🚀 go-pugleaf

Em 04/02/2018 21:03, Quadibloc escreveu:
> Just saw this news item:
> 
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/farewell_to_macos_server/
> 
> I didn't really know there _was_ a MacOS Server, and so I can't blame Apple too
> much for deciding the effort to maintain it isn't worth the expense... their
> hardware is too expensive to be a rational choice for people wishing to set up a
> server in most cases.
> 
> If, however, one has quite a few Macs on the desktop, one would like the server
> for them to be as secure as they are, and to be operable by people whose training
> is with the Macintosh, so this decision could well cost them with the corporate
> desktop.
> 
> John Savard
> 

Another alternative will be OpenVMS for x86-64 in 2020:

https://vmssoftware.com/pdfs/VSI_Roadmap_20171215.pdf

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 6:15:33 PM UTC-7, anonymous coward wrote:

> Another alternative will be OpenVMS for x86-64 in 2020:
> 
> https://vmssoftware.com/pdfs/VSI_Roadmap_20171215.pdf

I was trying to find out their relationship to Hewlett-Packard, and I was amused to see, right after their statement of non-discrimination

"Furthermore, VMS Software does not practice peonage, slavery, and trafficking 
in persons, in compliance with US law"

I was just watching Star Trek: Discovery. Have I landed in the Dilbert universe?

John Savard

Em 05/02/2018 00:17, Quadibloc escreveu:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 6:15:33 PM UTC-7, anonymous coward wrote:
> 
>> Another alternative will be OpenVMS for x86-64 in 2020:
>>
>> https://vmssoftware.com/pdfs/VSI_Roadmap_20171215.pdf
> 
> I was trying to find out their relationship to Hewlett-Packard, and I was amused to see, right after their statement of non-discrimination
> 
> "Furthermore, VMS Software does not practice peonage, slavery, and trafficking
> in persons, in compliance with US law"
> 
> I was just watching Star Trek: Discovery. Have I landed in the Dilbert universe?
> 
> John Savard
> 

"We aspire to set ourselves apart through our outstanding products and 
services. Our mission can only be achieved by virtue of the exceptional 
talent and craftsmanship of our skilled developers, content creators, 
and their managers. VMS Software's management team include members with 
both deep roots in OpenVMS, going back to the Digital Equipment era, and 
more recent OpenVMS devotees from other industries. What the management 
unequivocally shares, is an absolute passion for solving customer 
challenges...and doing so with maximum skill, and yes, good humor."

On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 23:15:29 -0200, anonymous coward <an...@coward.com>
wrote:

>Em 04/02/2018 21:03, Quadibloc escreveu:
>> Just saw this news item:
>> 
>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/farewell_to_macos_server/
>> 
>> I didn't really know there _was_ a MacOS Server, and so I can't blame Apple too
>> much for deciding the effort to maintain it isn't worth the expense... their
>> hardware is too expensive to be a rational choice for people wishing to set up a
>> server in most cases.
>> 
>> If, however, one has quite a few Macs on the desktop, one would like the server
>> for them to be as secure as they are, and to be operable by people whose training
>> is with the Macintosh, so this decision could well cost them with the corporate
>> desktop.
>> 
>> John Savard
>> 

OS/X Server was never a viable alternative to Windows Server except in
the minds of Mac fanatics.  It only ran on a few tiny little machines
made by Apple.

>Another alternative will be OpenVMS for x86-64 in 2020:

I wish it well.
>
>https://vmssoftware.com/pdfs/VSI_Roadmap_20171215.pdf

    Future Releases

    In addition to launching the latest 8.4-2L1 Hudson Release and the
    previous Maynard and Bolton releases on HPE Itanium Poulson-based
    servers, our R&D department is already working on the next
    generation of platforms for OpenVMS. OpenVMS will be ported to the
    industry standard x86-64 platform, allowing OpenVMS to, for the
    first time, share a common hardware standard with the rest of the
    enterprise market (see state of x86 port). OpenVMS customers will
    realize substantial benefits:

Good grief, they're still supporting Itanic????  And still aren't
supporting x86-64????

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:17:33 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> OS/X Server was never a viable alternative to Windows Server except in
> the minds of Mac fanatics.  It only ran on a few tiny little machines
> made by Apple.

That could well be, as I'm no Mac fanatic. It's sad Apple never thought it worth 
the effort to make it one.

John Savard

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 9:12:47 PM UTC-7, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
 
> Good grief, they're still supporting Itanic????  And still aren't
> supporting x86-64????

Considering that OpenVMS was a DEC operating system, and DEC got bought by 
Compaq which got bought by Hewlett-Packard, home of PA-RISC...

they're supporting the Itanium because they have *existing customers* on it, 
and they will move to x86-64 in the future to try to get *new* customers.

Given that people with x86-64 boxes have other operating systems to choose 
from, gaining customers from there for OpenVMS will be an uphill battle. So 
giving a higher priority to keeping the locked-in customers one already has is 
entirely sensible.

