Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72999 > unrolled thread

Dumb Question about SL server.

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 08:15 -0600
    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-10 15:27 +0000
      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 10:07 -0600
        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-10 13:19 -0400
          Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-10 13:33 -0400
            Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 11:44 -0600
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-10 13:52 -0400
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-10 14:57 -0400
                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 08:00 -0600
                  Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 14:18 -0400
                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 22:05 +0000
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 18:13 -0400
                        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-12 02:23 +0000
                          Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 10:14 -0600
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-04-11 11:05 +0000
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 11:38 +0000
                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 07:58 -0600
                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-11 13:59 -0400
                  Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-04-11 18:30 +0000
                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-04-11 15:08 -0500
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-04-11 23:21 +0000
                        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 19:29 -0400
        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. billy@MIX.COM - 2015-04-13 23:47 +0000
          Re: Dumb Question about SL server. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-04-14 06:13 +0000
            Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 04:27 -0400
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-14 11:19 -0400
                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 11:46 -0400
                  Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Király <ggrandish@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 12:15 -0700
                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 15:50 -0400
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-14 16:37 -0400
                        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-15 00:38 +0000
                          Re: Dumb Question about SL server. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-04-15 01:43 +0000
                            Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-14 22:00 -0400
                              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-15 08:48 +0000
                              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:29 -0400
                                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-15 15:19 -0400
                                  Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-15 20:51 -0400
                                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-16 10:19 +0000
                                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-04-16 12:54 -0400
                                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-16 20:36 -0400
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-04-15 00:14 +0000
                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. billy@MIX.COM - 2015-04-14 22:02 +0000
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:22 -0400
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. billy@MIX.COM - 2015-04-14 15:26 +0000
            Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-14 11:14 -0400
    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-10 13:15 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#72999 — Dumb Question about SL server.

I'm being forced to upgrade my OS due to a hardware failure (I'm 
currently running 10.5 on an ancient and dying iMac), but still need 
access to several PPC programs, so wanted to install Snow Leopard Server 
on a newer machine using Parallels.

I'm not familiar with OS X server, so I was hoping someone could confirm 
that the server version includes additional services and some front-ends 
for configuring them, but is otherwise identical to snow leopard (i.e. 
the OS behaves in essentially the same way as OS X client if one doesn't 
run the server.app)

The online descriptions I've been able to find are a bit vague since 
they focus on the server components rather than on running standard Mac 
applications.

TIA
Andre

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#73005

In message <agisaak.spamblock-978DA9.08152010042015@shawnews> 
  Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm being forced to upgrade my OS due to a hardware failure (I'm 
> currently running 10.5 on an ancient and dying iMac), but still need 
> access to several PPC programs, so wanted to install Snow Leopard Server 
> on a newer machine using Parallels.

> I'm not familiar with OS X server, so I was hoping someone could confirm 
> that the server version includes additional services and some front-ends 
> for configuring them, but is otherwise identical to snow leopard (i.e. 
> the OS behaves in essentially the same way as OS X client if one doesn't 
> run the server.app)

I believe in Snow Leopard, OSXS is still a separate install. The
Server.app was introduced in 10.7 as a stand-alone to take an existing
OS X install and make it a Server.

You will have several apps for configuring OSXS, AIR.

> The online descriptions I've been able to find are a bit vague since 
> they focus on the server components rather than on running standard Mac 
> applications.

In that sense, OSXS is no different than OS X.

