5 ms·

Although the Linux distributions have come a long way in terms of hardware compatibility, I don't think any of them could match a single-vendor (OS and hardware

by pert 18y ago

Although the Linux distributions have come a long way in terms of hardware compatibility, I don't think any of them could match a single-vendor (OS and hardware) solution. I've not used OS X as/on a server, but I assume the hardware monitoring will be well integrated into the hardware and driver issues will be rare. I'd therefore say that it's unfair to compare OS X on the Xserve with the likes of RHEL on Dell, and that a comparison with Sun would be more realistic.

ankhmoop 18y ago
Part of purchasing server hardware from a reputable vendor (even 'whitebox' hardware) is having guarantees that your server operating system will fully support the underlying hardware, especially as bulk purchases of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars are not rare.
- pert 18y ago
  I agree, but this does not guarantee there will be no driver issues and monitoring packages (such as the HP PSP and Dell 'OpenManage') do not come as part of third party operating systems so take time to install. In my opinion this does not detract from Linux in the enterprise, but does mean that it's not quite in the same class as OS X on Apple or [Open]Solaris on Sun.
SwellJoe 18y ago
I've not used OS X as/on a server Why is it that Apple fans feel compelled to defend Apple on every front, even when they have no idea what they're talking about? I'd therefore say that it's unfair to compare OS X on the Xserve with the likes of RHEL on Dell, and that a comparison with Sun would be more realistic. Which is exactly what I did. To quote myself: "an XServe may be nearly cost-competitive with equivalent Sun hardware". And then I explained why hosting providers don't use them (or equivalent Sun hardware), anyway. I've defined my market, and I've explained why Apple hasn't even made a tiny dent in it. Why would this make you feel compelled to argue about why an XServe is superior to a Dell or whitebox running Linux? I don't care. The market doesn't care. The reality of the situation is that a hosting provider can buy four reasonably well-equipped Linux servers, or eight crappy cheap ones, for the cost of one XServe. And they do. Which is why we have two Mac OS X using customers running a handful of XServes, and 1500+ using CentOS or RHEL on a few thousand machines. All of that said, I have used an XServe. And I have used Dell high end servers certified for RHEL. The Dell was better in many regards, including hardware monitoring (Linux has dramatically more third party tools for this kind of task, and Dell has dramatically more Linux servers in the wild than Apple has XServes...so sheer numbers are in Linux' favor). Sun, of course, still has the upper hand in some categories, over both Dell and Apple. The XServe is comparable to the best Dell has to offer, but it is not clearly superior in any particular area. You're assuming, incorrectly, that a Dell running RHEL is the same as a randomly installed Linux distro on a random machine. It's not hit or miss when a reputable vendor builds a system for Linux: It works right, right out of the box.

by pert 18y ago

ankhmoop 18y ago

Part of purchasing server hardware from a reputable vendor (even 'whitebox' hardware) is having guarantees that your server operating system will fully support the underlying hardware, especially as bulk purchases of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars are not rare.

pert 18y ago
I agree, but this does not guarantee there will be no driver issues and monitoring packages (such as the HP PSP and Dell 'OpenManage') do not come as part of third party operating systems so take time to install. In my opinion this does not detract from Linux in the enterprise, but does mean that it's not quite in the same class as OS X on Apple or [Open]Solaris on Sun.

SwellJoe 18y ago

I've not used OS X as/on a server Why is it that Apple fans feel compelled to defend Apple on every front, even when they have no idea what they're talking about? I'd therefore say that it's unfair to compare OS X on the Xserve with the likes of RHEL on Dell, and that a comparison with Sun would be more realistic. Which is exactly what I did. To quote myself: "an XServe may be nearly cost-competitive with equivalent Sun hardware". And then I explained why hosting providers don't use them (or equivalent Sun hardware), anyway. I've defined my market, and I've explained why Apple hasn't even made a tiny dent in it. Why would this make you feel compelled to argue about why an XServe is superior to a Dell or whitebox running Linux? I don't care. The market doesn't care. The reality of the situation is that a hosting provider can buy four reasonably well-equipped Linux servers, or eight crappy cheap ones, for the cost of one XServe. And they do. Which is why we have two Mac OS X using customers running a handful of XServes, and 1500+ using CentOS or RHEL on a few thousand machines. All of that said, I have used an XServe. And I have used Dell high end servers certified for RHEL. The Dell was better in many regards, including hardware monitoring (Linux has dramatically more third party tools for this kind of task, and Dell has dramatically more Linux servers in the wild than Apple has XServes...so sheer numbers are in Linux' favor). Sun, of course, still has the upper hand in some categories, over both Dell and Apple. The XServe is comparable to the best Dell has to offer, but it is not clearly superior in any particular area. You're assuming, incorrectly, that a Dell running RHEL is the same as a randomly installed Linux distro on a random machine. It's not hit or miss when a reputable vendor builds a system for Linux: It works right, right out of the box.