So, as we recall, in the previous episode, I'd called out Paul Murphy for his inane carping about reviews he obviously hadn't read, nor even bothered to look for. He got all whiny in the comments, and refused to admit that his link between Time Machine and ZFS was based on what he wished it was. Because, you know, he works for ZDvorakNet, and would never be so gauche as to actually research anything and get a fact or two.
Paul's nattering being the final straw, I also declared that henceforth, the people publishing his, and so many other people's tripe, (George Ou anyone?), would henceforth be called ZDvorakNet, in honor of their journalistic model.
I had no idea that Paul would move so quickly to uphold his publisher's new name.
You know, sometimes, you have to read an article a bit to see if it's going to be good, bad, or indifferent. You have to wade through it, and only at the end can you tell if it was champagne, water, or shit. However, sometimes, the author tells you right away what it's going to be. Murphy does this for us in his latest bit of Dvorakism, entitled "Server to server: MacOS X vs. Linux":
Please note that I have not had a chance to see and use the new MacOS X “Leopard” server release. Comments specific to Leopard Server here are, therefore, based on third party reports.That's right folks, he's doing a comparison wherein he's not actually used one of the products, but is basing it on heresay. By the end of the first paragraph, we know, dear God do we know: this is going to be a Cleveland Steamer. Sometimes knowledge hurts us. It hurts us bad. Of course, as we'll see, he never actually makes any statement specific to Mac OS X 10.5 Server. Not a fucking one.
However, since I'm stupid this way, I waded in all the way. Because how else can I properly tase the stupid?
It doesn't take long to find the first point worthy of a good hard pull on the trigger:
When you compare MacOS X to Microsoft’s servers the big issues are reliability, ease of installation, licensing cost, and operational complexity - with licensing cost the most important for small businesses because these tend to focus on initial capital costs. Thus Apple’s decision to include free ecommunications software with the server coupled with its inability to charge client licensing makes MacOS X increasingly attractive as the number of clients grows."inability to charge client licensing"? This gets the tase because a) it's wrong and b) it makes no sense as written. What Paul should have written was "inability to charge for client access licenses". See, that now makes far more sense. It's still shit, but it's properly written shit. Paul, Apple is quite able to charge customers for client access licenses, they just choose not to. See, conscious decision, not inability to be greedy. Big difference.
But wait, there's more:
When you compare MacOS X server to Linux, however, the key advantage for small businesses isn’t capital cost, it’s ease of setup and use. Fundamentally that comes down to the issue of how the small business gets its servers to work: because the difference between clicking through a GUIfied process and calling a script is enormously valuable if you don’t know what scripts to call, and pretty much valueless if you do.How can anyone take this statement seriously when we all know that Paul doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Mac OS X 10.5? He hasn't used the product, yet here he is, telling us what Mac OS X 10.5 Server's "key advantage" over Linux is. This is what we in the IT profession call "stupid". His statement is worthless, because it's based on his take of other people's opinions. Why not read some goose livers too? Be about as accurate. His comments on "what scripts to call" shows he doesn't know a damned thing about setting up Mac OS X Server, any version, since the setup is remarkably script and command line free, no matter what your level of expertise. Moron. ZAAAAAP
It of course, gets better. In a desperate attempt to avoid real information that of course, he doesn't have, he suddenly starts babbling about Mac OS X 10.5 server relying on an "impersonal sales and deployment model"...no, really:
In other words, Apple’s ease of use advantage over Linux depends ultimately on an impersonal sales and deployment model: if joe average small business guy gets his Intel server delivered by FedEx and then has to set it up himself, Apple’s software can really help - but if Jane’s Computers hands it over it all nicely set-up and running, then it will take long term customer behavioral change before the customer sees any benefit from Apple’s systems management software.See, here's where I run into a problem: I don't speak fluent idiot, but I do have a lot of experience with Mac OS X Server. So I don't know what Paul's talking about, but that's okay, because neither does Paul.
But Paul is not content to stop there. Nope, he knows that somewhere, there's a hidden door that will take him from garden-variety stupid into the realm of Damned Near Enderle, and he finds it:
For larger businesses, neither licensing costs nor set-up costs are likely to drive the decision. Instead, at least in most cases, what’s likely to drive the decision is a a basic difference in philosophy between the Mac and Linux camps.That's right. People don't chose Linux over Mac OS X, or vice-versa for silly crap like technical needs or suitability for the task...it's all based on philosophy.
That difference comes down to this: the Linux focus is on replacing other technologies, and particularly those from Microsoft, where Apple’s focus is on using its server software to make it easier for MacOS X desktop users to co-exist in Wintel dominated environments.I got nothin' here. Wait, I don't got nothin'...I got mah TASER! ZAAAAAAAAAAAAAP! What an utter load of shit that manages to insult both Linux and Mac users. In Paul's world, the only reason you pick Linux is hatred of Microsoft, not the many real technical and fiscal advantages it provides. Similarly, the only reason you pick Mac OS X Server is because you secretly want to run Windows, but don't want your friends to laugh at you. There aren't enough letters in "idiocy" to describe the idiocy of this idiocy.
