Lion Server!

[talmy]

Sort of hidden at the bottom of the new Lion announcement is "Lion Server". Looks like the server functions are now going to be in the Lion distribution, so no more extra cost or separate editions.

At first glance it looks like the full functionality of Snow Leopard Server, but maybe there is some hidden downgrade of features?

 

[Mal]

From what I saw, I wouldn't assume that it's included, but perhaps just a quick mention of the Server version having some new changes. Perhaps someone in the dev program will be able to shed more light, though.

jW

 

[fairbanx]

it says: "Lion Server is now part of Mac OS X Lion." hm, whatever!?

http://www.apple.com/macosx/lion/

 

[talmy]

It's a big deal for me (if it is truly a replacement for Snow Leopard Server). Paying $500 for Lion Server to run on a Mac mini that only cost $850 to begin with is a bit steep! Now I can just get the family pack Lion and it is covered.

 

[fairbanx]

it would be great if the "full" version is included. maybe you're forced to purchase additional "packs" via app-store if you want to enhance a "basic" server version, i.e. mail-server etc.

 

[grawk]

This is fantabulous news. I have been watching ebay listings of snow leopard server, so this makes it a no brainer. I'll just wait a few weeks.

 

[bluebomberman]

it would be great if the "full" version is included. maybe you're forced to purchase additional "packs" via app-store if you want to enhance a "basic" server version, i.e. mail-server etc.

There's no indication on Apple's Lion preview page that they're packaging a gutted server package with additional add-ons to be sold separately.

Easy Setup
Lion Server guides you through configuring your Mac as a server. And it provides local and remote administration — for users and groups, push notifications, file sharing, calendaring, mail, contacts, chat, Time Machine, VPN, web, and wiki services — all in one place.

It's all speculation at this point, but a description like that makes it sound like ALL of Lion Server is included in each copy of Lion.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

Pardon my ignorance. I've never used a server before, but now that it is being opened up for free in Lion, is this something that I could benefit from? What can it be used for from average home consumers?

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Pardon my ignorance. I've never used a server before, but now that it is being opened up for free in Lion, is this something that I could benefit from? What can it be used for from average home consumers?

Not much. Most of the 'server' features are really only truly useful in server environments. About the only one I can see as useful for home use is WebDAV sharing for iPad. (i.e. right now the iPad can't see your Mac's network share, so you can't access files that are on your desktop from your iPad - with WebDAV sharing, according to that link, you can, easily.)

 

[calderone]

Well, it is pretty not functional in this early release.

There is a new app called "Server" which seems to be similar to the current "Server Preferences." I always find Server Preferences to be a joke.

Server Admin is still their, but all the Services that "Server" covers are not in Server Admin. Thankfully NetBoot and SUS are still in place as is DNS. What they may be doing is using "Server" for the consumer. And keeping more advanced features like DNS, OD, etc in Server Admin.

Notably missing from File Sharing is NFS and their are no advanced file sharing options in Server Admin.

All in all, I am pretty disappointed. I would much prefer the "Server Preferences" and "Server Admin" arrangement that is currently in SL Server. I definitely would not say this is fulling featured. At this time it is a giant downgrade

 

[logandzwon]

It looks to me they ARE basically killing server...

From what I see they are migrating the server features they've built in the past into an optional module for the base OS. (like Ubuntu vs Ubuntu Server, server is just additional software.)

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

I wonder what this means for being able to install virtual servers on Parallels and the like?

 

[Consultant]

Pardon my ignorance. I've never used a server before, but now that it is being opened up for free in Lion, is this something that I could benefit from? What can it be used for from average home consumers?

Push. iPad file share. VPN.

It's "included." May or may not be free.

 

[Winni]

(like Ubuntu vs Ubuntu Server, server is just additional software.)

Let's say that the desktop and the server editions are DIFFERENT software. Ubuntu is a desktop OS with a full graphical user interface and Ubuntu Server is a full server platform WITHOUT ANY graphical user interface. Repeat: no GUI at all, leave your mouse at home, you won't be needing it. Instead, Ubuntu Server comes with options to be installed as a cloud server, a LAMP stack or for other typical server-only tasks like file and print or database or directory services.

But you are right that both Ubuntu versions use the same repositories and that with sufficient work one can eventually do what the other does or be configured to become the other edition; they are just pre-packaged for completely different uses.

While on the other hand, the OS X client before Lion could never become a full OS X server, at least not when you wanted to replicate or use Apple's proprietary server software and tools on the desktop version of the OS.

When I first read about, I still thought that they would be releasing another version of OS X server. But then I visited Apple's website and their wording didn't leave much room for interpretation: Yes, whatever server features Apple wants to save are now becoming a part of the standard package of OS X Lion. There won't be a separate server edition anymore.

And it makes sense. They buried their server business, so they don't need to develop, market, ship and support a separate server OS anymore.

 

[talmy]

Pardon my ignorance. I've never used a server before, but now that it is being opened up for free in Lion, is this something that I could benefit from? What can it be used for from average home consumers?

