<p>
Debian has been known to alter their packages pretty badly. But I know what you mean :)</p>
<p>Seems to me that the average person would be happier with the Mac OSX approach.</p>
<p>^ Seems to me that the average person won’t be setting up their own server.</p>
<p>The average person setting up a server would be happier with the Mac OSX approach.</p>
<p>thats highly unlikely. the average novice setting up a server would be happier with the OSX approach. the average person setting up a server does not qualify under this category. and i’d prefer a xampp/lamp setup over OSX’s—but thats just me, and serves to say that OSX doesn’t have any kind of monopoly on super easy http server setups.</p>
<p>There are far more novices than there are those that want to set up more complex webpages. Look at the $4 to $10 webhost services and the number of people that create web pages to support those services. Most people just want something simple.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
The average person setting up a server would be happier with the Mac OSX approach.
[/quote]
There is little happiness in the tangled mess that is OS X’s Apache setup. Changing config files and defaults with every release and obfuscating control behind a restricted and oversimplified GUI is not at all helpful. Methinks you have been drinking a little too much of the Jobsmeister’s Kool-Aid.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
There are far more novices than there are those that want to set up more complex webpages. Look at the $4 to $10 webhost services and the number of people that create web pages to support those services. Most people just want something simple.
[/quote]
And those people aren’t setting up their own servers, are they? But for those who <em>do</em> want to set up their own Apache server, OS X’s approach is definitely not the best choice.</p>
<p>“There is little happiness in the tangled mess that is OS X’s Apache setup. Changing config files and defaults with every release and obfuscating control behind a restricted and oversimplified GUI is not at all helpful. Methinks you have been drinking a little too much of the Jobsmeister’s Kool-Aid.”</p>
<p>I was able to get a web page hosted in a few minutes.</p>
<p>I also went to the local bookstore and looked at setup directions for Apache. The section on Mac OSX was very short. It basically said that it was the easiest set of the three main operating systems. Nothing to do with Koolaid - just empirical evidence.</p>
<p>“And those people aren’t setting up their own servers, are they? But for those who <em>do</em> want to set up their own Apache server, OS X’s approach is definitely not the best choice.”</p>
<p>Sure they are. As far as the best choice goes, what’s easy to get up and running easily for most is the best choice.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
I was able to get a web page hosted in a few minutes.
[/quote]
And I wasn’t. I spent several hours struggling with settings on OS X that took me just a few minutes to configure on Linux. Something as simple as setting up mod_python took me nearly an entire day to configure on OS X, whereas I was able to get it working immediately on Linux.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
I also went to the local bookstore and looked at setup directions for Apache. The section on Mac OSX was very short.
[/quote]
I went to several websites and looked at setup directions for Apache. The default directions didn’t work on OS X because none of the config files were in their regular locations. When I did manage to find OS X-specific setup directions, I had to then figure out which version of OS X I was using so I could use the right directions.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
It basically said that it was the easiest set of the three main operating systems. Nothing to do with Koolaid - just empirical evidence.
[/quote]
I don’t see anything empirical about a subjective opinion. Sounds like just another person whose views have been biased by the RDF.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
Sure they are.
[/quote]
Have you had a complete break with reality? You just stated that “There are far more novices than there are those that want to set up more complex webpages. Look at the $4 to $10 webhost services”. None of those people are going to be configuring Apache.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
As far as the best choice goes, what’s easy to get up and running easily for most is the best choice.
[/quote]
Which is most definitely not OS X, because it is an enormous hassle to deal with. Apple’s inability to stick to defined standards is infuriating. Their walled garden mentality does nothing more than restrict users to their proprietary ecosystem.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>All I did was go into the setup program and do a few mouse clicks.
No typing required.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Look up empiracal.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>They don’t need to. They can just run it on Mac OSX without any
configuration work.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The typical person has no problems dealing with Mac OSX.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>But I highly doubt that more than a few people choose to do this. Experienced admins will prefer a system with standard config files that they can set up to fit their own needs, while users who have no interest in getting “under the hood” will use one of the hosting solutions you mentioned earlier. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Terms like “average user” and “typical person” infuriate me. Every user is unique and has their own individual needs. If all we go on is individual accounts, I will say that the overwhelming majority of people I know encounter horrible difficulties trying to master the various peculiarities of OS X. Does that make it a “hard” system? Of course not. Each person ultimately needs to make the personal choice of a system that works for them.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
All I did was go into the setup program and do a few mouse clicks.
No typing required.