-- 
Train Station: where the train stops. Work Station: ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73008

In article <slrnmifr13.vn7.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <agisaak.spamblock-978DA9.08152010042015@shawnews> 
>   Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm being forced to upgrade my OS due to a hardware failure (I'm 
> > currently running 10.5 on an ancient and dying iMac), but still need 
> > access to several PPC programs, so wanted to install Snow Leopard Server 
> > on a newer machine using Parallels.
> 
> > I'm not familiar with OS X server, so I was hoping someone could confirm 
> > that the server version includes additional services and some front-ends 
> > for configuring them, but is otherwise identical to snow leopard (i.e. 
> > the OS behaves in essentially the same way as OS X client if one doesn't 
> > run the server.app)
> 
> I believe in Snow Leopard, OSXS is still a separate install. The
> Server.app was introduced in 10.7 as a stand-alone to take an existing
> OS X install and make it a Server.
> 
> You will have several apps for configuring OSXS, AIR.
> 
> > The online descriptions I've been able to find are a bit vague since 
> > they focus on the server components rather than on running standard Mac 
> > applications.
> 
> In that sense, OSXS is no different than OS X.

That's my main concern since I have no actual need to run a server... I 
just want to be able to run rosetta under parallels in Yosemite.

On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server 
version to be virtualized but not the client. It would seem to me that 
setting up a server as a guest would be rather pointless since all 
communication with the outside world would be mediated by the host, or 
am I missing something?

Andre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73018

On 15-04-10 12:07, Ymir wrote:

> On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server 
> version to be virtualized but not the client.

Probably because of some large corporate customer who needed it. Also,
remember that Apple exited the server business in 2010, so allowing Snow
Leopard Server to be virtualised makes sense for customers who can no
longer buy servers from Apple. (just a theory, nobody knows the real
reasons)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73020

In article <5528061e$0$44248$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 15-04-10 12:07, Ymir wrote:
> 
> > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server 
> > version to be virtualized but not the client.
> 
> Probably because of some large corporate customer who needed it. Also,
> remember that Apple exited the server business in 2010, so allowing Snow
> Leopard Server to be virtualised makes sense for customers who can no
> longer buy servers from Apple. (just a theory, nobody knows the real
> reasons)

I suspect it also may be that they just didn't want widespread use of 
virtualized OS X. Since OS X Server was a very small market, there 
wouldn't be many instances of this.

Plus, if they charged extra for OS X Server, this could be viewed as one 
of the things you're paying for.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73022

In article <barmar-89EF4D.13330910042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <5528061e$0$44248$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > On 15-04-10 12:07, Ymir wrote:
> > 
> > > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server 
> > > version to be virtualized but not the client.
> > 
> > Probably because of some large corporate customer who needed it. Also,
> > remember that Apple exited the server business in 2010, so allowing Snow
> > Leopard Server to be virtualised makes sense for customers who can no
> > longer buy servers from Apple. (just a theory, nobody knows the real
> > reasons)

But could a virtualized server actually function as a server which would 
be visible outside the host machine given that the host controls access 
to various ports etc.?

> I suspect it also may be that they just didn't want widespread use of 
> virtualized OS X. Since OS X Server was a very small market, there 
> wouldn't be many instances of this.
> 
> Plus, if they charged extra for OS X Server, this could be viewed as one 
> of the things you're paying for.

Except currently they don't charge more for the server. They just make 
it a bit harder to find (as evidenced by the fact that apple is selling 
it for CAD $22.00 but I found lots of people on Amazon/eBay etc. trying 
to get several hundred for it despite this fact).

Anyways, thanks to the three of you for your input. I essentially just 
want to use SLS as if it were plain vanilla SL.

Andre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73025

In article <agisaak.spamblock-A8B3B2.11444610042015@shawnews>,
 Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <barmar-89EF4D.13330910042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > In article <5528061e$0$44248$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
> >  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 15-04-10 12:07, Ymir wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server 
> > > > version to be virtualized but not the client.
> > > 
> > > Probably because of some large corporate customer who needed it. Also,
> > > remember that Apple exited the server business in 2010, so allowing Snow
> > > Leopard Server to be virtualised makes sense for customers who can no
> > > longer buy servers from Apple. (just a theory, nobody knows the real
> > > reasons)
> 
> But could a virtualized server actually function as a server which would 
> be visible outside the host machine given that the host controls access 
> to various ports etc.?

