On 23 dec 2011, at 21:56, Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Scott Lewis wrote: > >> On Dec 23, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> OK I got that wrong. However, what's the relevance and importance of it >>> being UNIX? Consistency and portability of user space processes? That would >>> seem to be important in enterprise, but that's not the only thing important >>> to enterprise. I listed a number of items that are considered extremely >>> important to critical for enterprise, and none of that is even possible on >>> Mac OS X. So it seems the UNIX certification usefulness is substantially >>> dilluted. >> >> I hate to break it to you.... Apple isn't an enterprise company, doesn't >> really want servers, and isn't looking to break into the corporate >> datacenter. They are quite happy without meeting your enterprise needs. > > Absolutely, no doubt, and crystal clear. But there is fall out, as a result > of this, for Apple's past, present, and future customers. The biggest single > fallout is trust. I increasingly do not trust Apple on the desktop. Not just > enterprise, but in general. Here is why. > > Example 1: XSan is actually a very cool. But because Apple is out of > enterprise, do I trust that Xsan will be in 10.8? No. I don't. Because Apple > has a track record of doing exactly what this thread primarily is complaining > about which is technology abandonment, leaving users with major hardware, > workflow and time investments that get dumped with no clear migration. > Implementing XSan now is risky because of this. Enterprise almost certainly > would not risk it, so why should a company with a 2-6 hd video studio invest? > The very question being asked here isn't the merit of XSan, vs another > solution, which is what it should be. The question is trusting Apple. > > Example 2: After giving the cold shoulder to design and print markets, Apple > went after photographers. Photographers unwittingly have enterprise level > storage requirements. But they do not have enterprise storage budgets, nor > are they enterprise class in most any other way. Average prosumer > photographers will have storage in up to the 4TB realm, much of which is on > multiple HDDs. More serious professionals are typically in the 20-30TB > range, for one shooting photographer. Such storage requirements, if they were > emails, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, would represent a company on > the small side of 100 employees, up to maybe 1000 employees. > > Yet neither a linux hobbyist nor an enterprise business using EL has to > contend with a substantive lack of logical volume management that > photographers have to put up with on Mac OS X. Or a substantive lack of file > system resilience. Truly incredibly inappropriate primary data storage is > common place for Mac OS users who have storage needs beyond a single disk > because of this. > Apple themselfs might not provide this but ZFS from the community could achive what you are asking for I belive? ZFS is as cool as anyone could wish for I belive, even if it is not of the most reasent version and doesn't have all of the latest bells and whistles as Oracles latest version has? In your example it seems that OS X unabillity to boot from ZFS today is not the most important issue. It is the 20 TB something large storage that is what needs a top of line fs if I understand what you are saying? Well ZFS is made to work with large scale storage and look after your data integrity and yet it is easy to control. Wouldn't this make the boot volumes need to be hfs+ a whole lot less of a problem than not having a state of the art fs at all? Perhaps in such a way that your complaint more or less falls? Or is it absolutely nessesary that Apple themselfs makes the FS or ports it? // John Stalberg _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
