Re: Re: New thought....
Originally posted by ktlx
I would be very suprised if IBM provided Mac OS X on its servers. Mac OS X does not support any enterprise applications and does not provide any enterprise class hardware or software support. IBM is in the business of selling servers to moderate to large enterprises. If these companies want a 1U server to run Apache or Samba, it will be x86 based running Linux. Heck, Mac OS X does not even run any of IBM's own enterprise software.
As for Windows server customers moving to Mac OS X server, please. That is ridiculous when they have other options that run on their existing hardware.
IBM is not going to sink tons of bucks into providing Linux on its full line of servers only to embrace Mac OS X. Stevie's servers are toys until they have a real file system (not HFS or ufs).
When Mac OS X server supports a journaling file system, either Oracle or DB/2 and network backup to a remote tape jukebox, then the situation may change but not until then.
What enterprise applications that run on Linux will not run on MacOS X Server? From what I've read, porting from one to the other, without any Aqua stuff involved, is fairly easy. I seriously doubt that business decisions regard GUI as a particularly relevant or positive feature in Linux.
I think the more appropo point to make is why MacOS X over Linux? Almost all enterprise apps that do and/or will run on MacOS X undoubtedly run on Linux. Linux is dirt cheap and runs on just about any hardware. MacOS X is 'more expensive' but still a bargain relative to WinDon't. But, it only runs on Apple hardware. So, what compelling features do Apple servers offer the enterprise over that of Linux or WinDon't? Sounds like a good thread, BTW.
A journalling file system is cool, indisputable fact (okay opinion). BUT!!! Is it really that compelling on a server that rarely fails? What kind of server applications benefit from it to the degree that it actually influences enterprise decision-making? IMHO, a journalling file system has considerably greater benefits in client machines that deployed in the jungle and trenches, exposed to nasty external threats as well as relentlessly stupid or inconsiderate users. Bottom line, I don't see journalling as being all that compelling to enterprises today.
As for IBM and Apple partnering in some way, where there is a will there's a way! That said, there are many landmines, such as would you like WebSphere or WebObjects with your server dear customer?
IBM is considered by many industry analysts to be the king of IT. They just announced their intention to acquire PriceWaterhouseCoopers consulting to be combined with IBM"s already prestigious IBM Global Services (or whatever they call it these days). If I were Apple, I'd look for IBM to provide support and implementation services for Apple Xserve customers. IBM could be an enormous knowledge base of problems based by enterprise IT outfits that Apple could mine to discover the problems that Xserve and OS X can solve better for them than do Linux or WinDon't. There are possibilities; I'll leave it at that! Also, I won't hold my breath either. But, if I were SJ, I'd think long and hard about it: instant enterprise credibility enhancement.
Now, back to the subject of this thread:
psych!!!