Sure it can. It depends on how you've virtualized the network.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73028

In article <agisaak.spamblock-A8B3B2.11444610042015@shawnews>, Ymir
<agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Except currently they don't charge more for the server. They just make 
> it a bit harder to find (as evidenced by the fact that apple is selling 
> it for CAD $22.00 but I found lots of people on Amazon/eBay etc. trying 
> to get several hundred for it despite this fact).

first you say they don't charge extra, then you say they do charge
extra. it can't be both.

> Anyways, thanks to the three of you for your input. I essentially just 
> want to use SLS as if it were plain vanilla SL.

you can.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73069

In article <100420151457194543%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <agisaak.spamblock-A8B3B2.11444610042015@shawnews>, Ymir
> <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Except currently they don't charge more for the server. They just make 
> > it a bit harder to find (as evidenced by the fact that apple is selling 
> > it for CAD $22.00 but I found lots of people on Amazon/eBay etc. trying 
> > to get several hundred for it despite this fact).
> 
> first you say they don't charge extra, then you say they do charge
> extra. it can't be both.

It can be both when it's not the same 'they'. Apple charges the same for 
the client and the server.

Andre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73092

In article <agisaak.spamblock-22E2A2.08002511042015@shawnews>, Ymir
<agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > 
> > > Except currently they don't charge more for the server. They just make 
> > > it a bit harder to find (as evidenced by the fact that apple is selling 
> > > it for CAD $22.00 but I found lots of people on Amazon/eBay etc. trying 
> > > to get several hundred for it despite this fact).
> > 
> > first you say they don't charge extra, then you say they do charge
> > extra. it can't be both.
> 
> It can be both when it's not the same 'they'. Apple charges the same for 
> the client and the server.

no they don't.

client is free; server is $20

client used to be $99-129, server used to be $499.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73107

In message <110420151418087435%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <agisaak.spamblock-22E2A2.08002511042015@shawnews>, Ymir
> <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > > 
>> > > Except currently they don't charge more for the server. They just make 
>> > > it a bit harder to find (as evidenced by the fact that apple is selling 
>> > > it for CAD $22.00 but I found lots of people on Amazon/eBay etc. trying 
>> > > to get several hundred for it despite this fact).
>> > 
>> > first you say they don't charge extra, then you say they do charge
>> > extra. it can't be both.
>> 
>> It can be both when it's not the same 'they'. Apple charges the same for 
>> the client and the server.

> no they don't.

> client is free; server is $20

I think he meant of SL, not of Yosemite.

-- 
I'd like to move us right along to a Peter Gibbons. Now we had a chance to meet
this young man, and boy that's just a straight shooter with upper management
written all over him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73108

In article <slrnmij6nj.24ag.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> > > Except currently they don't charge more for the server. They just make 
> >> > > it a bit harder to find (as evidenced by the fact that apple is
> >> > > selling 
> >> > > it for CAD $22.00 but I found lots of people on Amazon/eBay etc.
> >> > > trying 
> >> > > to get several hundred for it despite this fact).
> >> > 
> >> > first you say they don't charge extra, then you say they do charge
> >> > extra. it can't be both.
> >> 
> >> It can be both when it's not the same 'they'. Apple charges the same for 
> >> the client and the server.
> 
> > no they don't.
> 
> > client is free; server is $20
> 
> I think he meant of SL, not of Yosemite.

he mentioned cad$22, which was not snow leopard.

i also mentioned the older prices, $99-129/$499.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73148

In message <110420151813214185%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnmij6nj.24ag.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> >> > > Except currently they don't charge more for the server. They just make 
>> >> > > it a bit harder to find (as evidenced by the fact that apple is
>> >> > > selling 
>> >> > > it for CAD $22.00 but I found lots of people on Amazon/eBay etc.
>> >> > > trying 
>> >> > > to get several hundred for it despite this fact).
>> >> > 
>> >> > first you say they don't charge extra, then you say they do charge
>> >> > extra. it can't be both.
>> >> 
>> >> It can be both when it's not the same 'they'. Apple charges the same for 
>> >> the client and the server.
>> 
>> > no they don't.
>> 
>> > client is free; server is $20
>> 
>> I think he meant of SL, not of Yosemite.

