From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Mon Oct 1 12:11:36 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Mon Oct 1 12:11:50 2007 Subject: remote Xserve RAID replication In-Reply-To: <4720A1E4-62EE-4974-B546-358E24BEF3EC@maccentricsolutions.com> References: <65EDB3B0-3FC5-4EDD-A1E4-B951A5AFDB4C@maccentricsolutions.com> <4720A1E4-62EE-4974-B546-358E24BEF3EC@maccentricsolutions.com> Message-ID: <08D151F7-22B6-479D-B223-E9F1550955C9@mulle-kybernetik.com> Am 01.10.2007 um 06:19 schrieb Noam Birnbaum: > Nat, > > Thanks for the message. I'm considering unison. Is there a reason > to choose unison over a two-way rsync with the -u option? > My impression at the time I chose it was, that unison is lots smarter. Unfortunately that was a few years back and I forgot all the details. I'd look at the slides here "Benjamin C. Pierce. Unison: A file synchronizer and its specification" (http://www.cis.upenn.edu/%7Ebcpierce/papers/index.shtml), to get an idea, why unison is likely to be a better choice than rsync. Nat! ------------------------------------------------------ People are quite at home with evil. ... It's fighting it that raises the dreadful specter of inconvenience. -- McEldowney From mrhatken at mac.com Mon Oct 1 19:51:02 2007 From: mrhatken at mac.com (Ashley Aitken) Date: Mon Oct 1 19:51:37 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? Message-ID: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> Howdy All, There has been some news recently about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard requiring at least 867Mhz (or thereabouts) PPC G4. Does anyone have a handle on what the requirements will be for Mac OS X 10.5 Server? Of course, big-end servers will usually have much more grunt than the above mentioned PPC, but will smaller "workgroup" servers be able to adequately run Leopard Server? Usually servers don't need to have good graphics capabilities etc. Cheers, Ashley. -- Ashley Aitken Perth, Western Australia mrhatken at mac dot com Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!) From kremels at kreme.com Tue Oct 2 09:54:01 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Tue Oct 2 09:54:15 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> Message-ID: <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> On 1-Oct-2007, at 20:51, Ashley Aitken wrote: > There has been some news recently about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard > requiring at least 867Mhz (or thereabouts) PPC G4. > > Does anyone have a handle on what the requirements will be for Mac > OS X 10.5 Server? Everything I've seen has the minimum reqs being a G4 with builtin FireWire and I've not heard anything about a Mhz restriction. What are your sources? -- Ah we're lonely, we're romantic / and the cider's laced with acid / and the Holy Spirit's crying, Where's the beef? / And the moon is swimming naked / and the summer night is fragrant / with a mighty expectation of relief From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Tue Oct 2 11:00:53 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Tue Oct 2 11:01:03 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> Message-ID: <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> Am 02.10.2007 um 18:54 schrieb LuKreme: > On 1-Oct-2007, at 20:51, Ashley Aitken wrote: >> There has been some news recently about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard >> requiring at least 867Mhz (or thereabouts) PPC G4. >> >> Does anyone have a handle on what the requirements will be for Mac >> OS X 10.5 Server? > > Everything I've seen has the minimum reqs being a G4 with builtin > FireWire and I've not heard anything about a Mhz restriction. What > are your sources? > IMO: Apple sells computers. Your phasing out of old equipment is helpfully supported by Mac OS X's arbitrary hardware requirements. The 867Mhz bet sounds about right to me. It'd be consistent with the "Firewire" requirement of Tiger in 2005. Ciao Nat! ------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for paying my rent. -- EVH From kremels at kreme.com Tue Oct 2 11:11:27 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Tue Oct 2 11:11:44 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> Message-ID: <97F093E4-8EB5-483B-A2B0-2BB2B8746AB8@kreme.com> On 2-Oct-2007, at 12:00, Nat! wrote: > IMO: Apple sells computers. Your phasing out of old equipment is > helpfully supported by Mac OS X's arbitrary hardware requirements. > The 867Mhz bet sounds about right to me. It'd be consistent with > the "Firewire" requirement of Tiger in 2005. Tiger supported G3 machines, Leoaprd does not. That's your phase-out. And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old hardware. -- "Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand kicked 200,000 Jews out of Spain, one of the first acts of the Spanish Inquisition, which no one ever expects. " John Carroll's 21st Annual Xmas Quiz answers From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Tue Oct 2 11:30:55 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Tue Oct 2 11:31:04 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <97F093E4-8EB5-483B-A2B0-2BB2B8746AB8@kreme.com> References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> <97F093E4-8EB5-483B-A2B0-2BB2B8746AB8@kreme.com> Message-ID: <8E03F6FD-B1BC-460C-8072-175490C1B586@mulle-kybernetik.com> Am 02.10.2007 um 20:11 schrieb LuKreme: > On 2-Oct-2007, at 12:00, Nat! wrote: >> IMO: Apple sells computers. Your phasing out of old equipment is >> helpfully supported by Mac OS X's arbitrary hardware requirements. >> The 867Mhz bet sounds about right to me. It'd be consistent with >> the "Firewire" requirement of Tiger in 2005. > > Tiger supported G3 machines, Leoaprd does not. That's your phase-out. http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html > > And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for > everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old > hardware. That's a funny use of "good for everyone". --------------------------------------------------- All respect to Petrucci for technical proficiency - but that's like being able to type really fast. Mick Mars writes a much better book. - Itwalksamongus From kremels at kreme.com Tue Oct 2 11:43:52 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Tue Oct 2 11:44:07 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <8E03F6FD-B1BC-460C-8072-175490C1B586@mulle-kybernetik.com> References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> <97F093E4-8EB5-483B-A2B0-2BB2B8746AB8@kreme.com> <8E03F6FD-B1BC-460C-8072-175490C1B586@mulle-kybernetik.com> Message-ID: <30F3EB86-476F-459F-A47F-1BF0FAC0FC65@kreme.com> On 2-Oct-2007, at 12:30, Nat! wrote: >> Tiger supported G3 machines, Leoaprd does not. That's your phase- >> out. > > http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html What's your point? As I said, Tiger supported G3 machines. >> And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for >> everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old >> hardware. > > That's a funny use of "good for everyone". You'd prefer that OS X 10.5 was written to run on a 128K Mac and all intervening machines? -- "He sees the good in every one. No one would ever take him for a clergyman." From jwelch at bynkii.com Tue Oct 2 11:53:30 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Tue Oct 2 11:53:39 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <8E03F6FD-B1BC-460C-8072-175490C1B586@mulle-kybernetik.com> Message-ID: On 10/02/2007 13:30 PM, "Nat!" wrote: >> And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for >> everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old >> hardware. > That's a funny use of "good for everyone". No, it's a perfect use of it. Being able to keep the codebase updated, especially with regard to hardware is a good thing. It means fewer workarounds and easier ability to rewrite when necessary. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Tue Oct 2 11:59:10 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Tue Oct 2 11:59:16 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <30F3EB86-476F-459F-A47F-1BF0FAC0FC65@kreme.com> References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> <97F093E4-8EB5-483B-A2B0-2BB2B8746AB8@kreme.com> <8E03F6FD-B1BC-460C-8072-175490C1B586@mulle-kybernetik.com> <30F3EB86-476F-459F-A47F-1BF0FAC0FC65@kreme.com> Message-ID: Am 02.10.2007 um 20:43 schrieb LuKreme: > On 2-Oct-2007, at 12:30, Nat! wrote: >>> Tiger supported G3 machines, Leoaprd does not. That's your phase- >>> out. >> >> http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html > > What's your point? As I said, Tiger supported G3 machines. > It reads clearly, that Firewire is a requirement. Tiger does not support G3 machines without Firewire. ------------------------------------------------------ See I reckon you're about an eight or a nine, Maybe even nine and a half in four beers time. -- The Streets From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Tue Oct 2 12:08:01 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Tue Oct 2 12:08:08 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F956154-C542-4A1B-8021-D5DF9F24A56F@mulle-kybernetik.com> Am 02.10.2007 um 20:53 schrieb John C. Welch: > On 10/02/2007 13:30 PM, "Nat!" wrote: > >>> And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for >>> everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old >>> hardware. > >> That's a funny use of "good for everyone". > > No, it's a perfect use of it. Being able to keep the codebase updated, > especially with regard to hardware is a good thing. It means fewer > workarounds and easier ability to rewrite when necessary. > And that's another funny use of "good for everyone". It reminds me of the famous quote "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." ------------------------------------------------------ A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. -- B. Gates From jwelch at bynkii.com Tue Oct 2 12:23:52 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Tue Oct 2 12:24:06 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <4F956154-C542-4A1B-8021-D5DF9F24A56F@mulle-kybernetik.com> Message-ID: On 10/02/2007 14:08 PM, "Nat!" wrote: >>>> And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for >>>> everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old >>>> hardware. > >>> That's a funny use of "good for everyone". > >> No, it's a perfect use of it. Being able to keep the codebase updated, >> especially with regard to hardware is a good thing. It means fewer >> workarounds and easier ability to rewrite when necessary. > > And that's another funny use of "good for everyone". > It reminds me of the famous quote "What's good for General Motors is > good for the country." Apple tried supporting every mac ever made and doing a brand new OS once. It was called Copland. Resounding success. Oh wait, no, it never even made it into beta. The ability to say "No" is critical in any successful large - scale project. I fail to see why that magically doesn't apply here, nor why not being able to run Leopard on everything that ever supported every version of Mac OS X is some kind of problem. Will your Mac OS X 10.4 machines burst into flame on Leopard's release date? No, no they will not. So it is probably *your* definition of "good for everyone" (which translates to "don't ever inconvenience me regardless of reason") that is far more amusing here. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From mah at jump-ing.de Tue Oct 2 13:10:27 2007 From: mah at jump-ing.de (Markus Hitter) Date: Tue Oct 2 13:10:38 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 02.10.2007 um 21:23 schrieb John C. Welch: > On 10/02/2007 14:08 PM, "Nat!" wrote: > >>>>> And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for >>>>> everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old >>>>> hardware. >> It reminds me of the famous quote "What's good for General Motors is >> good for the country." > > The ability to say "No" is critical in any successful large - scale > project. > I fail to see why that magically doesn't apply here, nor why not > being able > to run Leopard on everything that ever supported every version of > Mac OS X > is some kind of problem. Up to Tiger, any version of Mac OS X runs on hardware as old as a PowerMac 7600. The only reason you can't just pop in the Installer DVD is, Apple has put consciously a few barriers into place to prohibit running Tiger on non-FireWire hardware. Once you work around these barriers, things run slowly but smoothly. Unix's hardware abstractions easily manage all the details. So, the idea, Apple would clean out just a single line of code as soon as some type of hardware is no longer supported is ... without evidence. In fact, they will add code here and there to make sure the software requirements match the advertised ones. More chances for bugs instead of less. > Will your Mac OS X 10.4 machines burst into flame on Leopard's > release date? No. But with the release of Leopard a lot of people will either have to toss their older Mac to the trash, have to live with a mixed Leopard/Tiger environment, have to stick with all Tiger or have to hack the installer DVD. Just because Apple advertises a randomly choosen limit of 867 MHz. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ From jwelch at bynkii.com Tue Oct 2 13:40:03 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Tue Oct 2 13:40:17 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/02/2007 15:10 PM, "Markus Hitter" wrote: >>>>>> And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for >>>>>> everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old >>>>>> hardware. >> It reminds me of the famous quote "What's good for General Motors is >>> good for the country." > >> The ability to say "No" is critical in any successful large - scale >> project. >> I fail to see why that magically doesn't apply here, nor why not >> being able >> to run Leopard on everything that ever supported every version of >> Mac OS X >> is some kind of problem. > Up to Tiger, any version of Mac OS X runs on hardware as old as a > PowerMac 7600. The only reason you can't just pop in the Installer > DVD is, Apple has put consciously a few barriers into place to > prohibit running Tiger on non-FireWire hardware. Not without hacking the boot process, and it was not supported in any way, shape or form. As well, the only configuration it ran not really slow in was pretty much CLI only, and for that, why spend the time? Linux is your friend for that. > Once you work around these barriers, things run slowly but smoothly. > Unix's hardware abstractions easily manage all the details. Until you needed support of any kind. Then it's not so nice. For a science project, sure. For something you rely on? Not so smart. > So, the idea, Apple would clean out just a single line of code as >soon as some type of hardware is no longer supported is ... without >evidence. In fact, they will add code here and there to make sure the >software requirements match the advertised ones. More chances for >bugs instead of less. Really? Care to tell me how supporting ADB until the end of time will increase reliability? How about Classic. How does eternal classic support on PPC increase reliability. Why limit it there? Why not insist on booting OS 9 on a G5, after all, it's just software. If that logic is correct, than *every* argument for rewriting older Carbon code in Cocoa is so much fantasy, and indeed, newer ways of writing code should be avoided, as they would be less reliable, since they have more features which create more chances for bugs. By that logic, the older versions of Mac OS X are more reliable than the current ones, and I cannot WAIT to see you prove THAT one. >> Will your Mac OS X 10.4 machines burst into flame on Leopard's >> release date? >No. But with the release of Leopard a lot of people will either have >to toss their older Mac to the trash, have to live with a mixed >Leopard/Tiger environment, have to stick with all Tiger or have to >hack the installer DVD. Just because Apple advertises a randomly >choosen limit of 867 MHz. Right, it's all randomly chosen by marketing. There's no technical issue whatsoever. Why, an old ATI RAGE 128 will run Leopard just as well as an X1600, and anyone thinking different is *obviously* falling for marketing lies. That may be a good argument for home use, but it falls apart anywhere else. First of all, if your network is currently running fine, Leopard won't make it run more finererer. Nor will Leopard make a poorly-operating network run magically better. Secondly, performance differences between even G5s and MacTel boxes is significant. Compared to older G4s? Not even close, and that's sans GUI. Compile speeds *alone* are in different universes, and this holds true for pretty much all functions. This is due to not just clock speed, but bus speed, memory speed, memory capacity, etc. You're not going to find much of anything that even a slow MacTel isn't, at absolute worst, slightly better at than a G4. My MacBook Pro destroys my Xserve G4, far above what the 830MHz difference in CPU speeds should account for, and it does well compared to my Xserve G5, even with slower CPUs. The G4's bus speed is *glacial* compared to a G5 or a MacTel, and that is not something to dismiss as "randomly chosen limits". The only reason they'd have to "trash" their systems is if they had a clear need to upgrade every single system the day leopard comes out. Even in the case of such a bizarre need, I cannot imagine "they" wouldn't even consider the need for new hardware. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From mah at jump-ing.de Tue Oct 2 15:00:09 2007 From: mah at jump-ing.de (Markus Hitter) Date: Tue Oct 2 15:00:26 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 02.10.2007 um 22:40 schrieb John C. Welch: > On 10/02/2007 15:10 PM, "Markus Hitter" wrote: > >> Up to Tiger, any version of Mac OS X runs on hardware as old as a >> PowerMac 7600. The only reason you can't just pop in the Installer >> DVD is, Apple has put consciously a few barriers into place to >> prohibit running Tiger on non-FireWire hardware. > > Not without hacking the boot process, and it was not supported in > any way, > shape or form. As well, the only configuration it ran not really > slow in was > pretty much CLI only, [...] I did it, the hard part is to flip a single byte in the kernel. Graphics works just fine. > Linux is your friend for that. Odd understanding ... if this is true, there's no reason to install Mac OS X on any computer. >> So, the idea, Apple would clean out just a single line of code as >> soon as some type of hardware is no longer supported is ... without >> evidence. In fact, they will add code here and there to make sure the >> software requirements match the advertised ones. More chances for >> bugs instead of less. > > Really? Care to tell me how supporting ADB until the end of time will > increase reliability? I was not talking about supporting old devices, I was talking about not artifically restricting what's already there. That said I'm pretty sure most of the ADB stuff will remain in Leopard. The driver file will eventually go away but nobody will even consider to rework any other part of the OS to get rid of ADB handling entirely. Same for the FireWire requirement. If my iBook wouldn't sport such a port I'd hardly notice - except when (re)installing the OS. > If that logic is correct, than > *every* argument for rewriting older Carbon code in Cocoa is so much > fantasy, and indeed, newer ways of writing code should be avoided, > as they > would be less reliable, since they have more features which create > more > chances for bugs. Sure there's a reason to use more modern techniques. Nevertheless there's no reason to kick older hardware just for the sake of having them kicked. Setting a limit of 867 MHz instead of 800 MHz is just silly from the technical point of view. Setting any speed limit is silly as good software works reliable at any speed. > Right, it's all randomly chosen by marketing. There's no technical > issue > whatsoever. Why, an old ATI RAGE 128 will run Leopard just as well > as an > X1600, and anyone thinking different is *obviously* falling for > marketing > lies. > > That may be a good argument for home use, but it falls apart > anywhere else. I prefer to do decisions of this type on my own, even in my enterprise. Cheers, Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ From brett.dikeman at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 16:43:50 2007 From: brett.dikeman at gmail.com (Brett Dikeman) Date: Tue Oct 2 16:43:59 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9d9c4a330710021643o28b33759u69adaba9d5107a51@mail.gmail.com> On 10/2/07, Markus Hitter wrote: > Sure there's a reason to use more modern techniques. Nevertheless > there's no reason to kick older hardware just for the sake of having > them kicked. Setting a limit of 867 MHz instead of 800 MHz is just > silly from the technical point of view. Setting any speed limit is > silly as good software works reliable at any speed. Apple is a publicly traded company. It attempts to make sound, considered decisions in the company's best interests of increasing profits and thus providing a return on investments made in it by its shareholders and investors. It places a heavy priority on the user experience / interface,as well as an image of cutting-edge technology and design- and markets all of this as a competitive advantage. A reasonable conclusion: Apple evaluated the performance (via either set metrics like "how long does it take to print X document or actual user focus groups) and stability (via QA) of Leopard on various models, and drew a line. It was most likely a combination of technical (ex: compatibility), performance, and business/market decisions. For example: how many people with 800mhz machines will buy/upgrade to Leopard, and how much will it cost to develop, test, and support Leopard on those systems? This becomes complex, quickly. Since older systems are often running older OS's, what is the cost of implementing/supporting upgrades from 10.2? 10.3? Costs to a business are not just "the salary of that Apple engineer working on support for model X", it's also "the loss of potential revenue from that Apple engineer working on _______", where _______ could be anything from helping ship Leopard faster/on-time, to implementing new features, etc. Regarding using clockspeed as a delineation: Apple tries to be clear with requirements and often resorts to a reasonably communicated and identifiable trait. Saying "anything that doesn't have Firewire" was not necessarily because that O/S couldn't run without firewire, but because around that delineation was where they wanted to draw the line for legacy support. It is easy for even a casual user to check on the back of their computer for a "funny port with a Y logo on it". It is also relatively easy for a user to check the processor speed. Anyone who tried to explain to an average user the difference between a Wallstreet, Lombard, and Pismo Powerbook can appreciate this. > I prefer to do decisions of this type on my own, even in my enterprise. "Enterprise"? Heh. Regardless- you have at least four choices for your theoretical decision: a)Not buy Leopard Server, if it indeed turns out that you can't run it on your machine. b)Buy new hardware that is supported by Leopard (or comes with it.) c)Buy used hardware that is supported by Leopard. d)Utilize modifications to install Leopard on unsupported hardware. Tempest in a teacup, anyone? Brett From hexstar at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 16:58:27 2007 From: hexstar at gmail.com (Hex Star) Date: Tue Oct 2 16:58:32 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <9d9c4a330710021643o28b33759u69adaba9d5107a51@mail.gmail.com> References: <9d9c4a330710021643o28b33759u69adaba9d5107a51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5dc6fd9e0710021658g5f821e8u1749619fb20d804@mail.gmail.com> It's simple, Apple unlike Microsoft sees it inefficient to infinitely include legacy code in their software. It is for this reason that they have the system they do for phasing out macintosh's each OS release... Were Apple to not do this we'd end up with the same slow and buggy software that Windows users deal with every day. The leaked source code offers a glimpse into what MS developers have to deal with and the hacks that are necessary to keep the legacy code working is not pretty at all, we're lucky that Apple does not want to continually keep legacy code in their software, very lucky. From bobbyg at mac.com Tue Oct 2 19:57:46 2007 From: bobbyg at mac.com (Bob Gore) Date: Tue Oct 2 19:57:51 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Markus Hitter wrote: > Just because Apple advertises a randomly choosen limit of 867 MHz. Apple hasn't "advertised" diddley thus far vis a vis 10.5 platform minimums. The discussion here is reaching a bit beyond the frame about hardware requirements that may still be in flux to this day. More than that, I cannot disclose. -- Bob Gore an Apple Certified Consultant expertise IT services/90405 expertiseIT@mac.com From lance at mac.com Tue Oct 2 20:40:46 2007 From: lance at mac.com (Lance Westerhoff) Date: Tue Oct 2 20:40:57 2007 Subject: Workgroup Manager Problem (omnigroup) Message-ID: <9947F8E2-F7FE-4818-BB40-301B561D59BD@mac.com> Hello All- Sorry you you receive this twice...I haven't had any luck fixing the problem and I am trying to widen my search radius! I'm have a problem with Workgroup Manager (LDAP) on OS X Server (10.4) and I'm hoping for some insights. I looked around the archives and I saw others with similar problems, but answers to those problems did not seem to address mine. Anyway within WM, I can successfully authenticate as diradmin (and root and my admin account), but I can't add any more users. Basically, I can connect to the server just fine in Workgroup Manager, but the "New User" button is grayed out as is most of the information for each account. I'm not sure what could be going on here as everything else with the Server tools (Server admin et al) and Sharing seems to work fine and as expected. After looking around the following manual, I noticed that my problem was most likely associated with Kerberos as noted on page 83: http:// images.apple.com/server/docs/Open_Directory_v10.4.pdf Since we just changed ISPs, it appears that the kerberos domain has changed. Therefore, after getting Open Directory "Kerberized", everything should have worked...but unfortunately it did not....even after a good ol' fashioned restart. Below are the log entries we get. The "Server not found in Kerberos database" in system.log is of obvious concern. It only happens once as repeated attempts to authenticate only result in the "Required Policies not supported...." error. Since we only have one OS X Server box that is itself both the DNS and the OpenDirectory server, I don't know why this this "server not found in kerberos db" error would occur. I'm new to kerberos, but this seems strange. Is there a way to rebuild this database based upon this new realm? The forward/reverse lookup seems to work fine using both nslookup and dig (aka the Network Utility), so I don't think to problem rests within our DNS. In the ApplePasswordServer log, the AUTH2 line is successful while the KERBEROS-LOGIN-CHECK line is not again suggesting a problem with Kerberos...but Kerberos is running just fine (according to the OpenDirectory overview)... /var/log/system.log: Oct 2 10:15:47 HOST DirectoryService[70]: GSSAPI Error: Miscellaneous failure (Server not found in Kerberos database) ... Oct 2 10:17:28 mail DirectoryService[70]: DSLDAPv3PlugIn: Required Policies not Supported: No ClearText, Man-In-The-Middle, Packet Signing, Packet Encryption. LDAP Connection for Node 127.0.0.1 denied. /Library/Logs/PasswordService/ApplePasswordServer.Server.log Oct 2 2007 10:17:13 RSAVALIDATE: success. Oct 2 2007 10:17:13 AUTH2: {0x469b8ee7034e9ad00000000200000002, root} DHX authentication succeeded. Oct 2 2007 10:17:28 KERBEROS-LOGIN-CHECK: user {0x469b8ee7034e9ad00000000200000002, root} authentication failed. Oct 2 2007 10:17:28 QUIT: {no user} disconnected. Thank you for any insights! -Lance ____________________ Lance M. Westerhoff, Ph.D. General