OS X Server

The docs are a bit lacking. It's great to have everything simple, but a server should have more details. I already had Remote Access working on this Mac but when I checked the box in OS X Server I could not log in anymore. It is not clear why.

I'm still using it, but it's no fun knowing how to change configuration files or work from the command line if this thing is going to keep stomping over everything, nor give me instant gratification from the nice interface. Simplify, by all means, but not at the expense of actual, real functionality. Ideally, the same simplifications would benefit the command line as well as the GUI, not be different (requiring the command line even when the server management framework can handle it). And ideally, the GUI would be completely optional, so that updates didn't require a keyboard or VNC. Besides, it's a legitimate criticism that the GUI is pointless on a headless box, like this Mac Mini here. So here's what Apple has to do: 1. Match GUI to command line for serveradmin. 2. Provide instant gratification from the GUI, EG allow L2 VPNs or enable DNSSEC in BIND. Come on, nothing's too hard. 3. Allow management to be disabled on selective daemons (and document them, for heaven's sake!). 4. The GUI should drive a framework, such that the GUI is *COMPLETELY OPTIONAL*. Updates from the command line. Package management. None of this "We've got to stop everything now, please restart it" nonsense. (I have a suspicion that in order to get this one right, you'll lose most of your fee for this app, but it's a small price to pay for satisfaction in your admins …) 5. Finally, please open up the specs for things. Push for mail. Software Update (EG the freely-available reposado). You've got to sell on your advantages, not your lock-in. Only Microsoft does (did?) that! Cheers, Sabahattin Update 10 April: although I'm not one of the unlucky ones who had the recent upgrade problems, my sympathies go out to those that do. However, if it tells you anything, the only services OS X Server now runs on my machines are those which do not require the messy minimal split DNS setup, i.e., file sharing, caching, software update and FTP. And, to be frank, those could easily be part of OS X client, and should be. Everything else is better served, on my local multicast-only network, by just installing and managing the missing server software myself--Unbound for recursive DNS, and Exim as SMTP submission server installed in a separate hierarchy. This simply to avoid having to deal with Server.app's narcissistic tendencies. C'mon Apple, please see if you can't give a baboon's bottom to us power-users here, if you can, between making shiny new iThings. Thanks. Update 15 October: on the heels of Mavericks, things may yet change for the better, but I doubt it. Apple has made it clear that this software is for the demographic of admins for which this kind of simplification is acceptable. After wrestling for another day to get back the pre-server behaviour of exposing all volumes over AFP to all admins (/Library/Preferences/AppleFileServer.plist is, of course, undocumented), and finally just using a documented hack to get it over SMB and then turning off AFP completely, I must caution people not to install the server at all and simply stick with DIY command-line hackery, unless the other Apple-specific server services are a demonstrable benefit to you or your organisation or can be relegated to a separate machine. It really is too bad, because vertical servers have real potential. :-(

I thought this app would be great for connecting the computers that I use at home and at work, as well as with my many mobile apple products. And it may do that, but despite the claims of how easy it is to set up, that was not the case for me. I am no programming expert, but I do have a fair knowledge of how to work at a basic level with my mac and I can certainly follow instructions, however, without (in my opinion) reasonable technical know how, this app was a waste of $20. Tutorials and help documents were somewhat helpful but none helped me to actually get up and running. I found it useless. I also found that even though I didn't get it running, it used massive amounts (liks about 25%) of my 12 GB of RAM. Performance was very noticeably affected.