[/quote]
Because you didn’t do anything other than turn it on. As soon as you try to modify any settings, you will run into an enormous number of problems. I know, because I have use Apache extensively for web development.</p>
<p>Setting up something as simple as an .htaccess file requires an extensive examination of what ways Apple has decided to mess up the defaults. Rather than using the long-time standard “public_html” Apache user directory, Apple has decided to use a “Sites” directory. The fact that they use capital letters in standard directories (“/Users”? “/Applications”? “/Library”?) is idiotic enough by itself, but the fact that they can’t even leave Apache’s sensible defaults alone is just ridiculous.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
Look up empiracal.
[/quote]
You’re the one that needs to look it up. “I think Macs are the best” is not empirical evidence.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
They don’t need to. They can just run it on Mac OSX without any configuration work.
[/quote]
Wrong. As soon as they try to change any settings, they will run into a ton of problems with all the unnecessary changes Apple has made to the Apache setup.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
The typical person has no problems dealing with Mac OSX.
[/quote]
You’re starting to sound more and more like a raging Apple fanboy. Do you really believe that the “typical person” (whatever that means) has “no problems” (do you even realize the sheer absurdity of this statement?) with OS X? For every example with which you tout OS X’s apparent superiority, I can give you 5 examples of how it is absolute hell to use. I’m not sure there’s even a point in continuing this debate, as you seem to have lost your last vestige of common sense.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My website consists of static pages with a few images. Apple’s setup
is more than enough for that.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Strawman.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You err logically. What if they don’t need to change any settings?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>In the last week, I’ve spent time on VMS using VAX, Alpha and Itanium
architectures, continue work on setting up a Linux performance server,
spent a few hours trying to upgrade a system to Vista SP2 and have
spent dozens of hours on my regular Linux host development system.
You have a strange empiracal evidence of a Mac OSX fanboy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We can all contrive distortions of any operating system.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
My website consists of static pages with a few images. Apple’s setup
is more than enough for that.
[/quote]
That’s exactly what I said, if you’d bothered to actually read the paragraph prior to the one you quoted. As soon as you try to do anything beyond the basics, Apple’s walled garden becomes extremely restrictive.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
Strawman.
[/quote]
Now you’re just trying to dodge my statement because you know it’s correct. You stated that some random book saying that “Apple is t3h best” is “empirical evidence”, when it is really nothing more than a heavily biased opinion.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
You err logically. What if they don’t need to change any settings?
[/quote]
[QUOTE=noimagination]
> They don’t need to. They can just run it on Mac OSX without any configuration work.</p>
<p>But I highly doubt that more than a few people choose to do this. Experienced admins will prefer a system with standard config files that they can set up to fit their own needs, while users who have no interest in getting “under the hood” will use one of the hosting solutions you mentioned earlier.
[/quote]
It’s rather amusing how you conveniently ignore the statements that you can’t refute.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
In the last week, I’ve spent time on VMS using VAX, Alpha and Itanium
architectures, continue work on setting up a Linux performance server,
spent a few hours trying to upgrade a system to Vista SP2 and have
spent dozens of hours on my regular Linux host development system.
You have a strange empiracal evidence of a Mac OSX fanboy.
[/quote]
And I’ve spent the last week trying to combat the idiocies of OS X to get some software running on it, but that doesn’t mean that I like it. The fact that you’ve been using a bunch of different operating systems is of no relevance.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it’s pretty clear from the statements you’ve made, such as “The typical person has no problems dealing with Mac OSX.”, that you are a blatant Apple fanboy.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
We can all contrive distortions of any operating system.