Manager QuantumBio Inc. WWW: http://www.quantumbioinc.com Email: lance@quantumbioinc.com Phone: 814-235-6908 Fax: 814-235-6909 From kremels at kreme.com Tue Oct 2 21:01:57 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Tue Oct 2 21:02:13 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> <97F093E4-8EB5-483B-A2B0-2BB2B8746AB8@kreme.com> <8E03F6FD-B1BC-460C-8072-175490C1B586@mulle-kybernetik.com> <30F3EB86-476F-459F-A47F-1BF0FAC0FC65@kreme.com> Message-ID: <8E0B4EED-D32E-4718-A3E8-38AA063B059B@kreme.com> On 2-Oct-2007, at 12:59, Nat! wrote: > Am 02.10.2007 um 20:43 schrieb LuKreme: >> On 2-Oct-2007, at 12:30, Nat! wrote: >>>> Tiger supported G3 machines, Leoaprd does not. That's your >>>> phase-out. >>> >>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html >> >> What's your point? As I said, Tiger supported G3 machines. > > It reads clearly, that Firewire is a requirement. Tiger does not > support G3 machines without Firewire. Yes, I never said it wasn't. I said the DIFFERENCE between Tiger and Leoaprd was lack of G3 support. -- "Last night - you were unhinged. You were like some desperate, howling demon. You frightened me. - Do it again!" From kremels at kreme.com Tue Oct 2 21:03:29 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Tue Oct 2 21:03:45 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> On 2-Oct-2007, at 14:10, Markus Hitter wrote: > Just because Apple advertises a randomly choosen limit of 867 MHz. Which APple has not done. This is nothing more than a baseless rumor. -- There is no Satan. That's just god when he's drunk. From mrhatken at mac.com Tue Oct 2 22:03:22 2007 From: mrhatken at mac.com (Ashley Aitken) Date: Tue Oct 2 22:03:52 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> Message-ID: <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> I guess what I was trying to get at with my question was: Server and client OSs have different hardware requirements. We've heard rumours of Leopard's client requirements, what about server? It would seem to me that server and client operating systems are generally quite different in their hardware requirements. Of course, it depends on what sort of services the server is providing but unless it is a compute server it would seem to me that it probably requires a lot less CPU power and GPU (some servers I believe don't have GPUs) than a client machine. Of course, Apple's server OS (AFAIK) is primarily a tweaked version of the client OS with extra software included (and some left out). However, I would hope that MacOSX 10.5 Server running primarily server services (except Xgrid and similar) would run (as a server) ok on pretty much any G4 with Firewire, with performance being limited primarily by the bus, disk, and network speeds. Seem reasonable? Cheers, Ashley. -- Ashley Aitken Perth, Western Australia mrhatken at mac dot com Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!) From kremels at kreme.com Tue Oct 2 23:51:21 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Tue Oct 2 23:51:39 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> Message-ID: On 2-Oct-2007, at 23:03, Ashley Aitken wrote: > Server and client OSs have different hardware requirements. They do? I can't find any requirments on 10.4 that differ from the client version excpet except for the size of the install and recommended RAM. -- "You can think and you can fight, but the world's always movin', and if you wanna stay ahead you gotta dance." From mah at jump-ing.de Wed Oct 3 00:01:01 2007 From: mah at jump-ing.de (Markus Hitter) Date: Wed Oct 3 00:00:56 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <9d9c4a330710021643o28b33759u69adaba9d5107a51@mail.gmail.com> References: <9d9c4a330710021643o28b33759u69adaba9d5107a51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Am 03.10.2007 um 01:43 schrieb Brett Dikeman: > On 10/2/07, Markus Hitter wrote: > >> Sure there's a reason to use more modern techniques. Nevertheless >> there's no reason to kick older hardware just for the sake of having >> them kicked. Setting a limit of 867 MHz instead of 800 MHz is just >> silly from the technical point of view. Setting any speed limit is >> silly as good software works reliable at any speed. > > Apple is a publicly traded company. It attempts to make sound, > considered decisions in the company's best interests of increasing > profits and thus providing a return on investments made in it by its > shareholders and investors. [...] Thank you, Brett. This just confirms Apple is no longer a technology driven company (which it appeared to be a few years ago) but a marketing driven one. Time for the technical interested user to look at the competition: http://www.gnustep.org/ http://www.etoile-project.org/ http://www.ubuntu.com/ Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ From mrhatken at mac.com Wed Oct 3 01:04:20 2007 From: mrhatken at mac.com (Ashley Aitken) Date: Wed Oct 3 01:04:50 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> Message-ID: On 03/10/2007, at 2:51 PM, LuKreme wrote: > On 2-Oct-2007, at 23:03, Ashley Aitken wrote: >> Server and client OSs have different hardware requirements. > > They do? I can't find any requirments on 10.4 that differ from the > client version excpet except for the size of the install and > recommended RAM. I was speaking generally about server versus client operating systems. I assume you would generally agree servers generally need faster hard drives, bus, and I/O systems whereas clients generally need faster CPU and GPU (again excluding compute servers). The "trouble" with Apple's server OS is, of course and as I mentioned, that it is mostly a tweak of the client OS, even though it would generally be used quite differently. The GUI on a server is a nice bonus for me, but not crucial. Cheers, Ashley. From g.lee at ed.ac.uk Wed Oct 3 04:20:10 2007 From: g.lee at ed.ac.uk (Geoff Lee) Date: Wed Oct 3 04:20:41 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> Message-ID: <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> Ashley Aitken wrote: > > On 03/10/2007, at 2:51 PM, LuKreme wrote: > >> On 2-Oct-2007, at 23:03, Ashley Aitken wrote: >>> Server and client OSs have different hardware requirements. >> >> They do? I can't find any requirments on 10.4 that differ from the >> client version excpet except for the size of the install and >> recommended RAM. > > I was speaking generally about server versus client operating systems. > > I assume you would generally agree servers generally need faster hard > drives, bus, and I/O systems whereas clients generally need faster CPU > and GPU (again excluding compute servers). But these requirements are governed by what you want to do with it rather than any requirement of the OS. Tiger server will run on 500MHz G3 iMac, but you wouldn't use it to serve 150 home directories... -geoff -- ______________________________________ Geoff Lee Computing Support School of Arts, Culture and Environment University of Edinburgh 20 Chambers St, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH1 1JZ Tel: +44 (0)131 650 2341 ______________________________________ From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Wed Oct 3 04:31:24 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Wed Oct 3 04:31:33 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <8E0B4EED-D32E-4718-A3E8-38AA063B059B@kreme.com> References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> <97F093E4-8EB5-483B-A2B0-2BB2B8746AB8@kreme.com> <8E03F6FD-B1BC-460C-8072-175490C1B586@mulle-kybernetik.com> <30F3EB86-476F-459F-A47F-1BF0FAC0FC65@kreme.com> <8E0B4EED-D32E-4718-A3E8-38AA063B059B@kreme.com> Message-ID: <6A1AB4E2-BC3E-4E7B-AE7F-48A1AC9AEA15@mulle-kybernetik.com> Am 03.10.2007 um 06:01 schrieb LuKreme: >>>>>> IMO: Apple sells computers. Your phasing out of old equipment >>>>>> is helpfully supported by Mac OS X's arbitrary hardware >>>>>> requirements. The 867Mhz bet sounds about right to me. It'd be >>>>>> consistent with the "Firewire" requirement of Tiger in 2005. >>>>>> >>>>> Tiger supported G3 machines, Leoaprd does not. That's your >>>>> phase-out. >>>> >>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html >>> >>> What's your point? As I said, Tiger supported G3 machines. >> >> It reads clearly, that Firewire is a requirement. Tiger does not >> support G3 machines without Firewire. > > Yes, I never said it wasn't. I said the DIFFERENCE between Tiger > and Leoaprd was lack of G3 support. > > -- So you wanted to restate the obvious and not argue against my point that there has been and may very well be again an arbitrary hardware requirement ? Sorry, I misunderstood that. ------------------------------------------------------ I suppose I live in a fantasy world, but at least they know me there. -- DLR From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Wed Oct 3 04:32:29 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Wed Oct 3 04:32:37 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C9C0ACC-B378-46F7-81D0-AEFBC10CC562@mulle-kybernetik.com> Am 02.10.2007 um 21:23 schrieb John C. Welch: > On 10/02/2007 14:08 PM, "Nat!" wrote: > >>>>> And, just for the record, phasing out old equipment is good for >>>>> everyone, as it means less legacy code in the OIS to support old >>>>> hardware. >> >>>> That's a funny use of "good for everyone". >> >>> No, it's a perfect use of it. Being able to keep the codebase >>> updated, >>> especially with regard to hardware is a good thing. It means fewer >>> workarounds and easier ability to rewrite when necessary. >> > >> And that's another funny use of "good for everyone". > >> It reminds me of the famous quote "What's good for General Motors is >> good for the country." > > Apple tried supporting every mac ever made and doing a brand new OS > once. It > was called Copland. Resounding success. > > Oh wait, no, it never even made it into beta. > > The ability to say "No" is critical in any successful large - scale > project. > I fail to see why that magically doesn't apply here, nor why not > being able > to run Leopard on everything that ever supported every version of > Mac OS X > is some kind of problem. > > Will your Mac OS X 10.4 machines burst into flame on Leopard's > release date? > No, no they will not. So it is probably *your* definition of "good for > everyone" (which translates to "don't ever inconvenience me > regardless of > reason") that is far more amusing here. > > -- As solely a customer of Apple and not a shareholder, I find it amusing, how you emphasize so much with Apple over its problems and needs. Do you also emphasize as much with the problems of the post office, if your letter arrives three days late ? That's a huge logistics large scale project right there too. If we separate "everyone" out into a) Apple + people with financial investment b) people with emotional investment in Apple (aka Lemmings) c) people who just own Apple computers d) the other 99% of humanity :) The benefit for a) is clear. The benefit for b) is none, but because of the faith, what is good for a) is good for b). Then there is c) people, whose hardware becomes obsolete and who don't like it. Here's a case how the advent of Tiger and its arbitrary hardware requirement affected my Apple hardware investment. As a developer it's a major hassle to work with various Xcode versions. So when 10.4 came out there was a new incompatible Xcode. Xcode is tied to the OS version. I could have chosen to stay for 10.3 on all machines for just about as long as I needed to buy a machine from the next new Mac line. New Macs don't support old OSs. Not going to 10.4 was not a realistic option though. My company is not an island and the rest of the world progressed to 10.4 quickly. Now suddenly, that laptop I used to develop on the train became useless for its purpose. That is certainly not "good for me" by anyones definition. I chose to call the requirement arbitrary is, because that same laptop eventually ran 10.4 nicely. (http://www.macosxhints.com/ article.php?story=20050430144551596) ------------------------------------------------------ You know, in the Bible it doesn't say, "Waddle forth and calcify." -- DLR From jwelch at bynkii.com Wed Oct 3 05:07:26 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Wed Oct 3 05:07:37 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <9C9C0ACC-B378-46F7-81D0-AEFBC10CC562@mulle-kybernetik.com> Message-ID: On 10/03/2007 06:32 AM, "Nat!" wrote: > As solely a customer of Apple and not a shareholder, I find it > amusing, how you emphasize so much with Apple over its problems and > needs. Do you also emphasize as much with the problems of the post > office, if your letter arrives three days late ? That's a huge > logistics large scale project right there too. Behold the mighty strawman. How glorious, and yet, meaningless. Funny how you manage to try to come up with the idea that All Big Projects Are The Same, along with the even sillier idea that An Established Infrastructure With A 200+ Year History is *exactly* the same as An Operating System Release > If we separate "everyone" out into > a) Apple + people with financial investment > b) people with emotional investment in Apple (aka Lemmings) > c) people who just own Apple computers > d) the other 99% of humanity :) > The benefit for a) is clear. The benefit for b) is none, but because > of the faith, what is good for a) is good for b). Then there is c) > people, whose hardware becomes obsolete and who don't like it. You forgot e) The people who refuse to buy new hardware because "by gum, I bought this here laptop five/seven/ten years ago, and by cracky, Apple should support all hardware forever, because my needs perfectly mirror everyone else's" > Here's a case how the advent of Tiger and its arbitrary hardware > requirement affected my Apple hardware investment. As a developer > it's a major hassle to work with various Xcode versions. So when 10.4 > came out there was a new incompatible Xcode. Xcode is tied to the OS > version. I could have chosen to stay for 10.3 on all machines for > just about as long as I needed to buy a machine from the next new Mac > line. New Macs don't support old OSs. Not going to 10.4 was not a > realistic option though. My company is not an island and the rest of > the world progressed to 10.4 quickly. Welcome to being a developer. People buy new stuff. They want applications to run on it. If you refuse to write applications that run well on a new OS release, someone else will happily take your customers. As well, if you had a machine that was current and new when 10.3 came out, it would run 10.4. So unless you had a fairly old mac for 10.3, you didn't have a problem. > Now suddenly, that laptop I used to develop on the train became > useless for its purpose. That is certainly not "good for me" by > anyones definition. Um...camembert or gouda? First of all, unless you're in the dev program, you don't know what Leopard's requirements are, and since they haven't been announced yet, even if you are, you STILL don't know, because such things are flexible even close to a release date. If you have a fairly new PowerBook, say, anything released after the Aluminum ones were announced, which was 2003, almost 5 years ago at this point, you should be good to go. If you have a 400MHz TiBook, which is almost 7 years old? Worry. Here's one...stop assuming that you're general motors. By the way, you also got that GM quote wrong, or at least the context, because that part is rather quotemining-ish, as it leaves off the important lead-in: "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country." The amusing thing is that the ego behind Charles Wilson's statement, and your insistence that Apple never stop supporting any hardware ever made just so you're not inconvenienced in the least are rather similar. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From milov at cslab.uwlax.edu Wed Oct 3 06:07:14 2007 From: milov at cslab.uwlax.edu (Milo Velimirovic) Date: Wed Oct 3 06:19:18 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <9d9c4a330710021643o28b33759u69adaba9d5107a51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AAC350-6B15-4F9F-9D72-0DEE0A4F8E32@cslab.uwlax.edu> On Oct 3, 2007, at 2:01 AM, Markus Hitter wrote: > > Am 03.10.2007 um 01:43 schrieb Brett Dikeman: > >> On 10/2/07, Markus Hitter wrote: >> >>> Sure there's a reason to use more modern techniques. Nevertheless >>> there's no reason to kick older hardware just for the sake of having >>> them kicked. Setting a limit of 867 MHz instead of 800 MHz is just >>> silly from the technical point of view. Setting any speed limit is >>> silly as good software works reliable at any speed. >> >> Apple is a publicly traded company. It attempts to make sound, >> considered decisions in the company's best interests of increasing >> profits and thus providing a return on investments made in it by its >> shareholders and investors. [...] > > Thank you, Brett. This just confirms Apple is no longer a > technology driven company (which it appeared to be a few years ago) > but a marketing driven one. Time for the technical interested user > to look at the competition: > > http://www.gnustep.org/ > http://www.etoile-project.org/ > http://www.ubuntu.com/ > > > Markus > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter > http://www.jump-ing.de/ All worthy things to look at but none of them have a chance of catching up with Apple's mindshare or marketshare anytime soon, despite whatever you may hear from Linux fans. Here are a few numbers from an admittedly unscientific survey of captive population of approximately 2000 users. 1/3 of them are using Windows Vista. between 6.5% and 7% are using Mac OS X, up from between 4-5% Mac OS X last year. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Linux users and on the other hand the Windows 98/ME/2000 users. The remainder are using some flavor of Windows XP. - Milo -- Milo Velimirovi?, Unix Computer Network Administrator University of Wisconsin - La Crosse La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 USA 43 48 48 N 91 13 53 W From bsilver at chrononomicon.com Wed Oct 3 06:22:15 2007 From: bsilver at chrononomicon.com (Bart Silverstrim) Date: Wed Oct 3 06:22:20 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <9d9c4a330710021643o28b33759u69adaba9d5107a51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47039787.2080704@chrononomicon.com> Markus Hitter wrote: > > Am 03.10.2007 um 01:43 schrieb Brett Dikeman: > >> On 10/2/07, Markus Hitter wrote: >> >>> Sure there's a reason to use more modern techniques. Nevertheless >>> there's no reason to kick older hardware just for the sake of having >>> them kicked. Setting a limit of 867 MHz instead of 800 MHz is just >>> silly from the technical point of view. Setting any speed limit is >>> silly as good software works reliable at any speed. >> >> Apple is a publicly traded company. It attempts to make sound, >> considered decisions in the company's best interests of increasing >> profits and thus providing a return on investments made in it by its >> shareholders and investors. [...] > > Thank you, Brett. This just confirms Apple is no longer a technology > driven company (which it appeared to be a few years ago) but a marketing > driven one. Time for the technical interested user to look at the > competition: > > http://www.gnustep.org/ > http://www.etoile-project.org/ > http://www.ubuntu.com/ I'm pretty sure everything Apple has done they did with investors in mind at some point along the decision...to do something contrary to the investors best interest is something they can and would be taken to court over, and I think no one familiar even in passing with Apple's history would think Steve Jobs doesn't know how to dance with the board of directors and that they aren't a group to intentionally mess with on a regular basis. Also, interesting you framed it as "a technology driven company (which it *appeared* to be..."), since that would still be a function of marketing :-) From bsilver at chrononomicon.com Wed Oct 3 06:15:58 2007 From: bsilver at chrononomicon.com (Bart Silverstrim) Date: Wed Oct 3 06:38:38 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <6A1AB4E2-BC3E-4E7B-AE7F-48A1AC9AEA15@mulle-kybernetik.com> References: <7C8385F3-D53D-4626-BDD1-B4867876D7E1@mac.com> <5D4EB9CA-2895-4D2F-822A-5B9DCFA92349@kreme.com> <22A9BF12-D709-4A37-B745-FB6BF502C369@mulle-kybernetik.com> <97F093E4-8EB5-483B-A2B0-2BB2B8746AB8@kreme.com> <8E03F6FD-B1BC-460C-8072-175490C1B586@mulle-kybernetik.com> <30F3EB86-476F-459F-A47F-1BF0FAC0FC65@kreme.com> <8E0B4EED-D32E-4718-A3E8-38AA063B059B@kreme.com> <6A1AB4E2-BC3E-4E7B-AE7F-48A1AC9AEA15@mulle-kybernetik.com> Message-ID: <4703960E.1020202@chrononomicon.com> Nat! wrote: > > Am 03.10.2007 um 06:01 schrieb LuKreme: >>>>>>> IMO: Apple sells computers. Your phasing out of old equipment is >>>>>>> helpfully supported by Mac OS X's arbitrary hardware >>>>>>> requirements. The 867Mhz bet sounds about right to me. It'd be >>>>>>> consistent with the "Firewire" requirement of Tiger in 2005. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Tiger supported G3 machines, Leoaprd does not. That's your >>>>>> phase-out. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html >>>> >>>> What's your point? As I said, Tiger supported G3 machines. >>> >>> It reads clearly, that Firewire is a requirement. Tiger does not >>> support G3 machines without Firewire. >> >> Yes, I never said it wasn't. I said the DIFFERENCE between Tiger and >> Leoaprd was lack of G3 support. >> >> -- > > So you wanted to restate the obvious and not argue against my point that > there has been and may very well be again an arbitrary hardware > requirement ? Sorry, I misunderstood that. Maybe it's more of a logistics move that you wouldn't necessarily see in OSS OS's not driven by economics. Windows NT Server and Workstation (and the myriad versions now on the market) have little difference in the heart of the OS other than a Registry tweak. Why? MS makes more money from one than the other. It also takes more money to train support monkeys on the front line of support. The smaller the hardware options, the less they have to deal with old firmware issues, Joe Average user complaining about speed issues, outdated video issues, etc. etc. etc. The firewire requirement of Leopard may well be just a shortcut for users. If you have it, DING! It's compatible. Apple just knows all their firewire models out there have the requirements for running the OS. From what I understand, unless they hardcode the limitations, Apple doesn't usually care if you can get it to run on the older hardware...they just refuse to listen to you whine if it takes ten minutes to boot or the dancing icons make the interface slow down suddenly. I don't think it's necessarily a random arbitrary value of what's "supported". I think it's most likely the result of testing what users perceive to be acceptable performance under average circumstances. Technically, since you're licensing the software and don't own it...Apple owns it...they can damn well set whatever limits they want on what hardware will or won't be supported. It's the beauty of software licensing :-) Arbitrary requirements are sometimes just a nice way of saying it's simpler for users to understand, if only barely. From mrhatken at mac.com Wed Oct 3 07:30:18 2007 From: mrhatken at mac.com (Ashley Aitken) Date: Wed Oct 3 07:32:30 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 03/10/2007, at 7:20 PM, Geoff Lee wrote: > Ashley Aitken wrote: >> On 03/10/2007, at 2:51 PM, LuKreme wrote: >>> On 2-Oct-2007, at 23:03, Ashley Aitken wrote: >>>> Server and client OSs have different hardware requirements. >>> >>> They do? I can't find any requirments on 10.4 that differ from >>> the client version excpet except for the size of the install and >>> recommended RAM. >> I was speaking generally about server versus client operating >> systems. >> I assume you would generally agree servers generally need faster >> hard drives, bus, and I/O systems whereas clients generally need >> faster CPU and GPU (again excluding compute servers). > > But these requirements are governed by what you want to do with it > rather than any requirement of the OS. Tiger server will run on > 500MHz G3 iMac, but you wouldn't use it to serve 150 home > directories... Yes, good point Geoff, and I guess the same would apply to the client OS. That said, I think that the main criteria used for the Leopard client OS hardware requirements would be that the GUI and all the consumer apps (e.g. iLife) should perform reasonably well. As that is not generally the requirement for a server, perhaps the minimum requirement for Leopard server could be quite less, again the minimum requirements. I'm hoping that a G4 400MHz Power Mac (which has Firewire) will be a reasonable small workgroup server, for most services. What overhead would Mac OS X Server have when running headless compared to a Linux or pure BSD server? I assume not much. Cheers, Ashley. -- Ashley Aitken Perth, Western Australia mrhatken at mac dot com Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!) From brett.dikeman at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 07:38:03 2007 From: brett.dikeman at gmail.com (Brett Dikeman) Date: Wed Oct 3 07:38:12 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <9d9c4a330710021643o28b33759u69adaba9d5107a51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9d9c4a330710030738kf502afdkad884b66f1bb54bb@mail.gmail.com> On 10/3/07, Markus Hitter wrote: > Thank you, Brett. You cherry-picked one paragraph, misunderstood it, and ignored the rest. We're not in agreement of any kind. From larkost at softhome.net Wed Oct 3 07:40:16 2007 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Wed Oct 3 07:41:08 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Ashley Aitken wrote: > I'm hoping that a G4 400MHz Power Mac (which has Firewire) will be > a reasonable small workgroup server, for most services. You are seriously considering running your server off a computer that has 0 chance of having a warrantee? And that has no chance at all for direct replacement? And that is on a platform (PPC) that you can't buy new hardware on? Are you really so bad off that you can't invest $1200 in an iMac to do this job? (less if you would consider a mini or are in .edu and can buy the old iMac) I think you need to bite the bullet and let go of old hardware. It may look like a good deal to not spend money on hardware, but you wind up spending it on support time instead. > What overhead would Mac OS X Server have when running headless > compared to a Linux or pure BSD server? I assume not much. Both of those are designed to run very slim, MacOS X Server is designed to be "easy to use" the two don't usually have similar design goals. -- Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net From andyring at inebraska.com Wed Oct 3 08:29:08 2007 From: andyring at inebraska.com (Andy Ringsmuth) Date: Wed Oct 3 08:29:14 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> Message-ID: On Oct 3, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Karl Kuehn wrote: >> I'm hoping that a G4 400MHz Power Mac (which has Firewire) will be >> a reasonable small workgroup server, for most services. > > You are seriously considering running your server off a computer > that has 0 chance of having a warrantee? And that has no chance at > all for direct replacement? And that is on a platform (PPC) that > you can't buy new hardware on? > > Are you really so bad off that you can't invest $1200 in an iMac > to do this job? (less if you would consider a mini or are in .edu > and can buy the old iMac) I think you need to bite the bullet and > let go of old hardware. It may look like a good deal to not spend > money on hardware, but you wind up spending it on support time > instead. This is getting kinda heated! We don't know his (the G4 400 mhz guy) intended use. Yes, for some people, $1,200 is a lot of money. It is to me. If you're a small business with half a dozen employees, $1,200 is probably a lot of money. I work at a small business with 30 employees and a $1,200 expense is something we have to consider, think through, ask the business owner, and only then if he OKs it, work it into the budget somehow. Not everyone has thousands of dollars sitting around they can dump on the latest Mac gear. Maybe all he's wanting to do with this server idea