Apple Deprecates More Services In OS X Server (apple.com) 145
Long-time Slashdot reader HEMI426 writes: Long ago, Apple used to produce rack servers, and a special flavor of OS X for that hardware with extra, server-friendly features. After Apple got out of the rack server game, OS X Server soldiered on, with the occasional change in cost or distribution method.
The next stop on the long, slow death march of OS X Server is here. With a recent post to their knowledgebase, Apple states that almost all of the services not necessary for the management of networked Macs and other iDevices are being deprecated. These services will be hidden for new installs, and dropped in the future.
Apple writes that "those depending on them should consider alternatives, including hosted services."
The next stop on the long, slow death march of OS X Server is here. With a recent post to their knowledgebase, Apple states that almost all of the services not necessary for the management of networked Macs and other iDevices are being deprecated. These services will be hidden for new installs, and dropped in the future.
Apple writes that "those depending on them should consider alternatives, including hosted services."
Lots of courage (Score:5, Interesting)
It takes an awful lot of courage to remove DNS and DHCP services from a...server. Way to go, apple!
Re: (Score:1)
macOS Server is changing to focus more on management of computers, devices, and storage on your network.
... gel with removing DNS and DHCP services? wtf?
Re: (Score:1)
Makes perfect sense. They just want OS X Server to be a remote iDevice settings manager. You can then construct your infrastructure using RedHat, CentOS, Windows, or whatever else you may fancy to supply core services.
More like an Apple group policy tool I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
How does this statement:
your first mistake is quoting the post instead of RTFA.
From the linked article
These deprecated services will be removed in a future release of macOS Server, so those depending on them should consider alternatives, including hosted services. Deprecated services are listed below. Links to potential replacements are provided underneath each deprecated service.
The services listed as headings in the article: Calendar, Contacts, DHCP, DNS, Mail, Messages, NetInstall, VPN, Websites, Wiki.
I recommend you make certain you've got the facts right before trying to be a smart ass.
Re: (Score:1)
How does this statement:
your first mistake is quoting the post instead of RTFA.
Did you "RTFA?"
Prepare for changes to macOS Server
Learn about changes coming to macOS Server in spring 2018
macOS Server is changing to focus more on management of computers, devices, and storage on your network. As a result, some changes are coming in how Server works. A number of services will be deprecated, and will be hidden on new installations of an update to macOS Server coming in spring 2018.
Literally quoted from the article
Re: (Score:2)
Literally quoted from the article
What is it about words like deprecated that you have trouble understanding?
Re: (Score:1)
macOS Server is changing to focus more on management of computers, devices, and storage on your network.
followed by lists of services to replace management of computers/devices/storage on your network that will no longer by served by macOS Server
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you can't even hear yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Mac servers were a bad idea. (Score:2)
I am supposed if they are still doing anything that will require a new OS anyways?
I am not an Apple hater. But using Apple for a server is just a bad fit.
With servers you need to know what technology will be ahead of you and be able to have a well planned upgrade path. Companies like Apple and Google while can make an excellent product, do not have the stomach for long the support of 20-30 years on a product line. This isn’t saying they expected to support 30 year old components but keep the techno
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is correct. Slashdot supports UTF-8 since circa 2003 or so. It's just that thanks to a lot of unicode abuse (and think of it this way, even Apple can't get it right) every character is put through a whitelist of allowed char
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a server app, with all the server functionality removed. Staring at this list, I'm struggling to think of anything that wasn't removed. Apparently, they kept the user and device management — the part that for 99% of Server.app users is the least useful, but admittedly also the only part that's at all Mac-specific.
That said, Server.app sucks. Always has. The Apache functionality has been a constant struggle even to get it to do basic things like update certs programmatically (they bizarrely store them in the keychain, then require some weird custom commands to force the server to grab the new credentials, and they're basically undocumented as far as I can tell). And heaven help you if you try to import any existing Apache config. You're pretty much guaranteed to end up with something nonfunctional.
The only reason I even install Server.app at all is so that the software updates for Apache and BIND happen without me having to pay attention to the CERT mailing lists. And even then, I don't let the app configure *anything*, using a separate launchd plist with a different identifier and a separate config file so that none of Apple's code has any effect on the actual operation of the server.
I guess with this change, there's no reason to bother installing it ever again, since I don't manage a network of users. This, of course, also means I have one less reason to keep using Macs as servers, but I digress.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the managing computers and users is not the "bit nobody uses", its the whole damn point of OSX server. Almost everywhere I've seen OSX server deployed, its to provide directory and authentication services to macs on a corporate network. Its basically a mac AD-like domain host.