I'm not average but I use it at home. Here's the list of services I use:

DNS
DHCP
Open Directory
DynDNS Update
TimeMachine backup for 5 Macs
Windows VM to run Quicken (Screen Sharing to view)
File Sharing for music, pictures, video, software archival storage.
AddressBook server to sync address book among computers and iTouches
iCal server to sync and share calendars among computers and iTouches.
Printer/Scanner server for shared all-in-one
VPN server to access network away from home

http://almy.us/server.html

 

[bluebomberman]

One note: according to John Gruber:

you need to specify the machine as a server when you install the OS — it’s not a switch you can flip later on

 

[Le Big Mac]

One note: according to John Gruber:

I assume that means you could go back and start over on that machine though if you wanted

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

I assume that means you could go back and start over on that machine though if you wanted

Sure, like any "Wipe out / Restore"...

Maybe... Just "maybe", you might be able to re-run the installer like an upgrade to do it so long as you haven't yet updated to a 10.7.x, where x > 0 (or whatever version you started with later on). But don't be surprised if that's not even possible.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I wonder what this means for being able to install virtual servers on Parallels and the like?

For one thing it will be cheaper. Family Pack vs having to pay $500 per copy. I hope Apple doesn't cripple it.

 

[yiyopr]

I have the developer preview of Mac OS X Lion and when you install it you need to click on "customize" and add the server programs. Didn't do it because its not my line of work, but I hope this clears things up?

 

[Digital Skunk]

Let's say that the desktop and the server editions are DIFFERENT software. Ubuntu is a desktop OS with a full graphical user interface and Ubuntu Server is a full server platform WITHOUT ANY graphical user interface. Repeat: no GUI at all, leave your mouse at home, you won't be needing it. Instead, Ubuntu Server comes with options to be installed as a cloud server, a LAMP stack or for other typical server-only tasks like file and print or database or directory services.

But you are right that both Ubuntu versions use the same repositories and that with sufficient work one can eventually do what the other does or be configured to become the other edition; they are just pre-packaged for completely different uses.

While on the other hand, the OS X client before Lion could never become a full OS X server, at least not when you wanted to replicate or use Apple's proprietary server software and tools on the desktop version of the OS.

When I first read about, I still thought that they would be releasing another version of OS X server. But then I visited Apple's website and their wording didn't leave much room for interpretation: Yes, whatever server features Apple wants to save are now becoming a part of the standard package of OS X Lion. There won't be a separate server edition anymore.

And it makes sense. They buried their server business, so they don't need to develop, market, ship and support a separate server OS anymore.

This all goes along with some of the speculation in my neck of the woods. Apple may have just setup the Mac Pro server option as a temporary fix for those needing a dedicated server that wasn't a mini . . . since they murdered the Xserve.

There's no way anyone in the market for an Xserve will want to stick a Mac Pro in their racks, and a Mini just won't cut it power wise.

Putting the features that SoHo users want in a server in the desktop client will just push the desktop version further up the "what a deal" ladder and leave the Mac server business buried forever.

 

[talmy]

Apple has bragged that they had only one version of OS X (compared to the half dozen versions of Windows), so if this is "done right" they could really make good on that promise. There doesn't seem to be that much fundamentally different in the underpinnings of Snow Leopard and Snow Leopard Server. If the server version of Lion doesn't lose anything then it should be fine, as far as what I need, at least.

IMHO, anyone who has considered Apple servers for heavy, or even medium, duty use has always been living dangerously. Between single source hardware and miniscule market share, why take the chance? For my SOHO use, it's been working out just fine.

 

[grawk]

Apple has bragged that they had only one version of OS X (compared to the half dozen versions of Windows), so if this is "done right" they could really make good on that promise. There doesn't seem to be that much fundamentally different in the underpinnings of Snow Leopard and Snow Leopard Server. If the server version of Lion doesn't lose anything then it should be fine, as far as what I need, at least.

IMHO, anyone who has considered Apple servers for heavy, or even medium, duty use has always been living dangerously. Between single source hardware and miniscule market share, why take the chance? For my SOHO use, it's been working out just fine.

Single source hardware is an asset to server reliability, not a detriment. Compare linux uptimes to AIX, Solaris, or HPUX, and there's no contest. Having 1 company on the hook for everything helps make things run way more smoothly. The trend towards linux in the data center is a detriment that mirrors wall street, with short term costs overruling long term benefit.

 

[Bye Bye Baby]

The difference in the operating systems is more in terms of just function and applications- it is not a completely different operating system. So the idea of Apple giving you access to it on your lion disk is not an outrageous idea.

 

[bluebomberman]

Single source hardware is an asset to server reliability, not a detriment. Compare linux uptimes to AIX, Solaris, or HPUX, and there's no contest. Having 1 company on the hook for everything helps make things run way more smoothly. The trend towards linux in the data center is a detriment that mirrors wall street, with short term costs overruling long term benefit.

That's debatable. Apple's reputation in business/enterprise support has never been stellar. Meanwhile, Google literally Velcro together their server farms, using cheap hardware that is vulnerable to failure at single points but is collectively resilient and efficient.

These are extreme ends of the spectrum that I'm using as examples, though.