is set up some sort of home network, or a very small business, with minimal server load. I mean, c'mon, don't criticize someone's financial choices when you have no knowledge of the situation. $1,200 is twice the amount I have EVER spent on the purchase of a vehicle. I know it's a false analogy, but those vehicles have been significantly older than a 400mhz G4, no warranty whatsoever, etc. But it does the job I need it to do. -Andy From bsilver at chrononomicon.com Wed Oct 3 08:56:18 2007 From: bsilver at chrononomicon.com (Bart Silverstrim) Date: Wed Oct 3 08:56:24 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> Message-ID: <4703BBA2.9090102@chrononomicon.com> Andy Ringsmuth wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Karl Kuehn wrote: > >>> I'm hoping that a G4 400MHz Power Mac (which has Firewire) will be a >>> reasonable small workgroup server, for most services. >> >> You are seriously considering running your server off a computer >> that has 0 chance of having a warrantee? And that has no chance at all >> for direct replacement? And that is on a platform (PPC) that you can't >> buy new hardware on? >> >> Are you really so bad off that you can't invest $1200 in an iMac >> to do this job? (less if you would consider a mini or are in .edu and >> can buy the old iMac) I think you need to bite the bullet and let go >> of old hardware. It may look like a good deal to not spend money on >> hardware, but you wind up spending it on support time instead. > > This is getting kinda heated! We don't know his (the G4 400 mhz guy) > intended use. Yes, for some people, $1,200 is a lot of money. It is to > me. If you're a small business with half a dozen employees, $1,200 is > probably a lot of money. I work at a small business with 30 employees > and a $1,200 expense is something we have to consider, think through, > ask the business owner, and only then if he OKs it, work it into the > budget somehow. For a business, what data are you storing? What is your time worth? Is $1200 worth the emails/business documents/time lost if the hardware dies on you? What of your customers? If your business is one that depends on access to information to keep your business flowing, $1200 is a pittance. Invest in external drives for backup and a good hardware RAID card. ESPECIALLY if you don't have in-house tech people to support you when something "goes funky". > Not everyone has thousands of dollars sitting around they can dump on > the latest Mac gear. But they always have the $$ to recover from a major failure and consultant visit to mop up, right? ;-) > Maybe all he's wanting to do with this server idea is set up some sort > of home network, or a very small business, with minimal server load. I > mean, c'mon, don't criticize someone's financial choices when you have > no knowledge of the situation. $1,200 is twice the amount I have EVER > spent on the purchase of a vehicle. I know it's a false analogy, but > those vehicles have been significantly older than a 400mhz G4, no > warranty whatsoever, etc. But it does the job I need it to do. You're right. If he's just playing around at home, more power to him. If it's a business thing (since he referenced a small workgroup), I think the business would need to seriously consider either a newer Mac or cobbling together some decent hardware to make a good homebrew server with RAID (3ware has always ROCKED for me...), a good APC UPS, and a couple external drives to periodically back up important data. And that's for my home use! Yes, more expensive than average, but if you have to support users, you know the panic that ensues the first time these beasties won't boot up any more or their files decide to disappear "all by themselves" SpinRite, anyone? And thank the $DEITY for NTFS data recovery tools to undelete files after users discover that Word File Open dialogs do more than open files... :-O But I digress... From mah at jump-ing.de Wed Oct 3 09:29:00 2007 From: mah at jump-ing.de (Markus Hitter) Date: Wed Oct 3 09:29:06 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> Message-ID: <1C60B8FD-327C-4D10-AF37-902EC63824BF@jump-ing.de> Am 03.10.2007 um 17:29 schrieb Andy Ringsmuth: > Maybe all he's wanting to do with this server idea is set up some > sort of home network, or a very small business, with minimal server > load. Additionally, an iMac is a pretty poor choice for a server computer: Big useless screen and one hard drive only. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ From jwelch at bynkii.com Wed Oct 3 09:44:39 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Wed Oct 3 09:44:46 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/03/2007 09:30 AM, "Ashley Aitken" wrote: > As that is not generally the requirement for a server, perhaps the > minimum requirement for Leopard server could be quite less, again the > minimum requirements. That's assuming that GUI is the major use of hardware for the OS. Considering the kinds of data throughput needs of a server, such as RAM, network, drive, that's not a good assumption to make. > I'm hoping that a G4 400MHz Power Mac (which has Firewire) will be a > reasonable small workgroup server, for most services. Define: Reasonable, Small, Workgroup, and "most services". Those have different meanings to everyone who uses them. > What overhead would Mac OS X Server have when running headless > compared to a Linux or pure BSD server? I assume not much. There's no empirical way to define that for all uses. It really depends on what you're doing. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From james.childers at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 09:45:07 2007 From: james.childers at gmail.com (James Childers) Date: Wed Oct 3 09:45:19 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? Message-ID: <83413D1D-F747-40B5-B5CF-C415FBC3EF25@gmail.com> I have to admit that this entire discussion seems a bit silly to me. Apple has announced that machines that are less than 867MHz will be unsupported by Leopard, e.g. you can still run it, but they don't recommend it and will not be able to provide technical support thereby. This seems a perfectly healthy balance between introducing new features and maintaining compatibility with older machines. This is for Leopard, not Leopard Server, about which no announcement has yet been made. Where I work, we had a couple of SGI machines that sat in a corner for literally years without significant upgrades beyond security patches, rarely-to-the-point-of-never needed a reboot... and were responsible for handling *credit card transactions*. This was, to say the least, a critical part of our business. But those boxes just sat there and did their jobs. No one cared that they didn't run The Latest, because that is not what was important about them. Moral: If the box that is running OS X Server is doing its job well, then don't upgrade it. But if there are compelling features in Leopard Server then it is by no means too much to ask that the box it runs on has more beef than a single core 867 (!) MHz processor, i.e. anything bought before Q3 2001. Apple will probably not provide technical support for the latest version of OS X to machines that are 5-6+ years old. This is not surprising. -= J From jwelch at bynkii.com Wed Oct 3 09:49:08 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Wed Oct 3 09:49:16 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/03/2007 10:29 AM, "Andy Ringsmuth" wrote: > Maybe all he's wanting to do with this server idea is set up some > sort of home network, or a very small business, with minimal server > load. I mean, c'mon, don't criticize someone's financial choices > when you have no knowledge of the situation. $1,200 is twice the > amount I have EVER spent on the purchase of a vehicle. I know it's a > false analogy, but those vehicles have been significantly older than > a 400mhz G4, no warranty whatsoever, etc. But it does the job I need > it to do. What's a "very small business"? Even a small server can hit some serious workloads. Give me two video editors and I can make a room of G4s work hard. Similarly, give me building full of light email users and a single G4 will be all they need. The same 400MHz G4 that can handle over a hundred MPEG-4 streams will fall over and die at around 20 h.264 streams. You cannot, can NOT say "well for light use..." because there's no way, no physical nor psychological way that Apple can even BEGIN to define what "light use" is for ten people much less a million or more. I guarantee you'd rather they be overly conservative than overly optimistic. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From lance at mac.com Wed Oct 3 09:54:42 2007 From: lance at mac.com (Lance Westerhoff) Date: Wed Oct 3 09:54:57 2007 Subject: Workgroup Manager Problem (omnigroup) In-Reply-To: <9947F8E2-F7FE-4818-BB40-301B561D59BD@mac.com> References: <9947F8E2-F7FE-4818-BB40-301B561D59BD@mac.com> Message-ID: Hello All- Ok...that's odd...the problem "fixed itself" by this morning when I came in to work on it. Last night when I went to bed it didn't work...this morning it did. It looks like the gremlins (or a cronjob of some sort) were on my side this time. -Lance On Oct 2, 2007, at 11:40 PM, Lance Westerhoff wrote: > > Hello All- > > Sorry you you receive this twice...I haven't had any luck fixing > the problem and I am trying to widen my search radius! > > I'm have a problem with Workgroup Manager (LDAP) on OS X Server > (10.4) and I'm hoping for some insights. I looked around the > archives and I saw others with similar problems, but answers to > those problems did not seem to address mine. > > Anyway within WM, I can successfully authenticate as diradmin (and > root and my admin account), but I can't add any more users. > Basically, I can connect to the server just fine in Workgroup > Manager, but the "New User" button is grayed out as is most of the > information for each account. I'm not sure what could be going on > here as everything else with the Server tools (Server admin et al) > and Sharing seems to work fine and as expected. After looking > around the following manual, I noticed that my problem was most > likely associated with Kerberos as noted on page 83: http:// > images.apple.com/server/docs/Open_Directory_v10.4.pdf > > Since we just changed ISPs, it appears that the kerberos domain has > changed. Therefore, after getting Open Directory "Kerberized", > everything should have worked...but unfortunately it did > not....even after a good ol' fashioned restart. Below are the log > entries we get. > > The "Server not found in Kerberos database" in system.log is of > obvious concern. It only happens once as repeated attempts to > authenticate only result in the "Required Policies not > supported...." error. Since we only have one OS X Server box that > is itself both the DNS and the OpenDirectory server, I don't know > why this this "server not found in kerberos db" error would occur. > I'm new to kerberos, but this seems strange. Is there a way to > rebuild this database based upon this new realm? The forward/ > reverse lookup seems to work fine using both nslookup and dig (aka > the Network Utility), so I don't think to problem rests within our > DNS. > > In the ApplePasswordServer log, the AUTH2 line is successful while > the KERBEROS-LOGIN-CHECK line is not again suggesting a problem > with Kerberos...but Kerberos is running just fine (according to the > OpenDirectory overview)... > > /var/log/system.log: > Oct 2 10:15:47 HOST DirectoryService[70]: GSSAPI Error: > Miscellaneous failure (Server not found in Kerberos database) > ... > Oct 2 10:17:28 mail DirectoryService[70]: DSLDAPv3PlugIn: Required > Policies not Supported: No ClearText, Man-In-The-Middle, Packet > Signing, Packet Encryption. LDAP Connection for Node 127.0.0.1 denied. > > /Library/Logs/PasswordService/ApplePasswordServer.Server.log > Oct 2 2007 10:17:13 RSAVALIDATE: success. > Oct 2 2007 10:17:13 AUTH2: {0x469b8ee7034e9ad00000000200000002, > root} DHX authentication succeeded. > Oct 2 2007 10:17:28 KERBEROS-LOGIN-CHECK: user > {0x469b8ee7034e9ad00000000200000002, root} authentication failed. > Oct 2 2007 10:17:28 QUIT: {no user} disconnected. > > Thank you for any insights! > > -Lance > ____________________ > Lance M. Westerhoff, Ph.D. > General Manager > QuantumBio Inc. > > WWW: http://www.quantumbioinc.com > Email: lance@quantumbioinc.com > > Phone: 814-235-6908 > Fax: 814-235-6909 > > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin From jwelch at bynkii.com Wed Oct 3 09:58:00 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Wed Oct 3 09:58:05 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <1C60B8FD-327C-4D10-AF37-902EC63824BF@jump-ing.de> Message-ID: On 10/03/2007 11:29 AM, "Markus Hitter" wrote: >> Maybe all he's wanting to do with this server idea is set up some >> sort of home network, or a very small business, with minimal server >> load. > Additionally, an iMac is a pretty poor choice for a server computer: > Big useless screen and one hard drive only. Nonsense. It's perfect for things like Nagios and Cacti. A server is not a server is not a server. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From kremels at kreme.com Wed Oct 3 10:19:49 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Wed Oct 3 10:20:07 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> Message-ID: <3614BA15-CB9E-4C27-9C76-6EBF9C09111C@kreme.com> On 3-Oct-2007, at 09:29, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: > If you're a small business with half a dozen employees, $1,200 is > probably a lot of money. I work at a small business with 30 > employees and a $1,200 expense is something we have to consider, > think through, ask the business owner, and only then if he OKs it, > work it into the budget somehow. Trying to run a business with a 7+ year old piece of hardware as the server is what is known as "penny wise, pound foolish". -- "You can speak soon and write like a graduate college if me let you help for a day of 15 minutes" 1963 #1 From kremels at kreme.com Wed Oct 3 10:22:26 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Wed Oct 3 10:22:44 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <83413D1D-F747-40B5-B5CF-C415FBC3EF25@gmail.com> References: <83413D1D-F747-40B5-B5CF-C415FBC3EF25@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3-Oct-2007, at 10:45, James Childers wrote: > Apple has announced that machines that are less than 867MHz will be > unsupported by Leopard I still have seen nothing on this other than in this thread. Someone, please, cite a source. -- BILL: I can't get behind the Gods, who are more vengeful, angry, and dangerous if you don't believe in them! HENRY: Why can't all these Gods just get along? I mean, they're omnipotent and omnipresent, what's the problem? From james.childers at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 10:34:13 2007 From: james.childers at gmail.com (James Childers) Date: Wed Oct 3 10:34:22 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <83413D1D-F747-40B5-B5CF-C415FBC3EF25@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9DDB7702-F525-4154-AA27-AE8143693FFC@gmail.com> On Oct 3, 2007, at 12:22 PM, LuKreme wrote: > On 3-Oct-2007, at 10:45, James Childers wrote: >> Apple has announced that machines that are less than 867MHz will >> be unsupported by Leopard > > I still have seen nothing on this other than in this thread. > Someone, please, cite a source. No! That would significantly decrease the hyperbole and bile! Ok, here's all that I've been able to find: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/09/24/ updated_leopard_requirements_to_exclude_800mhz_systems.html To quote: "The Cupertino-based company has yet to officially announce the hardware requirements to run Leopard, due out in October, but had long stated in developer documentation that the software would require "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (800MHz or faster) or G5 processor." According to people familiar with the matter, engineers for the company recently determined that Leopard installs on 800MHz PowerPC G4 systems ran "too slow." Support for those systems was subsequently pulled from the most recent pre-release copies of Leopard, which inform testers that the software "cannot be installed" on those computers. Instead, Leopard will now require Macs with "an Intel processor or a PowerPC G4 (867 MHz or faster) or G5 processor." Other system requirements include a DVD drive, built-in FireWire, at least 512MB of RAM (additional recommended), and at least 9GB of hard disk space. Though seemingly mild, the 67MHz increase will exclude a handful of Mac system, namely the 800MHz PowerBook G4 (Titanium), 800MHz PowerMac G4 (Quicksilver), 800MHz iMac G4, 800MHz iBook G4, and 800MHz eMac." All other mentions of this cite this Apple Insider article. So: it's a rumor. Probably not too far from the truth, but still a rumor nonetheless. -= J From lynlist at nowdata.com Wed Oct 3 09:18:14 2007 From: lynlist at nowdata.com (Lyn) Date: Wed Oct 3 11:19:41 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <4703BBA2.9090102@chrononomicon.com> References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> <4703BBA2.9090102@chrononomicon.com> Message-ID: <4854FE94-88AB-40FF-B374-B5093816074F@nowdata.com> Generally, I'm a pretty stalwart evangelist for most things Apple, but I recently had to wait one month (30 days!) for a replacement G4 Xserve power supply. This was after several calls begging Apple to locate and ship one of these as quickly as possible. This episode scared me so much that I ordered spare power supplies for three of my other Xserves. Same delivery wait time. Yes, I should have had spare parts on hand, but I really wonder about the apparent lack of availability directly from Apple for such a common component? This is one of those experiences that sticks in my mind when I'm looking to purchase additional servers or making recommendations for others. Lyn On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > For a business, what data are you storing? What is your time worth? > > Is $1200 worth the emails/business documents/time lost if the > hardware dies on you? What of your customers? > > If your business is one that depends on access to information to > keep your business flowing, $1200 is a pittance. Invest in > external drives for backup and a good hardware RAID card. > ESPECIALLY if you don't have in-house tech people to support you > when something "goes funky". From chad+macosx at objectwerks.com Wed Oct 3 12:56:24 2007 From: chad+macosx at objectwerks.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Wed Oct 3 12:56:32 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <4854FE94-88AB-40FF-B374-B5093816074F@nowdata.com> References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> <4703BBA2.9090102@chrononomicon.com> <4854FE94-88AB-40FF-B374-B5093816074F@nowdata.com> Message-ID: On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Lyn wrote: > Generally, I'm a pretty stalwart evangelist for most things Apple, > but I recently had to wait one month (30 days!) for a replacement > G4 Xserve power supply. This was after several calls begging Apple > to locate and ship one of these as quickly as possible. > > This episode scared me so much that I ordered spare power supplies > for three of my other Xserves. Same delivery wait time. > > Yes, I should have had spare parts on hand, but I really wonder > about the apparent lack of availability directly from Apple for > such a common component? This is one of those experiences that > sticks in my mind when I'm looking to purchase additional servers > or making recommendations for others. I know I cannot run OS X (but I can run FreeBSD and Solaris 10), but I build all my own servers so that this does not happen. I can have a spare power supply on hand, extra MB or CPU or RAM or disks or whatever, and generally do it much less expensively than a "name brand" server. My box is not as sexy looking but otherwise my servers can do all what the "name brand" ones do and they have much faster support (me) and I can go to several different local stores and buy parts in an emergency since it is all off the shelf stuff, or any internet dealer, and I also keep spares on the shelf here. Chad > > Lyn > > On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote: >> For a business, what data are you storing? What is your time worth? >> >> Is $1200 worth the emails/business documents/time lost if the >> hardware dies on you? What of your customers? >> >> If your business is one that depends on access to information to >> keep your business flowing, $1200 is a pittance. Invest in >> external drives for backup and a good hardware RAID card. >> ESPECIALLY if you don't have in-house tech people to support you >> when something "goes funky". > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Wed Oct 3 13:29:11 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Wed Oct 3 13:29:19 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 03.10.2007 um 14:07 schrieb John C. Welch: > On 10/03/2007 06:32 AM, "Nat!" wrote: > >> As solely a customer of Apple and not a shareholder, I find it >> amusing, how you emphasize so much with Apple over its problems and >> needs. Do you also emphasize as much with the problems of the post >> office, if your letter arrives three days late ? That's a huge >> logistics large scale project right there too. > > Behold the mighty strawman. How glorious, and yet, meaningless. > > Funny how you manage to try to come up with the idea that All Big > Projects > Are The Same, along with the even sillier idea that An Established > Infrastructure With A 200+ Year History is *exactly* the same as An > Operating System Release It's sorta funny, to see you try very hard to miss the point I was making. > > >> If we separate "everyone" out into > >> a) Apple + people with financial investment >> b) people with emotional investment in Apple (aka Lemmings) >> c) people who just own Apple computers >> d) the other 99% of humanity :) > >> The benefit for a) is clear. The benefit for b) is none, but because >> of the faith, what is good for a) is good for b). Then there is c) >> people, whose hardware becomes obsolete and who don't like it. > > You forgot e) The people who refuse to buy new hardware because "by > gum, I > bought this here laptop five/seven/ten years ago, and by cracky, Apple > should support all hardware forever, because my needs perfectly mirror > everyone else's" No, they are logically included in c) b) and a), which goes to show that your reasoning abilities < polemic capabilities. > >> Here's a case how the advent of Tiger and its arbitrary hardware >> requirement affected my Apple hardware investment. As a developer >> it's a major hassle to work with various Xcode versions. So when 10.4 >> came out there was a new incompatible Xcode. Xcode is tied to the OS >> version. I could have chosen to stay for 10.3 on all machines for >> just about as long as I needed to buy a machine from the next new Mac >> line. New Macs don't support old OSs. Not going to 10.4 was not a >> realistic option though. My company is not an island and the rest of >> the world progressed to 10.4 quickly. > > Welcome to being a developer. People buy new stuff. They want > applications > to run on it. If you refuse to write applications that run well on > a new OS > release, someone else will happily take your customers. As well, if > you had > a machine that was current and new when 10.3 came out, it would run > 10.4. So > unless you had a fairly old mac for 10.3, you didn't have a problem. > >> Now suddenly, that laptop I used to develop on the train became >> useless for its purpose. That is certainly not "good for me" by >> anyones definition. > > Um...camembert or gouda? First of all, unless you're in the dev > program, you > don't know what Leopard's requirements are, and since they haven't > been > announced yet, even if you are, you STILL don't know, because such > things > are flexible even close to a release date. If you have a fairly new > PowerBook, say, anything released after the Aluminum ones were > announced, > which was 2003, almost 5 years ago at this point, you should be > good to go. > If you have a 400MHz TiBook, which is almost 7 years old? Worry. > > Here's one...stop assuming that you're general motors. > > By the way, you also got that GM quote wrong, or at least the context, > because that part is rather quotemining-ish, as it leaves off the > important > lead-in: > > "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good > for General > Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is > too big. > It goes with the welfare of the country." Ouch, that gives it a completely different spin, that I didn't intend. No.. Wait... > > The amusing thing is that the ego behind Charles Wilson's > statement, and > your insistence that Apple never stop supporting any hardware ever > made just > so you're not inconvenienced in the least are rather similar. > The problem with that comparison is, that I never insisted on such a thing. You're either a sloppy reader or not a forthright debater. ------------------------------------------------------ A good dog, though a fool. Who wants a smart dog! -- R.A. Lafferty From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Wed Oct 3 18:44:53 2007 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Wed Oct 3 18:51:41 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Sure there's a reason to use more modern techniques. Nevertheless > there's no reason to kick older hardware just for the sake of having > them kicked. You entire argument seems to completely ignore the issues of QA. Minor oversight... -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Wed Oct 3 18:59:13 2007 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Wed Oct 3 18:59:18 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: <83413D1D-F747-40B5-B5CF-C415FBC3EF25@gmail.com> Message-ID: > Apple has announced that machines that are less than 867MHz will be > unsupported by Leopard... NO THEY HAVEN'T!!! A rumor site reported this. Apple has made no such announcement. -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From mah at jump-ing.de Thu Oct 4 00:11:56 2007 From: mah at jump-ing.de (Markus Hitter) Date: Thu Oct 4 00:11:54 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 04.10.2007 um 03:44 schrieb Scott Ribe: >> Sure there's a reason to use more modern techniques. Nevertheless >> there's no reason to kick older hardware just for the sake of having >> them kicked. > > You entire argument seems to completely ignore the issues of QA. Minor > oversight... No oversight. Older Macs work just fine, once you work around Apple's barriers. Mac OS X is designed to make unsupported hardware a matter of drivers and it achieves this goal. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ From jwelch at bynkii.com Thu Oct 4 08:39:14 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Thu Oct 4 08:39:22 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/03/2007 15:29 PM, "Nat!" wrote: Am 03.10.2007 um 14:07 schrieb John C. Welch: > On 10/03/2007 06:32 AM, "Nat!" wrote: > >>> As solely a customer of Apple and not a shareholder, I find it >>> amusing, how you emphasize so much with Apple over its problems and >>> needs. Do you also emphasize as much with the problems of the post >>> office, if your letter arrives three days late ? That's a huge >>> logistics large scale project right there too. > >> Behold the mighty strawman. How glorious, and yet, meaningless. > >> Funny how you manage to try to come up with the idea that All Big >> Projects >> Are The Same, along with the even sillier idea that An Established >> Infrastructure With A 200+ Year History is *exactly* the same as An >> Operating System Release >It's sorta funny, to see you try very hard to miss the point I was >making. You're the one who tried to compare the Postal Service with Mac OS X. You don't like me laughing at your strawman and silly analogies, don't make them. > > >>> If we separate "everyone" out into > >>> a) Apple + people with financial investment >>> b) people with emotional investment in Apple (aka Lemmings) >>> c) people who just own Apple computers >>> d) the other 99% of humanity :) > >>> The benefit for a) is clear. The benefit for b) is none, but because >>> of the faith, what is good for a) is good for b). Then there is c) >>> people, whose hardware becomes obsolete and who don't like it. > >> You forgot e) The people who refuse to buy new hardware because "by >> gum, I >> bought this here laptop five/seven/ten years ago, and by cracky, Apple >> should support all hardware forever, because my needs perfectly mirror >> everyone else's" >No, they are logically included in c) b) and a), which goes to show >that your reasoning abilities < polemic capabilities. No, because the nits who insist that Apple never ever cut off any hardware are never in c) or a). A) in fact LOVES it when Apple cuts off older hardware, that's financially advantageous for them, and c) don't really care that much. It is only b) and e) that get whiny because their Iisi can't run Mac OS X 10.4. > >>> Here's a case how the advent of Tiger and its arbitrary hardware >>> requirement affected my Apple hardware investment. As a developer >>> it's a major hassle to work with various Xcode versions. So when 10.4 >>> came out there was a new incompatible Xcode. Xcode is tied to the OS >>> version. I could have chosen to stay for 10.3 on all machines for >>> just about as long as I needed to buy a machine from the next new Mac >>> line. New Macs don't support old OSs. Not going to 10.4 was not a >>> realistic option though. My company is not an island and the rest of >>> the world progressed to 10.4 quickly. > >> Welcome to being a developer. People buy new stuff. They want >> applications >> to run on it. If you refuse to write applications that run well on >> a new OS >> release, someone else will happily take your customers. As well, if >> you had >> a machine that was current and new when 10.3 came out, it would run >> 10.4. So >> unless you had a fairly old mac for 10.3, you didn't have a problem. > >>> Now suddenly, that laptop I used to develop on the train became >>> useless for its purpose. That is certainly not "good for me" by >>> anyones definition. > >> Um...camembert or gouda? First of all, unless you're in the dev >> program, you >> don't know what Leopard's requirements are, and since they haven't >> been >> announced yet, even if you are, you STILL don't know, because such >> things >> are flexible even close to a release date. If you have a fairly new >> PowerBook, say, anything released after the Aluminum ones were >> announced, >> which was 2003, almost 5 years ago at this point, you should be >> good to go. >> If you have a 400MHz TiBook, which is almost 7 years old? Worry. > >> Here's one...stop assuming that you're general motors. > >> By the way, you also got that GM quote wrong, or at least the context, >> because that part is rather quotemining-ish, as it leaves off the >> important >> lead-in: > >> "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good >> for General >> Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is >> too big. >> It goes with the welfare of the country." >Ouch, that gives it a completely different spin, that I didn't intend. >No.. Wait... No, it just shows you can't be bothered to understand the quote you're mining. > >> The amusing thing is that the ego behind Charles Wilson's >> statement, and >> your insistence that Apple never stop supporting any hardware ever >> made just >> so you're not inconvenienced in the least are rather similar. > >The problem with that comparison is, that I never insisted on such a >thing. >You're either a sloppy reader or not a forthright debater. Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't complaining that Apple should never update hardware requirements thus possibly "making" you buy new hardware? So you don't actually have a problem with it? Because if you're now saying that, I have some fascinating bits of email you sent to the list that would contradict this new position. You're either possessed of the world's worst short-term memory, or you think everyone you argue with is. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From jwelch at bynkii.com Thu Oct 4 08:39:50 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Thu Oct 4 08:39:59 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/03/2007 20:59 PM, "Scott Ribe" wrote: >> Apple has announced that machines that are less than 867MHz will be >> unsupported by Leopard... > >NO THEY HAVEN'T!!! A rumor site reported this. Apple has made no such >announcement. Oh now you're just bringing facts and reality into things. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From shoop at iwiring.net Thu Oct 4 13:21:37 2007 From: shoop at iwiring.net (Dan Shoop) Date: Thu Oct 4 13:21:47 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: <86E29E95-8636-4C6D-BC54-E6D136C73CD4@kreme.com> <75E2DCD8-8C07-4E70-97A1-F16A2649F3EE@mac.com> <47037AEA.1070101@ed.ac.uk> <8F5A8647-3903-47FC-A40E-DF2117F203B9@softhome.net> Message-ID: <6F54A6C3-DD56-4D83-88DE-45B2E04228BB@iwiring.net> On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: > Yes, for some people, $1,200 is a lot of money. It is to me. If > you're a small business with half a dozen employees, $1,200 is > probably a lot of money. I work at a small business with 30 > employees and a $1,200 expense is something we have to consider, > think through, ask the business owner, and only then if he OKs it, > work it into the budget somehow. If your business relies on this server then $1200 is peanuts. I bet your postal budget is more over two years. And your coffee budget. And your copier paper budget. Do you go without paper for two to three years because it's expensive? Businesses that can't afford the costs of doing business will fortunately not be in business much longer. -dhan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Shoop Tactical Operations Center: 1.866.901.8787 (24x7) Ph: 714.363.1174 AIM: iWiring From nat at mulle-kybernetik.com Thu Oct 4 15:12:09 2007 From: nat at mulle-kybernetik.com (Nat!) Date: Thu Oct 4 15:12:17 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I get the feeling you're just typing random stuff to prolong your losing argument. But anyway... Am 04.10.2007 um 17:39 schrieb John C. Welch: > On 10/03/2007 15:29 PM, "Nat!" wrote: > > > Am 03.10.2007 um 14:07 schrieb John C. Welch: > >> On 10/03/2007 06:32 AM, "Nat!" wrote: >> >>>> As solely a customer of Apple and not a shareholder, I find it >>>> amusing, how you emphasize so much with Apple over its problems and >>>> needs. Do you also emphasize as much with the problems of the post >>>> office, if your letter arrives three days late ? That's a huge >>>> logistics large scale project right there too. >> >>> Behold the mighty strawman. How glorious, and yet, meaningless. >> >>> Funny how you manage to try to come up with the idea that All Big >>> Projects >>> Are The Same, along with the even sillier idea that An Established >>> Infrastructure With A 200+ Year History is *exactly* the same as An >>> Operating System Release > >> It's sorta funny, to see you try very hard to miss the point I was >> making. > > You're the one who tried to compare the Postal Service with Mac OS > X. You > don't like me laughing at your strawman and silly analogies, don't > make > them. I compare your assumed different emotional involvement in companies (Apple / Postal Service). It's obvious. And your try to evade that is also very obvious. > >>> everyone else's" > >> No, they are logically included in c) b) and a), which goes to show >> that your reasoning abilities < polemic capabilities. > > No, because the nits who insist that Apple never ever cut off any > hardware > are never in c) or a). A) in fact LOVES it when Apple cuts off older > hardware, that's financially advantageous for them, and c) don't > really care > that much. It is only b) and e) that get whiny because their Iisi > can't run > Mac OS X 10.4. You fail at logic. I ain't drawing you a Venn diagram. Your "nits" are most likely to be in c). >> >>> "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good >>> for General >>> Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is >>> too big. >>> It goes with the welfare of the country." > >> Ouch, that gives it a completely different spin, that I didn't >> intend. >> No.. Wait... > > No, it just shows you can't be bothered to understand the quote you're > mining. Ridiculous. The extended quote makes the point even stronger than the shortened version. It's not like that Brecht quote: "Imagine it?s war and nobody takes part", where the full quote "Imagine it?s war and nobody takes part? the war will come to you!" gives it a completely different meaning. Interesting how I cleverly mined that as well, I must be good at that. But I am interested to read your interpretation, how the two versions make a difference to what I was trying to convey. > >> >>> The amusing thing is that the ego behind Charles Wilson's >>> statement, and >>> your insistence that Apple never stop supporting any hardware ever >>> made just >>> so you're not inconvenienced in the least are rather similar. >> > >> The problem with that comparison is, that I never insisted on such a >> thing. >> You're either a sloppy reader or not a forthright debater. > > Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't complaining that Apple should never update > hardware requirements thus possibly "making" you buy new hardware? > So you > don't actually have a problem with it? Because if you're now saying > that, I > have some fascinating bits of email you sent to the list that would > contradict this new position. > Cool. Show me the email where I said that Apple should never update hardware requirements. Do it or kindly shut up. P.S. I know, you aren't reading my mails very carefully. Nevertheless, maybe check how I use the expression "arbitrary hardware requirement" from the beginning and ponder how it differs from just "hardware requirements". ------------------------------------------------------ This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time. -- Palahniuk From norman at astro.gla.ac.uk Thu Oct 4 15:27:51 2007 From: norman at astro.gla.ac.uk (Norman Gray) Date: Thu Oct 4 15:43:03 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > or kindly shut up. Oh, please don't. You're all _so_ much more entertaining when you're screaming at each other. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk eurovotech.org : University of Leicester, UK From kremels at kreme.com Thu Oct 4 16:12:59 2007 From: kremels at kreme.com (LuKreme) Date: Thu Oct 4 16:13:22 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4-Oct-2007, at 16:27, Norman Gray wrote: >> or kindly shut up. > > Oh, please don't. You're all _so_ much more entertaining when > you're screaming at each other. Really? I don't find "Nat!" at all entertaining. Pompous and irrational, perhaps. -- ++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start. From jwelch at bynkii.com Thu Oct 4 16:56:45 2007 From: jwelch at bynkii.com (John C. Welch) Date: Thu Oct 4 16:56:57 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/04/2007 18:12 PM, "Nat!" wrote: > P.S. I know, you aren't reading my mails very carefully. > Nevertheless, maybe check how I use the expression "arbitrary > hardware requirement" from the beginning and ponder how it differs > from just "hardware requirements". Ah, arbitrary. Because of course, you get to define "arbitrary" however you like, which, from what we can all see, is "anything that inconveniences Nat". Of course, were apple to, just as arbitrarily mind you, set up hardware restrictions that did NOT inconvenience you, you would of course, have no problems with that. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple being arbitrary, and everything to do with the potential of YOU being inconvenienced. The sweet, sweet hypocrisy of your argument and positions is like nectar to me. -- John C. Welch Writer/Analyst Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions jwelch@bynkii.com From scott_ribe at killerbytes.com Thu Oct 4 18:11:07 2007 From: scott_ribe at killerbytes.com (Scott Ribe) Date: Thu Oct 4 18:11:20 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Nevertheless, maybe check how I use the expression "arbitrary > hardware requirement" from the beginning and ponder how it differs > from just "hardware requirements". Yes and you have absolutely no evidence, NONE AT ALL, that any of the requirements are arbitrary. We're all just supposed to take your word for it, as though you really have any clue whatsoever what would be involved for various versions of OS X to be FULLY QUALIFIED on older hardware. Note that I said "fully qualified", not "seems to run well enough for various random people who hacked it". -- Scott Ribe scott_ribe@killerbytes.com http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice From dcox at americanhotel.com Fri Oct 5 07:41:29 2007 From: dcox at americanhotel.com (Dennis Cox) Date: Fri Oct 5 07:41:36 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/4/2007 6:56 PM, "John C. Welch" wrote: > On 10/04/2007 18:12 PM, "Nat!" wrote: > >> P.S. I know, you aren't reading my mails very carefully. >> Nevertheless, maybe check how I use the expression "arbitrary >> hardware requirement" from the beginning and ponder how it differs >> from just "hardware requirements". > > Ah, arbitrary. Because of course, you get to define "arbitrary" however you > like, which, from what we can all see, is "anything that inconveniences > Nat". Of course, were apple to, just as arbitrarily mind you, set up > hardware restrictions that did NOT inconvenience you, you would of course, > have no problems with that. > > This has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple being arbitrary, and everything > to do with the potential of YOU being inconvenienced. The sweet, sweet > hypocrisy of your argument and positions is like nectar to me. That's okay, whenever he makes a word do a lot of work like that, he always pay it extra. From netsec at omnigroup.com Fri Oct 5 12:03:34 2007 From: netsec at omnigroup.com (netsec@omnigroup.com) Date: Fri Oct 5 12:03:55 2007 Subject: Leopard Server hardware requirements Message-ID: I'm getting complaints about this thread. Can the interested parties please move it off-list? Sincerely, Brian C. Netsec at omni group dot com From