samba, but the os X drivers assume a direct USB connection, and will not offer the driver as an option for samba printing.

      Who is at fault here... hp? apple? me for not buying a network-native priner? :sigh:

      I love cable swaps!
      • Check out Gimp-Print [sourceforge.net], an open source project that provides PPD files for hundreds of printers and allows you to use them with networked printers. With it installed you select the appropriate Gimp-Print PPD when you set up the samba printer.

    • The Print Server in OS X Server is designed to manage network-capable printers. Client computers must have the correct drivers installed on their systems for the printer who's queue they are connecting to.

      This is dumb. The fact that it works in client but doesn't work in server is, quite simply, retarded. Once you network a printer, it becomes - gasp - a networked printer. You should be able to share it on the local machine as you always would, and then if necessary, reshare it through the new network

      • Er, samba? I don't know how that got in there. Although, for windows printing, that would work fine :) I meant to say lpr. Of course lpr doesn't provide for autodiscovery... Maybe the solution is to run netatalk :D
      • The reason why print drivers for USB printers don't work when you try to use them for a printer shared via a LPD queue is that the drivers were written under the assumption that the printer would always be directly connected to the computer. If you really want to share a USB printer via LPD, there's always ghostscript. I suspect if you're installing an OS X Server for your house, installing ghostscript won't seem like a big deal.

        USB Printer Sharing has been around since OS 9, and I suspect it would have re
    • I'm just guessing here, but Apple probably went with an assumption on the type of hardware that would be used with OS X Server vs. OS X Client.

      On OS X Client you'll have a family with a handful of computers and one or two printers (low end printers.) They'll just plug the printer into one machine and share it. And for their needs this is just fine.

      OS X Server on the other hand was not intended for Ward Clevers' home network. It's made for office environments with a lot of machines connecting. Who here

  • Panther Client doesn't allow unlimited connections (Score:4, Informative)

    by iiioxx ( 610652 ) <iiioxx@gmail.com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:39PM (#8056675)
    And, as mentioned in the last article, the $500, 10-client version of Server is limited to 10 simultaneous clients on AFP. To get around this, pay double for the unlimited version, or use plain old Panther Client.

    I saw this mentioned in comments to yesterday's review as well, so last night I checked this out on my home network. With the client version, you are limited to 10 AFP connections (it says so at the bottom of the window when you click on Personal File Sharing). It isn't unlimited. I'm not sure about Windows File Sharing (SMB), as I don't use it and didn't think to check.

  • ummm...this guy is aware that (Score:3, Informative)

    by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:40PM (#8056690) Homepage
    OS X server is for companies and not consumers so an iPhoto server application and an iTunes server application is pretty pointless.

    BTW...Quicktime has many server apps, one of them is a streaming application that will stream MP3s.

  • Ok, time to burn some karma - totally lame posters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Selecter ( 677480 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:55PM (#8056907)
    Just look at

    http://www.apple.com/xserve/cluster/wgcluster.html and try to tell me Apple is producing shit hardware.

    Maybe the reason there is so much Apple stuff on /. lately is becuase at this moment they are making the coolest stuff available in the computing world bar none, and /. editors *might* be able to tell when a company has turned itself around and react accordingly with increased coverage of thats company's offerings??

    Or do you think they should still be pissing down a rope at Apples products of 3 or 4 years ago, like the asshats who give lame outdated reasons to bash Apple. Wake up. Things are different now.

    /. editors are getting this - some of you other people need to.

    • Re:Ok, time to burn some karma - totally lame post (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hargettp ( 74445 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:06PM (#8057042)
      Amen. If you like Linux, there are reasons to like Apple.

      I ran a Linux server and a Linx laptop at home for 2+ years (both Debian, up to 3.0 at the end), and although I had a ton of fun, my new PowerBook with OS X beats the pants off that experience. I *still* get to tinker with open source software *and* have a great, gorgeous GUI and devices that just work when attached. It's like having my cake and eating it, too.