Just when you thought he couldn't get any worse, he figures out the torch puzzle, and gets another piece of heart...too bad, what he really needed was a piece of brain:
Thus Linux scores its greatest successes against Microsoft by competing for data center dollars and accommodates Wintel clients as part of the cost of doing that. Apple, in contrast, competes best with Microsoft on the desktop and accommodates Wintel servers as part of the cost of doing that. Think of the Linux desktop as a parallel to Apple’s data center servers and you get the superficial part of the picture. Look deeper, however, and what you see is a key difference: Apple uses its servers as part of a viral marketing campaign aimed at making it easier for minority Mac users to live, work, and proselytize in Wintel corporate environments - but the Linux community doesn’t use its server room advantages to push the Linux desktopOkay, I don't think he even knows fuck-all about Linux at this point. Come on, someone tell me who he blew to get this gig. Really. There had to be fellatio involved in anyone paying this jackass to write his name, much less this offal.
By now, he's free-form babbling:
Thus Apple’s latest server technologies are all aimed at helping desktop users work in Wintel environments but no such co-existence strategy exists on the Linux side - indeed the general Linux approach to the data center is closer to that of science fiction’s homogenizing swarm than that of the symbiote.What the fuck is he talking about? Quicktime Streaming Server is a desktop user aid? XGrid? XSan? Does Paul even know any Mac administrators, or is this based on what he hears whilst hiding in Enderle's outhouse? He not only hasn't use Mac OS X 10.5, but he literally has no clue about what Mac administrators use their stuff for. He's so full of shit that people are placing emergency calls to Massengill.
It gets worse:
To a wintel manager facing user demand for Macs, Apple’s strategy produces both fires and frying pans: fires because “Leopard” makes it even harder to argue that letting Macs into the environment will disrupt the smooth functioning (!) of the Wintel networks and servers in place - and frying pans because the new features make it much easier for users to silently augment Windows data center servers for file, print, and authentication functions with their own machines running MacOS X."I've never used a Mac in my life, I don't know anything about Mac OS X Server, but they keep paying me to write this shit, and Rob tells me that I only have to go down on two more ZDvorak VPs to get my office moved out of the broken stall in the basement men's room!"
Nowhere is this difference clearer than in the murky world of “identity management” where Linux is clearly about Windows services replacement while Apple’s multi-technology mash-up is equally clearly about protecting Windows services in Mac desktop deployments.Hey Apple Open Directory guys! Did you know that your entire life's work was about protecting Windows services? Surprise!
But now we get into the real "analysis" paragraph:
Unfortunately Apple’s co-existence strategy leads to a major problem in that it makes Apple a follower - forced to play catch up whenever Microsoft changes its technologies. In other words, companies which try to take advantage of Apple’s strategy will eventually find themselves trying to hold off both their internal wintel enthusiasts and Microsoft’s stealth upgrades while waiting for Apple - and because that won’t work they’ll suffer the usual consequences in terms of organizational disruption and mutual finger pointing."I found an entire bag of angel dust and a comatose donkey...IT'S PARTY TIME FOR PAUL!!!" Because it's not like you can use Macs sans Windows and you know, get work done. Nope, Macs require Windows. Damnit, I need more synonyms for stupid!
But like any flash flood, even one consisting of shit and stupid, this one finally comes to an end:
That’s why my bottom line on MacOS X Server versus Linux is simple: ordinary users don’t have a choice, if wintel is an organizational given then Apple’s co-existence strategy makes MacOS X preferable to Linux, but for anything bigger than a mom and pop shop, the right data center solution is Linux, not MacOS X. Why? tecause when it comes to cleaning the Augean stables front end loaders just work better than perfume spritzers.ZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA....fuc
Folks, Gruber called it perfectly. Paul Murphy is a jackass, cut in the classic ZDvorakNet mold. He has no grasp of fact, and doesn't care. Note that he never once compared a single fucking feature...because he doesn't know a damned thing about Mac OS X, and if his Linux Knowledge is on par with his writing and analysis skills, well, I imagine he can, in only five tries, find the power button to the server. If it's painted green. With a sign that says "TURNING ON THING" over it. With an arrow on the sign pointing at the button. This entire thing is a (bad) philosophical rant, based on predetermined conclusions and not a single fact or iota of experience. It is not worth the flux patterns required to store it, and we are all stupider for having read it. And now I need a turret-mounted taser with a generator. Because these little hand-held models ain't cuttin' it.