Talk:Mac OS X Server

message: Contributions/67.188.42.104 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can verify all the points made by JohnDBuell above are spot on.  Although i think Open Directory could be losely described as a "server architecture".  The article does feel a little bare... there is much more info to be included here. Flimsyq 02:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaws and errors 

message: Can you run it on an Intel Mac mini?  On an iMac?  How much processing power / ram / disk size & speed are needed to serve typical workgroups of various sizes?
:Yes. The current requirements are on this page in the sidebar: http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html
:I think the system requirements should probably be included in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.142.96 (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What hardware required? 

message: Every one of these is a substub. I reckon we should merge the whole lot in here. Chris Cunningham 15:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Server Tools" section 

message: Can someone cite sources coming from a site that is not owned by Apple Inc.?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiknerd (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 December 2007
*Server is a mac only product.  If you wish to add perspectives from non-apple sources go ahead.  However, this does make the article unneutral.  What POV do you have a problem with in the article? Unless a specified POV is identified that merits a POV tag the POV tag is not appropriate. Kd4ttc (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of View

message: Leopard server, 10.5, has three new install modes: Standard, Workgroup, Advanced. I'm going to add more information about these different install modes. I'll try to link to relevant sources discussing the new modes in greater detail. Ggamette (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more information on Leopard Server 

message: I've added mention of 10.6 to the list of versions. I think it could do with its own section like the others. Apple has details at http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/snowleopard/ - Anyone feel like wikifying some of that info?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.132.203 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snow Leopard 

message: The image :Image:OSXLeopard.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:OSXLeopard.png

message: This article could use some information beyond that found in the product brochure.  For example, I was curious what kind of market share OS X has for servers. -- Beland (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info needed 

message: I think the licensing information should be rewritten to more closely resemble the Mac OS X (desktop) page. Currently it states that Mac OS X server's source module is "Open source (Darwin foundation is open source)". The Mac OS X page is more correct: "Closed source (with open source components)".
The same applies to the license, currently it states "Apple Public Source License / Apple EULA", but it would be more correct as: "Proprietary EULA"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.188.168 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Done. Guy Harris (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  License information is misleading 

message: Should it be mentioned in the system requirements for Lion Server that the web browsers specified are only for Wiki Server? --Kylalak (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Requirements - Lion Server 

message: Now that the product is no longer sold separately, would it make sense to merge this article with OS X or keep it here for some sort of historical purpose? Lexlex (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen an operating system supplanted by an application so don't really know what would work here. OS X Lion Server is now an app sold for $49 which requires OS X. What to do with this article? Lexlex (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination is "don't merge, leave it as a historical record of the old days when Apple sold OS X Server as a separate OS package, and perhaps also use it to describe the contents of the add-on package for Lion and, if they continue this, Mountain Lion and subsequent releases". Guy Harris (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is largely true for Windows Server, many (if not most) proprietary Linux "server" distributions, etc.  What differentiates the server "operating system" from the client is additional features and applications, but they obviously share the base operating system with the client versions.  I'd say keep, and agree that it should probably continue to define what differentiates OS X Server (app or OS, doesn't really matter) from the generic OS X.  jæs (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[OS X]] 

message: The part of the lead about Lion Server ("As of version 10.7 (Lion) ... A separate "server" operating system is no longer sold.") seems to contradics what is in section Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion) ("it would instead sell the server components as a US$49.99 add-on to Lion"). --Mortense (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little weird.  Prior to Lion, Apple sold "Mac OS X", the client version, for one price, and "Mac OS X Server" for another price; the bulk of the code on the two OSes was the same, but "Mac OS X Server" included some additional applications and libraries.  With Lion, the common code is sold as "Mac OS X Lion", and the additional server code was sold as an add-on.  So there's no separate server operating system in the sense of a package you buy that is "Mac OS X Lion Server" in its entirety, but there is a package you can buy that, when added to "Mac OS X Lion", provides a version of Lion that includes tools to set it up and manage it as a server. Guy Harris (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent? 

message: There's no "Lion Server" as a complete OS product, there's just Lion and a server add-on package.  Is this any different from Mountain Lion?  Guy Harris (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no difference. I think this article should become historic and perhaps create another one for the add on package(s) for server features. The additions to this page over the past few months make it seem like this product still exists. It doesn't. Lexlex (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So how does Mountain Lion differ from Lion here? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/0/MA406/en_US/L355788A_LeopardSvr_PO.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Guy Harris (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The Unix family tree at  suggests that the original Mac OS X Server combined NextStep and NetBSD code. Is that correct? I can't find it mentioned anywhere, except on the Simple English Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple Mac OS X Server incorporates numerous components and subsystems from various simply, permissively licensed open source projects, including FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and open-sourced components used in the Solaris/OpenSolaris family of operating systems; as a result, it is an over-simplification to say that Mac OS X Server is just a “combination” of X and Y.  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And the same applies to non-server versions of macOS (under all three names macOS has had). Guy Harris (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NetBSD code? 

message: It would be useful to include the end-of-support dates for each version. For regular Mac OS X, I believe the usual support model is the current major version and 2 prior major versions. I expect the support model is similar for MacOS Server, but I'm not certain
Cherdt (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  End-of-Life (EOL) or End-of-Support (EOS) dates 

message: Mac OS X Server is the clear common name, see Google Ngram. All the huge 500-page manuals written about Mac OS X Server were written in that "Mac OS X"-era, pre-Lion (there wasn't much to write about, after Lion). I'm boldly moving the page. DFlhb (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac OS X Server is the clean common name 

message: I just removed the open-source components tables in this diff, due to finding no secondary sources. If you find any, feel free to bring them back, though please bring them back at the bottom of the article (in an "Open-source components" section"), and flip the tables, so the Mac OS X Server version numbers are on the left, and the components are on top. Such flipping is easy to do with LibreOffice. DFlhb (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed open source components tables