And while the apache stuff has had use in internal networks, nobody sensible is trying to deploy websites to the public on it. That seems like a bizarre waste of resources unless people have built special snowflake swift websites o
Re: (Score:2)
The potential market for easily configured web serving includes hobbyists. The potential market for AD-like domain hosts does not. So if that really is the most commonly used feature, it can only be because Apple epically failed
Re: (Score:3)
> It's a server app, with all the server functionality removed
It's a server app that includes all the functionality anyone running a Mac server would want.
Why would I run DNS on a Mac when I can do it on an RPi for less than the cost of a Mac keyboard?
> The Apache functionality
You run Apache on a Mac?! For god's sake, why?! You can get fully configurable hosted versions for less than the monthly depreciation of a Mac mini, and the free completely automated sandbox/deploy, A/B systems out there remove
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: disk space. Hosting companies like to charge through the nose for it.
Re: (Score:3)
What I'm doing is this:
openssl pkcs12 -export -inkey /etc/letsencrypt/new_server.key -in "$FILEPATH" -out "temp.p12" -passout pass:pass /usr/bin/security import "temp.
sudo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So... (Score:2)
Some of us paid $599 for OS X Server...
Obviously since the death of xserve it's been pointless
Is it actually a want ad? (Score:5, Interesting)
People complain about the iPad commercial where the kid asks "What's a computer", but could it be that Apple is genuinely asking what one is since it is looking more and more like they themselves don't know.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course they know, they just don't want to make them anymore. these are obvious and logical steps toward that goal. It's a bit a boiling frog thing, let everybody down slowly. And then it's all iPortables and AppleTV.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
Re: (Score:2)
But their main selling point is the features that are in it work extremely well. Vs full of crap features.
Isn't OSX Server a BSD? (Score:2)
Looks like it's dying, as predicted
Most services on the list seem to be FOSS projects (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be easy enough to install them on your own, if for some reason you want to use a macOS box as a server.
Re: Most services on the list seem to be FOSS proj (Score:1, Interesting)
A week?
Iâ(TM)ve been a Linux user on and off (sometimes on for 6 years ina stretch) for 25 or so years. I started using it quite a bit around the 0.9 days.
That said, Linux config hell doesnâ(TM)t take a week for all those services. It takes years. Consider running secure services like mail, messaging and contact services. You can maybe get a Linux box running those in a few hours with a lot of cut and paste. But the configuration file declare configuration of the current version.
Appleâ(TM)s m
Re: Most services on the list seem to be FOSS pro (Score:1)
Turn off Smart Punctuation on your ios 11 device! Settings > General > Keyboards. Please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Back when it was a separate server OS (before the Server.app debacle) it used to have insanely good Continuous Integration, Continuous Deployment and Build Reporting capabilities built in. It was an extremely useful out-of-the-box solution even for non-macOS/iOS development shops.
That was then, this is now. For the last several releases even getting network accounts to work right has been a nightmare. It's the exact opposite of their desktop. It Just *Doesn't* Work(TM).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Most services on the list seem to be FOSS proje (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't do their own web server. It was a pretty GUI for configuring Apache. Same for mail, originally OSX server used Cyrus, I think they switched to dovecot later. DNS was always implemented with BIND. A few of the services like DHCP/NetBoot used their own implementations, but most of it just a GUI for configuring open source services.
OSX Server used to be a compelling proposition for a small business, because it made configuring these services easy for someone who isn't a professional sysadmin. But once they changed it from being a separate OS spin to a feature pack in the app store, it was pretty clear they just didn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they looked at the install numbers for the feature pack in the store and concluded that if no one else cares they aren't going to either.
Would you?
Why? I paid 20 bucks for this... (Score:1)
I bought this software to NOT hassle with numerous config files hidden in various locations with thousand parameters only known to experts... it hid all the difficult stuff... it just worked! But o-no, this is apple..., everything useful they deprecated... magsafe, a working finder, local file sharing, osx server, upgrade ability, steve jobs... deprecated... well was fun while it lasted...
also every update of osx contains more and more bugs, I mean a working finder is that TOO much to ask?
thanks apple!
This
What do Apple use? (Score:2)
What are Apple using in house to provide these services? Please tell me they manage all their people with a Windows AD + Exchange! ;). I wish they did because then they might make the integration better.
Re:What do Apple use? (Score:4, Interesting)
Please tell me they manage all their people with a Windows AD + Exchange! ;).
They use an in-house version of iCloud, or so an insider friends tells me.