John Savard

On 2018-02-04, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Just saw this news item:
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/farewell_to_macos_server/
>
> I didn't really know there _was_ a MacOS Server, and so I can't blame Apple too 
> much for deciding the effort to maintain it isn't worth the expense... their 
> hardware is too expensive to be a rational choice for people wishing to set up a 
> server in most cases.
>
> If, however, one has quite a few Macs on the desktop, one would like the server 
> for them to be as secure as they are, and to be operable by people whose training 
> is with the Macintosh, so this decision could well cost them with the corporate 
> desktop.
>
> John Savard

People ask me sometimes what sort of laptop they should buy. I always
advise Mac. if you tell them Linux, you will spend the next year
telling them what to do. 

They usually ask, come back, and say "They are too dear."
to which the reply would be,

"If you are happy with rubbish, then buy rubbish"


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 2018-02-05, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-04, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Just saw this news item:
>>
>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/farewell_to_macos_server/
>>
>> I didn't really know there _was_ a MacOS Server, and so I can't blame Apple too 
>> much for deciding the effort to maintain it isn't worth the expense... their 
>> hardware is too expensive to be a rational choice for people wishing to set up a 
>> server in most cases.
>>
>> If, however, one has quite a few Macs on the desktop, one would like the server 
>> for them to be as secure as they are, and to be operable by people whose training 
>> is with the Macintosh, so this decision could well cost them with the corporate 
>> desktop.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> People ask me sometimes what sort of laptop they should buy. I always
> advise Mac. if you tell them Linux, you will spend the next year
> telling them what to do. 
>
> They usually ask, come back, and say "They are too dear."
> to which the reply would be,
>
> "If you are happy with rubbish, then buy rubbish"
>
>

There is a picture somewhere of  Microsoft announcing a new feature,
the reporters are almost all using Macs.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

On 5 Feb 2018 10:31:06 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:

>On 2018-02-05, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-02-04, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> Just saw this news item:
>>>
>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/farewell_to_macos_server/
>>>
>>> I didn't really know there _was_ a MacOS Server, and so I can't blame Apple too 
>>> much for deciding the effort to maintain it isn't worth the expense... their 
>>> hardware is too expensive to be a rational choice for people wishing to set up a 
>>> server in most cases.
>>>
>>> If, however, one has quite a few Macs on the desktop, one would like the server 
>>> for them to be as secure as they are, and to be operable by people whose training 
>>> is with the Macintosh, so this decision could well cost them with the corporate 
>>> desktop.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> People ask me sometimes what sort of laptop they should buy. I always
>> advise Mac. if you tell them Linux, you will spend the next year
>> telling them what to do. 
>>
>> They usually ask, come back, and say "They are too dear."
>> to which the reply would be,
>>
>> "If you are happy with rubbish, then buy rubbish"
>>
>>
>
>There is a picture somewhere of  Microsoft announcing a new feature,
>the reporters are almost all using Macs.

I don't think that reporters doing something is any kind of
recommendation.

On 5 Feb 2018 10:31:58 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2018-02-04, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Just saw this news item:
>>
>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/farewell_to_macos_server/
>>
>> I didn't really know there _was_ a MacOS Server, and so I can't blame Apple too 
>> much for deciding the effort to maintain it isn't worth the expense... their 
>> hardware is too expensive to be a rational choice for people wishing to set up a 
>> server in most cases.
>>
>> If, however, one has quite a few Macs on the desktop, one would like the server 
>> for them to be as secure as they are, and to be operable by people whose training 
>> is with the Macintosh, so this decision could well cost them with the corporate 
>> desktop.
>
>About 5 or 6 years ago, I decided that it would be much better if the
>underground Mac community in $(MEGABANK) were actually supported, rather
>than using their machines for Bank work 'illicitly' (some of them had
>even imaged their provided Windows laptops and were running the images
>in a VM on their Macbooks!) The bank's official stance on Macs was short
>and stupid; no Macs.
>
>So, we set up a meeting with Apple to discuss this. To say they were
>indifferent towards our requirements would be to grossly exaggerate their
>level of interest. They simply didn't give a damn, presumably because
>they sold mountains of machines into the retail market and don't need
>troublesome IT departments.
>
>And it wasn't that we weren't going to buy that many machines, because
>when we subsequently went back to discuss migrating our Blackberry
>estate to iPhone (which would have meant that we would be buying ~300,000
>iPhones) they didn't give a damn, then, either.
>
>Their attitude was "this is the product, take it or leave it".
>
>(Needless to say, whenever I tell this story, I get accused of lying by
>some Apple fanboi, so if you're thinking of doing that, please don't.)