    • Re:Ok, time to burn some karma - totally lame post (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > Maybe the reason there is so much Apple stuff on /. lately is becuase at this moment they are making the coolest stuff available

      This sound much like "Seinfeld uses a Mac because they are the coolest" (when in fact it was paid placement). Typical Evangilista logic --- Apple is Cool so Slashdot runs Apple Stories so Apple is Cool. Well, the troll rumor is that Taco got a free powerbook.

      But the main reason Slashdot runs Apple stories because Apple Fans (and Foes) provide a ton of hits. It's the same rea
  • No offense intended to the writer, but this review is not representative of the target market for a real server OS. What business would use USB connected printers? Use a software firewall? This review probably covers your typical Slashdotter who wants to run OS X Server for the fun of it, but is not useful to those who might use it as a real server in any sort of production environment. Those people will want to know how it deals with large numbers of connections, how it integrates with things like XServe R
    • I think he's thinking of a SOHO. However many many businesses have USB-connected printers, because they do most of their printing in black and white, and they want cheap color. A decent-speed black and white networked laser printer is around a grand, a decent-quality color laser is two or three, and a 720 dpi inkjet is a hundred bucks.

      Also, everyone runs a software firewall. Take a look at the highly successful Firebox firewalls, those are just PCs. The firewall support inside of a server product is usefu

  • DNS setup that easy!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jeremiah Blatz ( 173527 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:33PM (#8057476) Homepage
    So, I don't know the poster, so I don't really know how much they know about DNS. However, from the article, it sounds like "not much." And yet they set up DNS on Panther Server without much difficulty. If this is true, this is amazing, and means that 90% of people who manage a server should go out and buy as XServe. I've set up DNS using BIND and Active Directory, and it's a huge PITA. And I know a bit about DNS.
    • Yeah, if you have a basic understanding of DNS, then it's that easy.

      See this networking link [apple.com] from Apple, second image. That's about it!

      If you have no clue about DNS, the GUI won't help you much.
    • It's really easy to set up DNS. Turn it on, there, you have DNS.

      Of course, the poster talked about allowing zone transfers and recursive queries and said nothing about binding to a particular interface, so you can get DNS up and running really easily, but it might not do much useful :-)

      If you know DNS, then the GUI will be helpful (well, if you REALLY know DNS you'll just edit your zone files yourself), but no GUI (not even an OS X GUI) can make DNS setup magically complete and thorough. You still have
    • I've never set up DNS before, I had to look up what a PTR record is (though I basically understand what a reverse lookup is), and I basically knew what A, CNAME, and MX records are. I've maintained /etc/hosts files. I've seen zone files before, and sorta understood the gist. So, that gives you more of an indication of what "not much" is. I still don't understand everything in the UI, but it was enough to get me going, and to set up all the records for my own domain, in a short amount of time.
  • I can't believe that OSX refuses to start it's GUI if there is no monitor attached on bootup. That means you can't start a VNC server to remotely use the GUI tools. There's a dongle you must buy in order to fool the server into thinking that a monitor is attached. I can see if it's done to protect the end user, but there should be a selectable option to turn this off, especially on the server version. Apple does not sound like much of a server company if they can't think about these things.

    • Re:True Headless server? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gozar ( 39392 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:04PM (#8060128) Homepage
      I can't believe that OSX refuses to start it's GUI if there is no monitor attached on bootup. That means you can't start a VNC server to remotely use the GUI tools.
      No, OS X Server (and probably the client) run just fine without a monitor. In fact, you can do an entire install of OS X server without a monitor. I took the Apple OS X Server training, and went through the whole class without using the monitor (in fact, it was disconnected).

      You can also install Apple Remote Desktop if you want to control the gui on the server, but I don't know why you would ever need to do this. Almost everything is available from the command line.

      Server Settings, Workgroup Manager, and Server Monitor lets you do all the GUI stuff remotely.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close