Re: What do Apple use? (Score:1)
Oracle and Lotus Notes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell, they seem very business-unit centered with basically workgroup IT strategies. It seems depressingly half-assed. Might explain their products some...
Re: (Score:1)
Damn it all.
I only went to Apple when Microsoft tried to shove Win10 down everyone's throat. But it's looking more and more like in a few years I'll have to go back to that spyware that pretends to be an OS.
Christ, I wish the Amiga had won.
OK, to be fair... (Score:3)
We saw this coming awhile ago (Score:3)
Apple stopped offering a server certification years ago, but it didn't stop Apple Stores from recommending a Mac Mini with a single drive to customers who wanted a file server. Apple's SMBX doesn't really work well with anything but a Mac, and Profile Manager is just about the least reliable MDM out there.
And who is really using Open Directory these days? If you want Netboot, you can do it from Linux. If you want VPN, use your firewall or an appliance.
So, when people want a server for use with their Macs, we'll recommend a Synology or a QNAP. They offer dozens of services, including DNS, practically any other service you could want, and they have RAIDs and SSD caching as well. Some of the Synology units can even be configured to provide Active Directory.
As Apple has now built the caching service and file sharing into High Sierra, I don't really see that there is much reason for Server any more. Oh wait..
MAYBE you don't want to trust your data to someone else? Maybe you figure YOU are the best person to manage your data and services, so you won't be down a day or two while Google fixes G Suite? And as Google thinks they're the world expert on who is and who isn't sending spam, what could go wrong there?
Server was great because it enabled the end user to run his/her own mail server, DNS, file sharing, software update server, and more, rather than outsourcing everything to companies which may or may not give a damn when something goes wrong with "the cloud".
Re: We saw this coming awhile ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Used to run a real Apple server some years ago. It was 1U and very pretty. Their first Intel server. Was a very rocky road. Ended up using stock Samba on it because the Apple version that integrated with Open Directory's SASL password server store continually hung up. Password server was a neat idea but buggy. It combined Kerberos with SASL and a few other password protocols.
Along the way I figured out how to replicate all of the functionality of Open Directory with a normal LDAP server and Kerberos, dit
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but the whole point of OS X Server/Server.app was ease-of-use, and the issues with permissions, SMBX, password server, Profile Manager, and Open Directory weren't ever really fixed, so that vision was never realized.
Apple management just doesn't understand: if you want to keep people in the ecosystem, then you need to provide and maintain ALL PARTS of the ecosystem: cloud, network, server, desktop, mobile. They depend on each other, but Apple mistakenly focuses all its efforts on mobile, to the detri
Re: We saw this coming awhile ago (Score:2, Insightful)
"Apple management just doesn't understand"
Oh but they DO understand, they just don't give a single fuck about it when they can charge $1000 for a shitty fucking plastic phone at least at 2000% markup, and sell Billions of units to all the idiots who will gladly camp out in freezing weather in line to buy them no matter what.
There is no way their status symbol can compete and translate over in the real server market and pretend like the computing resource power per $ to value is even reasonably close to almo
Re: (Score:2)
You can shear a sheep many times, but skin him only once. At some point, Apple's customers are going to realize that the iPhone has become less reliable, and isn't worth the $1,000 they're spending.
I'm not seeing quality decreases in iPhones or iPads, but I sure am seeing them in Macs, particularly the MacBook Pro. If the battery swells or needs to be replaced in recent MacBook Pros, it's a $200 to $400 repair, because the top case becomes malformed, and now you have to replace that, which contains the keyb
Re: (Score:2)
Have you used the latest versions of macOS or iOS? They are the buggiest versions in years. I'm tired of telling clients they need to wait until nine months after release before they should upgrade.
Yup, I have used them. Unfortunately with iOS you pretty much have to keep up to date if you want security patches - and, given the banking and other apps people have on their phone, they really need to keep their phones patched. Fortunately Apple keeps OS X / macOS patched for the latest three versions - so I'm still running El Capitan wherever possible, which actually works pretty well.
Re: (Score:1)
Tim hears you. Tim don't care. Apple used to make everything including Wifi routers and home backup. Now what's the alternative? If it doesn't "just work" why bother buying an apple in the first place.
Why so complex and ugly? (Score:2)
(I know that I am about to get pummeled, but...)