I liked the Apple ][, but that is when I learned Apple didn't like
their customers.

anonymous coward <an...@coward.com> wrote:
> Em 05/02/2018 00:17, Quadibloc escreveu:
>> On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 6:15:33 PM UTC-7, anonymous coward wrote:
>> 
>>> Another alternative will be OpenVMS for x86-64 in 2020:
>>> 
>>> https://vmssoftware.com/pdfs/VSI_Roadmap_20171215.pdf
>> 
>> I was trying to find out their relationship to Hewlett-Packard, and I
>> was amused to see, right after their statement of non-discrimination
>> 
>> "Furthermore, VMS Software does not practice peonage, slavery, and trafficking
>> in persons, in compliance with US law"
>> 
>> I was just watching Star Trek: Discovery. Have I landed in the Dilbert universe?
>> 
>> John Savard
>> 
> 
> "We aspire to set ourselves apart through our outstanding products and 
> services. Our mission can only be achieved by virtue of the exceptional 
> talent and craftsmanship of our skilled developers, content creators, 
> and their managers. VMS Software's management team include members with 
> both deep roots in OpenVMS, going back to the Digital Equipment era, and 
> more recent OpenVMS devotees from other industries. What the management 
> unequivocally shares, is an absolute passion for solving customer 
> challenges...and doing so with maximum skill, and yes, good humor."
> 
> 

The one thing thyey don't mention is the price.

-- 
Pete

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 23:15:29 -0200, anonymous coward <an...@coward.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Em 04/02/2018 21:03, Quadibloc escreveu:
>>> Just saw this news item:
>>> 
>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/farewell_to_macos_server/
>>> 
>>> I didn't really know there _was_ a MacOS Server, and so I can't blame Apple too
>>> much for deciding the effort to maintain it isn't worth the expense... their
>>> hardware is too expensive to be a rational choice for people wishing to set up a
>>> server in most cases.
>>> 
>>> If, however, one has quite a few Macs on the desktop, one would like the server
>>> for them to be as secure as they are, and to be operable by people whose training
>>> is with the Macintosh, so this decision could well cost them with the corporate
>>> desktop.
>>> 
>>> John Savard
>>> 
> 
> OS/X Server was never a viable alternative to Windows Server except in
> the minds of Mac fanatics.  It only ran on a few tiny little machines
> made by Apple.

Of course windows server is small potatoes compared to Linux (33%)

> 
>> Another alternative will be OpenVMS for x86-64 in 2020:
> 
> I wish it well.
>> 
>> https://vmssoftware.com/pdfs/VSI_Roadmap_20171215.pdf
> 



-- 
Pete

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>     Future Releases
>
>     In addition to launching the latest 8.4-2L1 Hudson Release and the
>     previous Maynard and Bolton releases on HPE Itanium Poulson-based
>     servers, our R&D department is already working on the next
>     generation of platforms for OpenVMS. OpenVMS will be ported to the
>     industry standard x86-64 platform, allowing OpenVMS to, for the
>     first time, share a common hardware standard with the rest of the
>     enterprise market (see state of x86 port). OpenVMS customers will
>     realize substantial benefits:
>
> Good grief, they're still supporting Itanic????  And still aren't
> supporting x86-64????
>
I wonder why there's something named Bolton.  Hudson and Maynard
had manufacturing plants, but I don't recall any in Bolton.
Maybe it's the home towns of the developers.

/BAH

JimP <solo...@gmail.com> writes:
> I liked the Apple ][, but that is when I learned Apple didn't like
> their customers.

My brother was regional apple marketing rep back in the apple II days
(largest physical region in CONUS). When he came into town for business
meetings I would get invited to some business dinners ... even getting
to argue MAC design with developers (before MAC was first announced).
He had marketing story about noticing IBM coffee mugs at customers and
fawning over how great they were and willing to trade 2-3 APPLE mugs
for every IBM mug.

trivia: at the time, APPLE business was run on IBM S/38 ... my brother
found out how to dial in to the S/38 remotely and be able to track
manufacturing and delivery schedules (for his customers).

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 06:54:33 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 23:15:29 -0200, anonymous coward <an...@coward.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Em 04/02/2018 21:03, Quadibloc escreveu:
>>>> Just saw this news item:
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/29/farewell_to_macos_server/
>>>> 
>>>> I didn't really know there _was_ a MacOS Server, and so I can't blame Apple too
>>>> much for deciding the effort to maintain it isn't worth the expense... their
>>>> hardware is too expensive to be a rational choice for people wishing to set up a
>>>> server in most cases.
>>>> 
>>>> If, however, one has quite a few Macs on the desktop, one would like the server
>>>> for them to be as secure as they are, and to be operable by people whose training
>>>> is with the Macintosh, so this decision could well cost them with the corporate
>>>> desktop.
>>>> 
>>>> John Savard
>>>> 
>> 
>> OS/X Server was never a viable alternative to Windows Server except in
>> the minds of Mac fanatics.  It only ran on a few tiny little machines
>> made by Apple.
>
>Of course windows server is small potatoes compared to Linux (33%)

Check again.  Windows server has about the same share as Linux.

Huge wrote:

> Their attitude was "this is the product, take it or leave it".

No wonder yours wasn't the only place with the policy "No Macs", though 
a couple generally creep into communications departments for producing 
fancy leaflets ...