[/quote]
Which is exactly what you’re doing when touting all these supposedly amazing properties of OS X, when using it is actually a hellish experience.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The problem is that you seem to think that that is a problem.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Let’s actually go back to see what I wrote:</p>
<p>[It basically said that it was the easiest set of the three main
operating systems. Nothing to do with Koolaid - just empirical
evidence.]</p>
<p>Looks 100% correct.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Non-sequitur.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You tried to use an Ad Hominem fallacy to bolster your case. I was
refuting your fallacy with evidence though there was no real need to
do so.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Of course I can simply use that argument now.</p>
<p>Ad hominem fallacy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My observations are easily reproducible.</p>
<p>Deep breath, people. This discussion is only about computers.</p>
<p>Historically, Macs were created for the non-technical user. If you wanted to program or do anything beyond word process and play games, you went to a PC. Apple started gaining a bigger market share when they introduced the UNIX based OS X, which allowed greater versatility and stability. Still, the philosophy has always been to remain user-friendly, and some of that gets in the way of those who want to do more with their computer. I’m not an HTML girl (although I know a little), but I design my own web site using iWeb. Sometimes I want to scream and tear my hair out because of little requirements such as the insistence that I have to choose between www and non-www pages (my domain takes both, and my site is indexed both ways) and the capitalization issue. And Apple keeps making improvements, such as allowing users to add snippets of their own HTML where it once was impossible to edit iWeb pages. Still, I have a fairly complex web site up, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it without the Mac software because I don’t have time to do it from scratch. (Note: I know there are other WYSIWYG programs, but they seem clunkier.)</p>
<p>For MOST people, the Mac poses no problems and even offers solutions through the iLife suite for stuff that would have to be purchased individually for the PC. However, for people who want to get to the nuts-and-bolts of computers, I can see why the Mac philosophy might get in the way. Sometimes user-friendly interface means user-unfriendly for those who want to get beyond.</p>
<p>I use a computer for 8-10 hours a day, and I’ve found that the Mac is the most logical, stable computing environment for what I do. I also have a Windows machine, and when I use it, I get frustrated by the stupidity and clunkiness of Windows in comparison; if I only used Windows, however, I’d never know the difference. Both operating systems have their plusses and minuses. </p>
<p>FWIW, my husband is a computer scientist who started on the Mac and switched years ago to a PC (he runs both Linux and Windows) because the Mac did not support programming. Now it does. My D just got a new MacBook Pro, and as we were looking at in the store, my husband started considering that he might want to switch back to Macs. But the truth is, I think he would curse the Mac OS system as much as he curses Windows. He is happiest in his Linux world because he needs that kind of straightforward access. </p>
<p>“The Thing About Macs” is the same as “The Thing About PCs”: everyone has different preferences and needs.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
The problem is that you seem to think that that is a problem.
[/quote]
Of course it is a problem. It provides a false illusion of being a good OS upon a first glance, when actually it’s completely useless as soon as you try get any real work done. A zooming dock and a shiny case don’t make a good computer.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
Let’s actually go back to see what I wrote:</p>
<p>[It basically said that it was the easiest set of the three main
operating systems. Nothing to do with Koolaid - just empirical
evidence.]</p>
<p>Looks 100% correct.
[/quote]
You really have lost touch with reality. There is nothing “correct” about an opinion. Someone’s obviously biased and misguided opinion doesn’t count as “empirical evidence”.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
Non-sequitur.
[/quote]
You really should look up these buzzwords before just throwing them around in an attempt to change the topic. I was hoping that you’d perhaps respond to those statements you’ve ignored, but you clearly prefer not to.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
You tried to use an Ad Hominem fallacy to bolster your case. I was
refuting your fallacy with evidence though there was no real need to
do so.
[/quote]
I wasn’t attacking you, I was simply stating the fact that your inability to think logically when it comes to Apple is a clear sign that you’ve turned into an Apple fanboy. If you consider that to be an negative assertion, perhaps you should think about changing yourself.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
Of course I can simply use that argument now.</p>
<p>Ad hominem fallacy.
[/quote]
Once again, if you consider that to be an insult, maybe you should take a look at yourself.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
My observations are easily reproducible.
[/quote]
What “observations”? All you can say is that Macs are easy to use, and when I say that that actually makes them an enormous pain to use, you just spout some tripe about how the “typical person” doesn’t care about that.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Rubbish. You can get your web pages up and running with less effort.</p>
<p>Mac OSX isn’t marketed as a web server platform. But it is suprisingly
nice that it includes one preinstalled. All you have to do is turn it
on.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The empiracal observation is that it is the easiest to get up and
running. I don’t know how you can argue with that. Still, you try.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Non-sequitur.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ad hominem fallacy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ad hominem fallacy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My observation is that it is easy to get Apache up and running on Mac OSX.
There are lots of books and web page tutorials that agree with me.</p>
<p>Why is this even an argument? Let people buy whatever computer they want.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m buying a mac because it’s the best deal for me; it’s lighter than a comparable 15’', runs windows and osx, and will last longer too boot.</p>
<p>PS; using silly argumentative terms only hurts your argument.</p>
<p>
If the built-in Apache setup on your Mac works for you, that’s great. We all have our own preferences, and there is no “wrong” choice. But your arguments here do not hold water, and you have not responded to my questions. We all know that users with complex needs or experience will prefer a system that doesn’t screw with the standard configuration options in Apache. But what about someone who just wants a single page online? I would guess that most of these people choose to purchase hosting externally, rather than having to fuss with a server and constantly leave their machine on. Those who only need to host something for a very short period of time have yet another choice - Opera 10 offers basic server capabilities.</p>
<p>In short, personal needs will be the deciding factor. However, it is hard to see the reasoning behind choosing a Mac as a server. Built-in Apache is a nice addition for those users who discover a need to host something and don’t care about how it is done. Nothing more and nothing less.</p>