On 23 Feb, 2004, at 17:22, Stroller wrote: > If OS X server is a general-purpose, multi-user, time-sharing, Unix > system, then so is OS X client - as I understand it the only > difference between the two is a few GUI admin goodies. I do agree that > is a reasonable expectation that most workstation- and domestic-users > would have no need to add more than 99 users, however to say on only > that basis that OS X client isn't "a general-purpose, multi-user, > time-sharing, Unix system" I find bizarre. Nobody said that OS X client is not a general-purpose, multi-user, time-sharing Unix system. The difference between Client and Server is strictly at the APPLICATION PROGRAM level. At the OS level, there is nothing you can do with Server that you cannot do with Client. > I personally don't feel that one "should have to pay extra for the GUI > admin goodies - the cost of production of them must be relatively low > for Apple, and it seems like a bit of a racket to charge much for > them. But what I think "should" happen has nothing at all to do with > economics, and Apple is allowed to bundle these tools any way they > wish - I would have thought that with 99 users the cost / user of > these goodies would be relatively low, and would have saved the OP's > time & energy so far. The cost of producing Software is exorbitant! ... but then that IS why programming jobs are being exported to India. I doubt that Apple sells enough copies of OS X Server to come close to covering their development costs. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill # Beige G3 - Rev A motherboard - 768 Meg # Flat-panel iMac (2.1) 800MHz - Super Drive - 768 Meg # PWS433a [Alpha 21164 Rev 7.2 (EV56)- 64 Meg]- Tru64 5.1a # XP1000 - [Alpha EV6] magill at mcgillsociety.org magill at acm.org magill at mac.com