Why is it that most people seem to think it's OK to either;
Produce a 'server' app that is easy to use and has a relatively-clear GUI, but lacks so much substance that it's hardly worth bothering
or
Produce a server app that does everything, is very configurable and very stable, but has a zillion modules and takes a long time to learn, because the author never heard of HIG (Human Interface Guidelines)
I am now going to raise a virtual beer to EIMS, WebSTAR, QuickD
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure if you have cause and effect reversed. I’m also not 100% sure if we are going to start seeing a drop in the AWS strategy based on current security concerns.
The layers of security get obscured with hosted and virtualized services, and I am seeing some activity that suggests more companies are starting to move more services in-house on dedicated hardware. Too soon to know for sure though.
OSX Sucked from the Get-Go. So, did the servers. (Score:2)
Not Apple anymore.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that at the time of his death Jobs thought his 'digital hub' concept would lead to Apple's becoming a huge, overfunded cell phone company that would let its computer business die a horrible death. But I think that's exactly what's happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It started 22 years ago. The quote is from February 1996 [wikiquote.org], before Steve Jobs was back at Apple. He returned in December 1996, became (interim) CEO in July 1997, then Apple started milking.
With iMac in 1998 -- still running Classic Mac OS -- the Mac platform started making money again. This kept the company solvent and afloat until Mac OS X launched in 2001 and finally Apple had a modern software foundation. In the meantime they launched iPod,
Yo, dawg (Score:2)
We heard you like servers, so we took all the servers out of your server.
Wait, wat?
That's a shame (Score:2)
Meh (Score:2)
Nothing more than what Cisco and IBM did. And after they realized that, they quit. If they can't offer something very distinctive, they're not interested. They used to make printers too and those weren't distinctive. And a whole bunch of other stuff that turned out just "meh" and then got the axe.
Mind you, they've swung that axe far, far fewer times than Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. have, where ten zillion things go into beta and then trail off into a wasteland of absent support and broken features an
No server hardware, and the software is vanishing (Score:1)
There was a time that Mac OS X Server made sense. Apple made some great server hardware. At first it was a rack mount Xserve. Then, Apple killed that and expected people to rackmount Mac Pro (cheese grater) machines. But one of the best servers that Apple made was the Mac mini. For $500 you had a powerful little server that took up very little room in a rack system. New businesses sprung up to collocate Mac miniâ(TM)s, and those who used this hardware with Mac OS X Server knew the power that came with
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
macOS on the Server side of things is so far behind what can be done with Linux, it isn't even funny. You can't run macOS in AWS. You can't containerize macOS apps (Docker on macOS uses macOS's hypervisor to run Linux in the background). If you want to run in the server space, and you aren't tied to Microsoft proprietary ways of doing things, Linux is the place to be. Apple knows this -- they're already too far behind, and are simply never going to be able to keep pace with what's going on in the Linux world.
Apple needs to focus on continuing to ensure that macOS is a highly compatible client OS. Linux still falls flat in this area. Other than for some Apple proprietary stuff (like iOS provisioning), a macOS server is pointless. Use Linux on the server and macOS on the client.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
Apple knows this -- they're already too far behind, and are simply never going to be able to keep pace with what's going on in the Linux world.
Apple has the talent and resources to keep pace with anyone, full stop. They could wrap these good open source products with a slick UI and be a real competitor in the enterprise, if they had the inclination. Clearly they do not.
Not surprised (Score:2)
I'm not at all surprised.
When Apple killed off the XServe, their commitment to anything server related was immediately put in question. The Mac Mini Server was cute, but I don't know of one single person that actually took it seriously.
I never considered OSX Server as a system to be relied upon. If I needed anything, I would run a linux machine instead. Apple made no effort to demonstrate anything resembling a commitment to the server arena, most likely intentionally, so no one in their right mind (barri
So what do we do? (Score:2)
Reading the comments, it seems clear everyone has deep scorn for people using the Mac OSX Server.app services anyways as they can all be replicated better and faster and easier using mumble mumble for the price of a sandwich.
So, what are the details? For those of us who do in fact use the Server.app services, what specifically do you recommend?
I use:
Websites: to serve small internal websites for myself and my collaborators to share non-secret internal info.
Mail: to set up temporary email addresses that peo
Linux-based replacement for network logins? (Score:1)
For a decade or so, I've used MacOS Server (or its predecessors) to run a small research group with a dozen or so iMac clients and a couple of dozen staff/students. We use network logins (and hence a mounted home directory) and a small handfull of groups to determine which file shares are available. That's about all we do with Apple Server that can't obviously/easily be replaced with alternatives.
So, for someone who is Linux-comfortable at a sysadmin level, what is a path to replacing MacOS Server's network
Raising white flag (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)