bsilver at chrononomicon.com Fri Oct 5 19:02:23 2007 From: bsilver at chrononomicon.com (Bart Silverstrim) Date: Fri Oct 5 19:02:28 2007 Subject: A quick rant-delete it or think about it Message-ID: <4706ECAF.6030605@chrononomicon.com> In the years I've followed newsgroups and mailing lists, I've seen what seems like one utterly out of control thread every week on at least one of the groups. People going off topic, being inflammatory, irritating,...generally just being obnoxious or ignorant. Every single time these threads DIE OFF on their own given some time. Something else comes up, or people get bored enough to move on. And yet there's always somebody who, despite the thread dying off, keeps perpetuating that problem, either by adding to the echoes out of some need to have the last word or by complaining to the listmom to come in and add yet ANOTHER message to the thread people were complaining was going too long. Am I the only one that thinks this is foolish? What does it accomplish? Has anyone EVER seen a thread that ran perpetually and continuously? I've seen issues pop back up periodically, but never continuously. *sigh* I apologize for the rant. I've said it before on lists...if you want the thread to die, SHUT UP. Quit feeding the thread. Why is this such a difficult concept for people?! :-/ Again, I'm sorry. I'll not say any more about this on this list. I just get so fed up with seeing this happen...seeing that someone, or a couple people, are so driven that they are compelled to perpetuate the very thing they're trying to stop. I'll be quiet now. Unless, of course, someone decided to pay some literary retribution, probably just illustrating my point. Maybe this thread will become a self-referential bit of irony. $DEITY, I hope not. From jerry.levan at eku.edu Sun Oct 7 09:29:17 2007 From: jerry.levan at eku.edu (Jerry LeVan) Date: Sun Oct 7 09:29:22 2007 Subject: Anyone use gpt? Message-ID: Hi, I have a largish firewire disk that I use for backing up various drives in two of my mac osx computers. I have about 120GB of free space left on the firewire drive and I would like to setup about half of the free space for general (upbacked up ) storage... Disk utility seems to want to re-init the entire drive if I try to add a partition. I apropos'ed partition and found the program "gpt". The man page asserts that one can use gpt to "add" a partition. The command gpt show displays: [mbp:~]$ gpt show disk2 start size index contents 0 1 PMBR 1 1 Pri GPT header 2 32 Pri GPT table 34 6 40 409600 1 GPT part - C12A7328-F81F-11D2- BA4B-00A0C93EC93B 409640 243669008 2 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 244078648 262144 244340792 124326424 3 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 368667216 262144 368929360 359339512 4 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 728268872 248504263 976773135 32 Sec GPT table 976773167 1 Sec GPT header Tain't clear what the two 262144 sized unlabeled areas are, I am guessing maybe the journal file. (But get info says that all three of the partitions ( index 2,3,4) are journaled... Has anyone actually used this program to "add" a new partition? Thanks Jerry From donkergroen at mac.com Sun Oct 7 09:39:03 2007 From: donkergroen at mac.com (Donkergroen bvba) Date: Sun Oct 7 09:39:23 2007 Subject: Anyone use gpt? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: what does "diskutil list" show you ? On 07 Oct 2007, at 18:29, Jerry LeVan wrote: > Hi, > > I have a largish firewire disk that I use for backing up various > drives in two of my mac osx computers. > > I have about 120GB of free space left on the firewire drive and > I would like to setup about half of the free space for general > (upbacked up ) storage... > > Disk utility seems to want to re-init the entire drive if I try > to add a partition. > > I apropos'ed partition and found the program "gpt". > > The man page asserts that one can use gpt to "add" a partition. > > The command gpt show displays: > > [mbp:~]$ gpt show disk2 > start size index contents > 0 1 PMBR > 1 1 Pri GPT header > 2 32 Pri GPT table > 34 6 > 40 409600 1 GPT part - C12A7328-F81F-11D2- > BA4B-00A0C93EC93B > 409640 243669008 2 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- > AA11-00306543ECAC > 244078648 262144 > 244340792 124326424 3 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- > AA11-00306543ECAC > 368667216 262144 > 368929360 359339512 4 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- > AA11-00306543ECAC > 728268872 248504263 > 976773135 32 Sec GPT table > 976773167 1 Sec GPT header > > Tain't clear what the two 262144 sized unlabeled areas are, I am > guessing maybe > the journal file. (But get info says that all three of the > partitions( index 2,3,4) > are journaled... > > Has anyone actually used this program to "add" a new partition? > > Thanks > > Jerry > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin From donkergroen at mac.com Sun Oct 7 09:47:04 2007 From: donkergroen at mac.com (Donkergroen bvba) Date: Sun Oct 7 09:47:22 2007 Subject: Anyone use gpt? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27D2E88B-2E84-4161-B2C6-B423675DD61A@mac.com> If what you wanted to do is add a new partition using the free space : http://www.macgeekery.com/tips/cli/nondestructively_resizing_volumes Dirk ( google is your friend :-) ) On 07 Oct 2007, at 18:29, Jerry LeVan wrote: > Hi, > > I have a largish firewire disk that I use for backing up various > drives in two of my mac osx computers. > > I have about 120GB of free space left on the firewire drive and > I would like to setup about half of the free space for general > (upbacked up ) storage... > > Disk utility seems to want to re-init the entire drive if I try > to add a partition. > > I apropos'ed partition and found the program "gpt". > > The man page asserts that one can use gpt to "add" a partition. > > The command gpt show displays: > > [mbp:~]$ gpt show disk2 > start size index contents > 0 1 PMBR > 1 1 Pri GPT header > 2 32 Pri GPT table > 34 6 > 40 409600 1 GPT part - C12A7328-F81F-11D2- > BA4B-00A0C93EC93B > 409640 243669008 2 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- > AA11-00306543ECAC > 244078648 262144 > 244340792 124326424 3 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- > AA11-00306543ECAC > 368667216 262144 > 368929360 359339512 4 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- > AA11-00306543ECAC > 728268872 248504263 > 976773135 32 Sec GPT table > 976773167 1 Sec GPT header > > Tain't clear what the two 262144 sized unlabeled areas are, I am > guessing maybe > the journal file. (But get info says that all three of the > partitions( index 2,3,4) > are journaled... > > Has anyone actually used this program to "add" a new partition? > > Thanks > > Jerry > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > MacOSX-admin@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin From jerry.levan at eku.edu Mon Oct 8 17:48:37 2007 From: jerry.levan at eku.edu (Jerry LeVan) Date: Mon Oct 8 17:48:45 2007 Subject: Anyone use gpt? In-Reply-To: <7BE68435-FD31-4AC2-A282-E13D1512C68B@mac.com> References: <3DCCFF8B-6650-4E35-BEFF-D35B23F8879C@mac.com> <88CF0065-D3EF-4331-9CBA-21625E16ACE1@eku.edu> <7BE68435-FD31-4AC2-A282-E13D1512C68B@mac.com> Message-ID: On Oct 7, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Donkergroen bvba wrote: > > If you have free space you should be able to change the free space > in a filesystem in disk utility. > ( Application/Utilities/Disk Utility.app ) > > Dirk > > On 07 Oct 2007, at 19:24, Jerry LeVan wrote: > >> >> On Oct 7, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Donkergroen bvba wrote: >> >>> I still don't understand what you want to do , but I think this >>> will help you : >>> http://www.macgeekery.com/tips/cli/nondestructively_resizing_volumes >>> >>> I think after you do something like this : $ diskutil >>> resizeVolume disk1s2 75G >>> ( on the cmd line as root ) >>> After that you should be able to use diskutility to create the >>> new partition from the free space. >>> Dirk >>> On 07 Oct 2007, at 18:47, Jerry LeVan wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Donkergroen bvba wrote: >>>> >>>>> what does "diskutil list" show you ? >>>>> On 07 Oct 2007, at 18:29, Jerry LeVan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a largish firewire disk that I use for backing up various >>>>>> drives in two of my mac osx computers. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have about 120GB of free space left on the firewire drive and >>>>>> I would like to setup about half of the free space for general >>>>>> (upbacked up ) storage... >>>>>> >>>>>> Disk utility seems to want to re-init the entire drive if I try >>>>>> to add a partition. >>>>>> >>>>>> I apropos'ed partition and found the program "gpt". >>>>>> >>>>>> The man page asserts that one can use gpt to "add" a partition. >>>>>> >>>>>> The command gpt show displays: >>>>>> >>>>>> [mbp:~]$ gpt show disk2 >>>>>> start size index contents >>>>>> 0 1 PMBR >>>>>> 1 1 Pri GPT header >>>>>> 2 32 Pri GPT table >>>>>> 34 6 >>>>>> 40 409600 1 GPT part - C12A7328-F81F-11D2- >>>>>> BA4B-00A0C93EC93B >>>>>> 409640 243669008 2 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- >>>>>> AA11-00306543ECAC >>>>>> 244078648 262144 >>>>>> 244340792 124326424 3 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- >>>>>> AA11-00306543ECAC >>>>>> 368667216 262144 >>>>>> 368929360 359339512 4 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- >>>>>> AA11-00306543ECAC >>>>>> 728268872 248504263 >>>>>> 976773135 32 Sec GPT table >>>>>> 976773167 1 Sec GPT header >>>>>> >>>>>> Tain't clear what the two 262144 sized unlabeled areas are, I >>>>>> am guessing maybe >>>>>> the journal file. (But get info says that all three of the >>>>>> partitions( index 2,3,4) >>>>>> are journaled... >>>>>> >>>>>> Has anyone actually used this program to "add" a new partition? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Jerry >>>>> >>>> >>>> [mbp:~]$ diskutil list disk2 >>>> /dev/disk2 >>>> #: type name size >>>> identifier >>>> 0: GUID_partition_scheme *465.8 GB disk2 >>>> 1: EFI 200.0 MB disk2s1 >>>> 2: Apple_HFS MacBigDisk 116.2 GB disk2s2 >>>> 3: Apple_HFS MacSmallDisk 59.3 GB disk2s3 >>>> 4: Apple_HFS MBP 171.3 GB disk2s4 >>>> >>>> It does not show anything of use for creating new partitions ;( >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> >>> >> >> Well I already have a big hunk of free space at the end of the >> drive... >> I just wanted to carve out a partition of the free space for non >> backup >> usage (without destroying the contents of the other 3 partitions). >> >> I found the tech note: http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2006/ >> tn2166.html >> >> It explained the mysterious 128 MB gap between the partitions. >> >> I guess I will think about this for a while...If worst comes to >> pass I guess >> I could reformat from scratch and rebuild the backups, surely >> nothing could >> possibly go wrong :) >> >> Jerry > Well it turned out to be fairly easy... [mbp:~]$ gpt show disk2 start size index contents 0 1 PMBR 1 1 Pri GPT header 2 32 Pri GPT table 34 6 40 409600 1 GPT part - C12A7328-F81F-11D2- BA4B-00A0C93EC93B 409640 243669008 2 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 244078648 262144 244340792 124326424 3 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 368667216 262144 368929360 359339512 4 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 728268872 248504263 976773135 32 Sec GPT table 976773167 1 Sec GPT header [mbp:~]$ sudo -s Password: mbp:~ root# gpt add -b 728530966 -s 124000000 -t hfs disk2 mbp:~ root# gpt show disk2 start size index contents 0 1 PMBR 1 1 Pri GPT header 2 32 Pri GPT table 34 6 40 409600 1 GPT part - C12A7328-F81F-11D2- BA4B-00A0C93EC93B 409640 243669008 2 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 244078648 262144 244340792 124326424 3 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 368667216 262144 368929360 359339512 4 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 728268872 262094 728530966 124000000 5 GPT part - 48465300-0000-11AA- AA11-00306543ECAC 852530966 124242169 976773135 32 Sec GPT table 976773167 1 Sec GPT header mbp:~ root# I then used Disk Utility.app to erase and name the volume. Much better than reformating the whole drive to add a partition :) Jerry From mgf at mgfconsulting.net Wed Oct 10 10:47:42 2007 From: mgf at mgfconsulting.net (Mike Friedman) Date: Wed Oct 10 10:47:53 2007 Subject: Filtering Software for Kids Network Message-ID: <58C2485F-FE32-4DFB-A371-A4D721DDA8AD@mgfconsulting.net> I am about to start on a project to set up a computer lab with around 20 workstations for children (ages ranging from 3-5 up to 13-15) and wondered what filtering software people have used and how successful it has been, how difficult to manage, etc. We will be setting up an OSX server machine and using Netboot for most of the users (with the exception of the older ones who are too far away for a cable run and will be using wireless). Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! ======================= Mike Friedman MGF Consulting Computers without Attitude http://www.mgfconsulting.net 415-648-6560 (office) 415-823-9990 (mobile) Yahoo Messenger/AIM: sfmike64 From daniel at highdesertchurch.com Wed Oct 10 11:17:23 2007 From: daniel at highdesertchurch.com (Daniel Hazelbaker) Date: Wed Oct 10 11:18:43 2007 Subject: Filtering Software for Kids Network In-Reply-To: <58C2485F-FE32-4DFB-A371-A4D721DDA8AD@mgfconsulting.net> References: <58C2485F-FE32-4DFB-A371-A4D721DDA8AD@mgfconsulting.net> Message-ID: <29A7B6C3-7992-4596-ADA9-ED53B4CAD07C@highdesertchurch.com> I use DansGuardian for our public WiFi Internet Cafe. The list of who uses it includes a large number of schools. I figure if schools are using it for their content filtering then it is good enough for my internet cafe. http://dansguardian.org/ Daniel On Oct 10, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Mike Friedman wrote: > I am about to start on a project to set up a computer lab with > around 20 workstations for children (ages ranging from 3-5 up to > 13-15) and wondered what filtering software people have us