> he mentioned cad$22, which was not snow leopard.

It WAS not SL, but I think it might be SL now.


-- 
Sometimes the gods have no taste at all. They allow sunrises and sunsets
in ridiculous pink and blue hues that any professional artist would
dismiss as the work of some enthusiastic amateur who'd never looked at a
real sunset. This was one of those sunrises. It was the kind of sunrise
a man looks at and says, 'No real sunrise could paint the sky Surgical
Appliance Pink.' Nevertheless, it was beautiful. --The Thief of Time

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73178

In article <slrnmijlqp.2cpo.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <110420151813214185%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
>   nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnmij6nj.24ag.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> >> > > Except currently they don't charge more for the server. They just 
> >> >> > > make 
> >> >> > > it a bit harder to find (as evidenced by the fact that apple is
> >> >> > > selling 
> >> >> > > it for CAD $22.00 but I found lots of people on Amazon/eBay etc.
> >> >> > > trying 
> >> >> > > to get several hundred for it despite this fact).
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > first you say they don't charge extra, then you say they do charge
> >> >> > extra. it can't be both.
> >> >> 
> >> >> It can be both when it's not the same 'they'. Apple charges the same 
> >> >> for 
> >> >> the client and the server.
> >> 
> >> > no they don't.
> >> 
> >> > client is free; server is $20
> >> 
> >> I think he meant of SL, not of Yosemite.
> 
> > he mentioned cad$22, which was not snow leopard.
> 
> It WAS not SL, but I think it might be SL now.

Yes, I was talking about SL client vs. SL server's *current* pricing.

My only point was that the fact that there are many people trying to get 
much more for it on eBay is evidence that many people must be unaware 
that SL server is still available from Apple (and cheap). Otherwise no 
one would attempt to charge so much for it.

Andre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73053

On 2015-04-10, Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:

[16 lines snipped]

> But could a virtualized server actually function as a server which would 
> be visible outside the host machine given that the host controls access 
> to various ports etc.?

Of course. Virtually all the servers you "talk to" on the Internet these
days are virtualised.

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 28th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73058

In message <agisaak.spamblock-A8B3B2.11444610042015@shawnews> 
  Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <barmar-89EF4D.13330910042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> In article <5528061e$0$44248$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
>>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> > On 15-04-10 12:07, Ymir wrote:
>> > 
>> > > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server 
>> > > version to be virtualized but not the client.
>> > 
>> > Probably because of some large corporate customer who needed it. Also,
>> > remember that Apple exited the server business in 2010, so allowing Snow
>> > Leopard Server to be virtualised makes sense for customers who can no
>> > longer buy servers from Apple. (just a theory, nobody knows the real
>> > reasons)

> But could a virtualized server actually function as a server which would 
> be visible outside the host machine

Yes, of course. *most* servers on the Internet are virtualized.

> given that the host controls access to various ports etc.?

Your given is not exactly correct though.

> Anyways, thanks to the three of you for your input. I essentially just 
> want to use SLS as if it were plain vanilla SL.

Yes, that is possible. You can ignore all the Server features and it
will be exactly like the Client version.

-- 
“The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race. ” 
   ― Don Marquis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73068

In article <slrnmii207.vn7.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <agisaak.spamblock-A8B3B2.11444610042015@shawnews> 
>   Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <barmar-89EF4D.13330910042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> >  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> >> In article <5528061e$0$44248$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
> >>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On 15-04-10 12:07, Ymir wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server 
> >> > > version to be virtualized but not the client.
> >> > 
> >> > Probably because of some large corporate customer who needed it. Also,
> >> > remember that Apple exited the server business in 2010, so allowing Snow
> >> > Leopard Server to be virtualised makes sense for customers who can no
> >> > longer buy servers from Apple. (just a theory, nobody knows the real
> >> > reasons)
> 
> > But could a virtualized server actually function as a server which would 
> > be visible outside the host machine
> 
> Yes, of course. *most* servers on the Internet are virtualized.
> 
> > given that the host controls access to various ports etc.?
> 
> Your given is not exactly correct though.
> 
> > Anyways, thanks to the three of you for your input. I essentially just 
> > want to use SLS as if it were plain vanilla SL.
> 
> Yes, that is possible. You can ignore all the Server features and it
> will be exactly like the Client version.

