6 ms·

It's very cool, but is anyone actually tied to OS X as a server platform? Couldn't they move to FreeBSD and save a ton of money in an application like this? I'm

It's very cool, but is anyone actually tied to OS X as a server platform? Couldn't they move to FreeBSD and save a ton of money in an application like this? I'm wondering if there's a real business case for this, or it's just a fun hack. edit: I guess lumped into this is the small market that seems to exist for colocated Mac Minis. Is there something about them that is better than renting commodity x64 hardware?

ahi 14y ago
One of my old employers has legacy systems built with WebObjects. In theory, WebObjects is Java and should run on anything, but typically it is on OS X Server. I left just as one of my colleagues was trying to figure out what to do about the death of the XServe.
nbpoole 14y ago
First idea that comes to mind: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3837043/best-practice-for-setting-up-an-automated-build-server-for-iphone-apps http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3837043/best-practice-for...
chrismealy 14y ago
In comments the builder said it's for testing.
taligent 14y ago
I am currently using a cluster of Mac Minis as a server platform. Some benefits: * Launchd is a massive improvement over the equivalent mess on Linux. This can't be understated if you are managing your own hardware. * You can develop on the same machine you are deploying to. * You have exactly the same toolchain as on Linux. * Lots of remote monitoring options that are unique to OSX e.g. OSX Server * The OS is stable and upgrades are safe enough to enable auto update. I could never do that on CentOS. But really it comes down to hardware and resale value for me. 2 Mac Minis in 1RU is great value.
- cheald 14y ago
  I don't have extensive experience with Launchd, but what makes it better? OS X doesn't have the same toolchain as Linux - notably, Apple doesn't ship anything licensed under GPLv3. This leads to OS X versions of common GNU tools being extremely outdated. I do agree with the point about developing and deploying in the same environment. I do both in Linux for that exact reason; far fewer surprises when your deploy environment matches what you've already debugged.
  - taligent 14y ago
    Everything. It is all in one place, very simple to use, has process monitoring like Monit and well supported. Nobody uses what Apple ships by default. Homebrew or MacPorts and I have exactly the same setup as I have on my Linux server. Plus lots of amazing GUI wrappers which can simplify setup and ongoing maintenance.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      >Homebrew or MacPorts and I have exactly the same setup as I have on my Linux server. My biggest problems with the above: 1. Neither Homebrew nor MacPorts (nor fink, for that matter) has a complete set of relevant packages 2. Compilation from source is ridiculously slow. 3. Certain utilities are best installed from .dmg files instead, and it's a pain to remember which was installed which way.
      - rymith 14y ago
        1. Name your package manager, and I can list the missing packages, or missing flags which have made my life a pain at some point in my career. 2. Yup, and the only way, should you need to set any flags. 3. True. Which is why it's nice that you can mount dmg's and install pkg's via the command line.
        chimeracoder 14y ago
        > 2. Yup, and the only way, should you need to set any flags. Man, if I subscribed to that belief, I might as well just use Gentoo!
mminer 14y ago
It's a niche use case, but Apple's Qmaster software facilitates distributed video rendering and exporting for Final Cut Pro and some of their other pro applications. A server cluster like this would probably be overkill, but when you're working with massive video files, extra (OS X) machines to do the heavy lifting make a huge difference.
hugs 14y ago
> anyone actually tied to OS X as a server platform? Yes, if you make software that runs on OS X (or iOS and you want to test on iOS Simulators) you need OS X machines for your build and test process. You need lots of machines so you and your fellow developers can run speed things up and run tests in parallel.

ahi 14y ago

One of my old employers has legacy systems built with WebObjects. In theory, WebObjects is Java and should run on anything, but typically it is on OS X Server. I left just as one of my colleagues was trying to figure out what to do about the death of the XServe.

nbpoole 14y ago

First idea that comes to mind: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3837043/best-practice-for-setting-up-an-automated-build-server-for-iphone-apps http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3837043/best-practice-for...

chrismealy 14y ago

In comments the builder said it's for testing.

taligent 14y ago

I am currently using a cluster of Mac Minis as a server platform. Some benefits: * Launchd is a massive improvement over the equivalent mess on Linux. This can't be understated if you are managing your own hardware. * You can develop on the same machine you are deploying to. * You have exactly the same toolchain as on Linux. * Lots of remote monitoring options that are unique to OSX e.g. OSX Server * The OS is stable and upgrades are safe enough to enable auto update. I could never do that on CentOS. But really it comes down to hardware and resale value for me. 2 Mac Minis in 1RU is great value.

cheald 14y ago
I don't have extensive experience with Launchd, but what makes it better? OS X doesn't have the same toolchain as Linux - notably, Apple doesn't ship anything licensed under GPLv3. This leads to OS X versions of common GNU tools being extremely outdated. I do agree with the point about developing and deploying in the same environment. I do both in Linux for that exact reason; far fewer surprises when your deploy environment matches what you've already debugged.
- taligent 14y ago
  Everything. It is all in one place, very simple to use, has process monitoring like Monit and well supported. Nobody uses what Apple ships by default. Homebrew or MacPorts and I have exactly the same setup as I have on my Linux server. Plus lots of amazing GUI wrappers which can simplify setup and ongoing maintenance.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    >Homebrew or MacPorts and I have exactly the same setup as I have on my Linux server. My biggest problems with the above: 1. Neither Homebrew nor MacPorts (nor fink, for that matter) has a complete set of relevant packages 2. Compilation from source is ridiculously slow. 3. Certain utilities are best installed from .dmg files instead, and it's a pain to remember which was installed which way.
    - rymith 14y ago
      1. Name your package manager, and I can list the missing packages, or missing flags which have made my life a pain at some point in my career. 2. Yup, and the only way, should you need to set any flags. 3. True. Which is why it's nice that you can mount dmg's and install pkg's via the command line.
      - chimeracoder 14y ago
        > 2. Yup, and the only way, should you need to set any flags. Man, if I subscribed to that belief, I might as well just use Gentoo!

mminer 14y ago

It's a niche use case, but Apple's Qmaster software facilitates distributed video rendering and exporting for Final Cut Pro and some of their other pro applications. A server cluster like this would probably be overkill, but when you're working with massive video files, extra (OS X) machines to do the heavy lifting make a huge difference.

hugs 14y ago

> anyone actually tied to OS X as a server platform? Yes, if you make software that runs on OS X (or iOS and you want to test on iOS Simulators) you need OS X machines for your build and test process. You need lots of machines so you and your fellow developers can run speed things up and run tests in parallel.