4 ms·

Ive been curious about using some Macs for general purpose servers. Is there anything else you do to make them easier to administrate as servers? Are you runnin

Ive been curious about using some Macs for general purpose servers. Is there anything else you do to make them easier to administrate as servers? Are you running Mac-specific stuff on them or more general purpose Linux containerized stuff?

mrtesthah 1y ago
Macs make terrible servers. I’ve had to manage various on-premises Mac servers for the last 15-20 years and every year Apple breaks something extremely basic and obvious with no reasonable workaround. Especially these days with locking down all the administrative functions such that only a local admin user (with a SecureToken!) clicking a button in the GUI with a physically attached mouse/keyboard can enable them.
- leakycap 1y ago
  I'd rather know how a mac server is to run today than how it was over the last 15-20 years. Seems things are getting better now, especially with this ssh news. Security is rarely convenient. Since the early OS X days, Apple seems to be willing to do things the more secure way even if it's a bit of a hassle. Seems to be paying off for them.
  - trollbridge 1y ago
    It’s a lot harder than it used to be. You basically need to ensure you have a remote KVM, or else have access to smart hands every few months to press a button.
    - leakycap 1y ago
      I don't agree that it is harder than it used to be, unless you specifically mean there are a few more dialogs to hop through during install and initial setup which is annoying on recent versions. But you do this once, just like Windows UAP. Apple sells remote management software* if you don't want to buy your own KVM solution, it's $79.99 but given that there are no per-user limits and it has been continually updated for ~20 years, I'd say it's often overlooked in discussions of remotely managing Macs. If you want a free solution, Tahoe w/ ssh FileVault unlock makes using a Mac as a server more useful than ever with a non-Apple VNC product of your choice. * Mac App Store link: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-remote-desktop/id409907375?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-remote-desktop/id4099073...
  - mrtesthah 1y ago
    the point is that the “security” changes apple has been making are not broadly beneficial to the server use case and seem designed for single-user systems with no consideration for remote management/access. This is the same reason why Apple has lost the education market to Chromebooks.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Why not just install linux on them? Macs don't require macos. Hardware ≠ software.
amelius 1y ago
It's generally a bad idea to use consumer hardware for servers.
- rollcat 1y ago
  One reason Google was a big hit was because (while all the competition was doubling down on big iron), they ran their search on commodity hardware, and compensated in software/networking. I don't think Macs would be a great platform for running a k8s cluster, but the power efficiency alone makes them a curious alternative to explore.
  - amelius 1y ago
    Google used x86 Linux machines. Which is common in industry. Everything is documented, unlike Apple's offerings.
    - rollcat 1y ago
      > Which is common in industry. It was *not* common in mid-90s. x86 was commodity hardware - home PCs, early NT workstations. PHP was still written in Perl. Linux was a few years old - industry veterans (e.g. Greenspun) were throwing rocks at it. Yes, the x86 platform was documented - through reverse-engineering efforts. Compaq was the first to produce PC clones, to IBM's great disdain. Don't get me wrong - you're probably better off running Ampere. Just don't dismiss commodity hardware.
      - amelius 1y ago
        The setup was common in universities, back then. That's probably also how they got to use it. This wouldn't work with Apple products because Apple ultimately has control over the hardware. You don't want a server that suddenly shows "Please enter your AppleID" in the middle of something, for example.
        oarsinsync 1y ago

mrtesthah 1y ago

Macs make terrible servers. I’ve had to manage various on-premises Mac servers for the last 15-20 years and every year Apple breaks something extremely basic and obvious with no reasonable workaround. Especially these days with locking down all the administrative functions such that only a local admin user (with a SecureToken!) clicking a button in the GUI with a physically attached mouse/keyboard can enable them.

leakycap 1y ago
I'd rather know how a mac server is to run today than how it was over the last 15-20 years. Seems things are getting better now, especially with this ssh news. Security is rarely convenient. Since the early OS X days, Apple seems to be willing to do things the more secure way even if it's a bit of a hassle. Seems to be paying off for them.
- trollbridge 1y ago
  It’s a lot harder than it used to be. You basically need to ensure you have a remote KVM, or else have access to smart hands every few months to press a button.
  - leakycap 1y ago
    I don't agree that it is harder than it used to be, unless you specifically mean there are a few more dialogs to hop through during install and initial setup which is annoying on recent versions. But you do this once, just like Windows UAP. Apple sells remote management software* if you don't want to buy your own KVM solution, it's $79.99 but given that there are no per-user limits and it has been continually updated for ~20 years, I'd say it's often overlooked in discussions of remotely managing Macs. If you want a free solution, Tahoe w/ ssh FileVault unlock makes using a Mac as a server more useful than ever with a non-Apple VNC product of your choice. * Mac App Store link: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-remote-desktop/id409907375?mt=12 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-remote-desktop/id4099073...
- mrtesthah 1y ago
  the point is that the “security” changes apple has been making are not broadly beneficial to the server use case and seem designed for single-user systems with no consideration for remote management/access. This is the same reason why Apple has lost the education market to Chromebooks.
MangoToupe 1y ago
Why not just install linux on them? Macs don't require macos. Hardware ≠ software.

amelius 1y ago

It's generally a bad idea to use consumer hardware for servers.

rollcat 1y ago
One reason Google was a big hit was because (while all the competition was doubling down on big iron), they ran their search on commodity hardware, and compensated in software/networking. I don't think Macs would be a great platform for running a k8s cluster, but the power efficiency alone makes them a curious alternative to explore.
- amelius 1y ago
  Google used x86 Linux machines. Which is common in industry. Everything is documented, unlike Apple's offerings.
  - rollcat 1y ago
    > Which is common in industry. It was *not* common in mid-90s. x86 was commodity hardware - home PCs, early NT workstations. PHP was still written in Perl. Linux was a few years old - industry veterans (e.g. Greenspun) were throwing rocks at it. Yes, the x86 platform was documented - through reverse-engineering efforts. Compaq was the first to produce PC clones, to IBM's great disdain. Don't get me wrong - you're probably better off running Ampere. Just don't dismiss commodity hardware.
    - amelius 1y ago
      The setup was common in universities, back then. That's probably also how they got to use it. This wouldn't work with Apple products because Apple ultimately has control over the hardware. You don't want a server that suddenly shows "Please enter your AppleID" in the middle of something, for example.
      - oarsinsync 1y ago