why?

Let's take a look at the server market.

Linux, stable, cheap, efficient with widespread industry adoption.

Windows, less stable, not so cheap, bloated, ineffecient, better integration between servers and desktop machines and an abundance of cheap MCSE's are it's only selling point.

Solaris, bombproof, expensive, shiny hardware, proper support channels to keep the PHB happy. (HP/IBM unix is the same sans the funky hardware)

OSX server, Shiny hardware (I assume, it is apple after all), expensive, glossy gui (bloat), virtually no industry adoption and questionable support channels. Also, what native server apps can you get, or is it just ports of Apache, MySQL and sendmail?

If you want shiny servers in your racks and have wads of cash then you would be better off getting a real server from Sun.

If you want to run cheap, reliable servers, buy some boxes off IBM/HP/Dell and run Linux.

I can also see a case for running 'doze and exchange for AD integration between servers and clients, although I wouldn't do it myself.

But apple and OSX? I just don't get it.

So does this mean we can run OSX server in Parallels on an MS box (legally)?

Oh Goat Jam, is it so hard to stay up to date with the industry?

Windows is not more expensive than Linux in a real environment.

Windows is no less secure if you actually check the stats and stop assuming.

Linux is not more stable than Windows, where on earth do you get that from? I forget the last time I saw a crash, but I don't think it was this millenium. If you knew how to configure it, and read the recommendations it might be less flaky. If you need help, ask, my rates are reasonable.

Windows is no more bloated than Linux these days. They are in fact slimming it down while Linux gets fatter with every release.

Good MCSEs are not cheap. Do you have an MCSE yourself? thought not :o)

Apple servers are indeed shiny and nice. I don't see why anyone would virtualise them because surely you would want more of them in the room :o) not sure what can be run on them though, I've only ever seen them used as Mac file stores myself.

If you are going to bash Apple at least put a bit of effort into it and find out about it before you have a go.

OS X Server runs on a quick PPC server or any of the Intel-Macs. I switched to using it when Tiger server came out after 10 years of running my own Solaris based system. The reason? I got fed up with having to constantly tweak things to keep it running. Now I've got a server that just works. It costs more for the OS but, for me, the trade off in terms of the time I get back is worth it.

Oh, and don't tell me I don't know what I'm doing I'm currently up to the armpits in vxvm and vcs reconfiguration and not a GUI in sight.

Mines the one with the beard in the pocket.

Oh man, Jim Jim Jim...

I used to be like you - i never realised just how transparent it looks to reference an old skool vendor like Sun or IBM for street cred when talking beyond my level of knowledge... cringe-tastic!

Mine's the one with the fake nose + moustace and head-sized paper bag in the pocket...

Lots of fanbois arrive to bash and slash.

Lots of insults. Lots of holier than thou attitude.

Not one single valid reason provided apart from a regurgitated slogan "It just works"

You will have to do better than that to convince me that bloated osx in shiny plastic boxes doth a real server make fanboys!

Oh, and if you are going to try and take the moral high ground, it would help if you boys could learn to read.

@Dave - I didn't bash windows, I even provided a scenario where it would be a valid choice. You FAIL.

@Mick - I Didn't bash apple, I own apple products myself. I merely questioned the validity of buying server products off a company that has its roots squarely planted in consumer product space. "It just works" is not a valid reason. Likewise setting up a box in the corner of your office is not a real server scenario. You FAIL

@AC - It's Jam, not "Jim" You FAIL