In-Depth with Mac OS X Lion Server
by Andrew Cunningham on August 2, 2011 8:00 AM ESTRather than keep interrupting myself throughout the review to talk about using Windows with OS X Server’s services, I thought I’d lump it all together at the end for convenience’s sake. There's not much to say, so I'll be brief.
Open Directory: Past versions of OS X Server were able to serve as Primary Domain Controllers (PDCs) for Windows computers, which is to say they could provide Windows systems with authentication and permissions for users and groups, even though they couldn't manage many Windows settings. Lion's new SMB implementation removes that functionality entirely, which is going to hurt for people who rely on it. Interoperability with Active Directory domains remains as robust as ever, but it just got that much harder to get by with just OS X Server if you have many Windows clients to speak of.
Address Book, iCal, iChat, and Mail: All of these services use open protocols (or, at least, protocols that are supported by several non-Apple programs), so you can access them from many different products across many different platforms: POP and IMAP for Mail, CardDAV for Address Book, Jabber for iChat, and CalDAV for iCal. You may not get quite as polished an experience as with the built-in Apple tools, but you should still be able to interface with your OS X-using colleagues (and, of course, the services that offer web clients will render fine on PC browsers).
Address Book, iCal, iChat, and Mail: All of these services use open protocols (or, at least, protocols that are supported by several non-Apple programs), so you can access them from many different products across many different platforms: POP and IMAP for Mail, CardDAV for Address Book, Jabber for iChat, and CalDAV for iCal. You may not get quite as polished an experience as with the built-in Apple tools, but you should still be able to interface with your OS X-using colleagues (and, of course, the services that offer web clients will render fine on PC browsers).
File Sharing: Lion's new SMB doesn't affect file sharing with Windows XP, Vista, and 7 clients - it all works as intended.
VPN: Properly configured Windows computers should be able to make full use of OS X Server’s VPN service, but check out this Apple support document for some caveats and configuration details.
Web and Wiki: Naturally, as long as you have a Web browser and appropriate permissions, you can access and edit Web and Wiki pages from Windows just as well as any OS X user. Note that you may have the best experience using Safari, but I didn’t have any problems using Chrome or Firefox in my testing.
Other Apple-tailored services - NetBoot, Podcast, Xgrid, Time Machine, Software Update, and others - won't do anything for your Windows clients. If you’ve got a mostly Mac network with a few Windows users, or if you intend to use OS X Server mostly to manage Macs and Windows servers to manage Windows, then OS X Server should work well for you; if you just have Windows clients, though, or if your Mac-to-Windows ratio is high enough, the removal of PDC functionality makes it hard to get by with just an OS X server.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
HMTK - Wednesday, August 3, 2011 - link
OK so you can definitely run a Mac OS X vm on vSphere 5 but only on Apple hardware. What a joke! Probably Apple idiocy rather than a technical limitation.Spazweasel - Wednesday, August 3, 2011 - link
Apple is a hardware company. OS/X and iOS exist to make hardware sales possible (thus the cost of development is included in the pricing for Apple hardware, something the Apple haters conveniently overlook) Allowing the running of OS/X on non-Apple hardware reduces Apple hardware sales, so they don't do it."Idiocy"? Yeah, sure, whatever.
HMTK - Wednesday, August 3, 2011 - link
Not allowing Mac OS to run under a hypervisor on non-Apple branded hardware won't help them either. Or do you think a halfway decent IT-department would put a desktop machine or a hard disk posing as a server in a data center? They'd rather pay a few 100 € more for a license if they could run it on ESXi/XenServer/Hyper-V and reliable hardware.Spazweasel - Wednesday, August 3, 2011 - link
Apple makes its money on the desktop, not the server room. I doubt it's worth the effort. OS/X in the server room is a niche product, and Apple know it; it's much more suited as a workgroup/small office server, and those environments do not have ESX or Xen installations.Apple has no incentive to support OS/X in a VM, and plenty of reasons not to. Really, I don't see why this is a surprise.
HMTK - Thursday, August 4, 2011 - link
I'm not saying it's a big surprise, I'm saying it's stupid. why not make good manegement tools for their iOS available in a way that companies can integrate better in their infrastructure?You might be surprised as to how many small shops are going the virtualization route. Even if you have only a single server it makes sense in the long run when the time comes to replace the hardware. Just import the VM on the hypervisor on the new hardware and you're done.
GotThumbs - Tuesday, August 2, 2011 - link
This is an interesting article and I enjoyed the depth of detail. As a builder of my own systems for years, does the use of this software bind you to using only a ready built Apple system? It seems Apple is slowly trying to create a close proprietary system where you have to use apple hardware and apple software. I know their are hackintosh systems but it seems its still going to be quite a bit of effort and so far seems to be a waste of time for me. As the article mentions, there are lots of alternatives available. Apples MO seems to be offering zero options for using outside sources. Apple consumers are being channeled to Itunes and the Mac App Store for all purchases. I'm personally not a fan of that trend and have no intentions of bowing down to that kind of control. I can see where the general consumer who has very little technical knowledge is quite accepting of Apples controls as its a very simple and somewhat brainless system packaged in a slick looking package.GrizzledYoungMan - Tuesday, August 2, 2011 - link
Or is it still something we're all going to pretend works, when it very clearly doesn't out in the real world (If it worked, why would DAVE exist)? I'm referring here to the myriad of permissions issues and oodles of useless garbage sidecar files that pop up after a few days of operation in a mixed environment.Haven't read the article. Probably won't. Sorry. Apple is a joke at anything that designing anything that doesn't fit in your pocket/surrogate vagina of choice.
I get this feeling, deep in my angry muscle, every time some imbecile waves around his iThing, raving about Apple's genius, while I'm thinking about all the time that has been wasted trying to get OS X desktop clients to do things that have worked out in the real world for years now.
blueeyesm - Tuesday, August 2, 2011 - link
Not in Lion, as Samba moved to GPL3 licensing.http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/insi...
GrizzledYoungMan - Tuesday, August 2, 2011 - link
You know what's wild? I should actually be excited they're moving to a new standard - the NAS' I often recommend to clients support SMB2, and see useful performance gains from it.But then I read "Windows networking software developed by Apple" and my heart sinks. Realistically, what are the odds this is going to work?
Honestly, I don't really blame the design teams over there so much as a closed corporate culture that both ignores the feedback of their customers and denies any complaints exist.
They're really missing out on the sorts of improvements that most big software developers make using the information gathered during large, open betas and the like.
repoman27 - Tuesday, August 2, 2011 - link
As the article you linked to points out, since version 10.2 Mac OS X has shipped with Samba, an open-source, reverse engineered version of SMB 1.0. With Lion, Apple dropped Samba and added native support for SMB2 while maintaining the ability to connect with SMB 1.0 machines as long as they use UNICODE and extended security. This means Mac OS X 10.7 can no longer connect out of the box with some SMB 1.0 or Samba machines (which it had done for the last 9 years), but it does have full support for SMB2.As for GrizzledYoungMan's "oodles of useless garbage sidecar files," it's not like Mac users have any use for a thumbs.db file either. Just hide the metadata files, or don't allow write permissions on the folder if you don't want to see that kind of stuff, but these types of files are most likely only going to become more prevalent as time goes by.