It's absolutely untrue that Lion server doesn't include such things as DNS. However, you DO have to install the Server Admin tools separately (which is stupid, Apple! Why do you have to make things extra difficult and then not document them?). Open Directory could not work without DNS running, so it has to be there.
I think they are stupidly trying to hide things from novices that don't concern those of us who do this for a living. I have not done an SL to L upgrade yet (I have one pending) but I did a brand new install of Lion Server and everything functions just fine. It's a pretty simple setup so far (no web or mail, but that's coming). On Nov 3, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Neil Laubenthal wrote: > I've heard several reports that echo what both Jesse and Ashley have said . . > .I guess the main idea is that SL Server and Lion Server are different cats > (in more ways than one:-) and you need to make sure that whichever you use > does whatever you need it to do. > > I would tend to agree with Ashley's recommendation not to try upgrading from > SLS to LS . . .but then I was a systems administrator by trade for the last > 20 years before I recently retired . . .and I would _never_ upgrade a server > OS. They're always installed, patched, secured, and configured from scratch > although I will export/import config files to make things easier/quicker. I > still haven't decided whether to use Lion server or not . . .I guess I could > splurge and spend the 50 bucks and test it to find out . . .but think I'll > download the docs and check out all the goodies first . . .what I primarily > want are portable home directories and a better permissions model for shared > folders. I'm currently using regular Lion as a home file server and there are > issues with permissions if say I save a file and then my wife needs to modify > it. I've worked a round this by using a common service account to mount the > shared data volume on both of our laptops but that solution is less than > elegant so it's irritating. > > > On Nov 3, 2011, at 9:41 AM,11/3, Jesse Tayler wrote: > >> Just as a note, I haven't had any issues and am fine with Lion server. >> >> >> On Nov 2, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Ashley Aitken wrote: >> >>> >>> WARNING: Do NOT (try to) upgrade a Snow Leopard Server installation to >>> Lion Server until you have read the posts on Apple's OS X Lion Server >>> discussion list. >>> >>> From what I've read there Mac OS X Lion Server is something pretty much >>> everyone should stay away from. It's beta at best, lots of things are >>> problematic, it just doesn't work in a lot of cases, and lots of >>> functionality was lost from Snow Leopard server (e.g. DNS, virtual web >>> hosts, ...) and there are many limitations (e.g. one local subnet). > > > ----------------------------------------------- > There are only three kinds of stress; your basic nuclear stress, cooking > stress, and A$$hole stress. The key to their relationship is Jello. > > neil > > > > _______________________________________________ > MacOSX-admin mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin ======================= Mike Friedman MGF Consulting Computers without Attitude http://www.mgfconsulting.net 415-823-9990 Instant Message AIM/Yahoo: sfmike64 _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