Obviously, I don't understand virtualization as well as I thought, but 
that's something I'll need to remedy on my own. The last bit of your 
reply, though, is the part that's immediately crucial to me, so I 
appreciate your reply.

Andre

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73089

On 15-04-11 07:38, Lewis wrote:

> Yes, of course. *most* servers on the Internet are virtualized.

Because OS-X is licensed and has plenty of proprietary Apple stuff
(including checks that it runs on approved hardware), I would not
*assume* that a virtualised OS-X instance has full functionality.

So the question is perfectly valid.

Does this mean that one could run OS-X Server (Snow Leopard) on a ASUS
server running VMware ?  (Which means that OS-X server is not limited to
specific hardware ?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73094

On 2015-04-11, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-04-11 07:38, Lewis wrote:
>
>> Yes, of course. *most* servers on the Internet are virtualized.
>
> Because OS-X is licensed and has plenty of proprietary Apple stuff
> (including checks that it runs on approved hardware), I would not
> *assume* that a virtualised OS-X instance has full functionality.
>
> So the question is perfectly valid.
>
> Does this mean that one could run OS-X Server (Snow Leopard) on a ASUS
> server running VMware ? 

Why would you want to?  I'm given to understand that OS/X Server is
unsupported.


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 28th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73098

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Saturday, 11 April 2015 18:30 -0000, 
 in article <cot7ieFhd9kU1@mid.individual.net>, 
 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2015-04-11, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>> Does this mean that one could run OS-X Server (Snow Leopard) on a 
>> ASUS server running VMware ?

> Why would you want to?  I'm given to understand that OS/X Server is 
> unsupported.

Your understanding leaves much to be desired.

<http://www.apple.com/osx/server/>
<http://www.apple.com/support/osxserver/>

OS X Server, for Yosemite 10.10.3 updated on 09 April 2015, via the 
App Store.  It would not update, until the OS X 10.10.3 update had 
been applied.

As for Server Admin.app 10.6.5 and its associated tools, it will still 
run under OS X 10.6.8, whether it's a boot disk or run in a virtual 
machine.

 $ ls -alF /Volumes/OSX_HD/Applications/Server/
 total 0
 drwxr-xr-x+  12 root  wheel   408 Mar 12  2010 ./
 drwxrwxr-x+ 106 root  admin  3604 Aug 20  2011 ../
 -rw-r--r--+   1 root  wheel     0 Jul  1  2009 .localized
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 Jul 18  2009 Podcast Composer.app/
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 May 18  2009 RAID Admin.app/
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 Aug 20  2011 Server Admin.app/
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 May 22  2009 Server Monitor.app/
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 Jul 31  2009 Server Preferences.app/
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 Mar 22  2011 System Image Utility.app/
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 Nov 16  2010 Workgroup Manager.app/
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 May 19  2009 Xgrid Admin.app/
 drwxr-xr-x+   3 root  wheel   102 Jul 28  2009 iCal Server Utility.app/

It is the OS, itself, which is no longer receiving support.  This 
depregated version of OS X Server still functons, but will not update 
beyond its _last_ update.

-- 
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
 Be kind to animals; kiss a shark.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlUpf0cACgkQUrwpmRoS3usIhwCfQPzWWu4KClsRyp7jNAijqzrY
qyAAnj9JFhXW4o/o83bj5hhXX2+2HHMQ
=YXqu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web