Why 'no Macs' is no longer a defensible IT strategy

Define "neatly."

Our district has hundreds of OS X users logged on to the Active Directory domain...

I'm sorry; I just saw this. Since when was Active Directory a good idea?

What does Active Directory do? If it's proprietary, that means licensing fees, and Apple probably doesn't want to license anything else from Microsoft (I'm still amazed they went and got Exchange support).

Define "neatly."

Our district has hundreds of OS X users logged on to the Active Directory domain...

So do ours, but not to much purpose.

What does Active Directory do?

Active Directory is a way of managing user accounts across a large network from a single location. Network wide permissions can be set based on the Active Directory structure.

As it stands, Mac's can authenticate with Active Directory, but no group policies can be applied to Mac's to manage the hardware or their users. Its arguably a pointless exercise, unless you have more than a handful of Mac users.

The potential is so much more, and Microsoft would have even more dominance (if that's even possible) of the server OS market, had they begun to start being able to manage Mac's. Not to mention Apple would start to sell a lot more hardware to businesses.

but no group policies can be applied to Mac's to manage the hardware or their users

So you use a proprietary scheme to manage things like that, and then complain that Apple needs to make it work? What do you pay Microsoft for anyway?

The potential is so much more, and Microsoft would have even more dominance (if that's even possible) of the server OS market

Which is exactly why Apple won't license it.

So you use a proprietary scheme to manage things like that, and then complain that Apple needs to make it work? What do you pay Microsoft for anyway?

...because Group Policy is finally implemented at the client end. A server cannot physically change permissions on a client computer. The server must set rules, and its up to the client OS to support those rules.

Group Policy may be proprietary, but when you're talking about corporate IT, Group Policy should not be treated as such. It's almost used exclusively, with software vendors supporting it across the board. Open market die hards may not like this idea, but until another vendor makes a decent competing product, its a fact of life that IT departments must live with.

Which is exactly why Apple won't license it.

I don't think Apple are making any serious attempts to compete in the server OS space.

I don't think Apple are making any serious attempts to compete in the server OS space.

Perhaps not, but there's a difference between not "making any serious attempts to compete" and rolling over all together.

Group Policy may be proprietary, but when you're talking about corporate IT, Group Policy should not be treated as such.

If it shouldn't be treated as proprietary, shouldn't it be opened up? That's not a decision for Apple to make even if they did license it.

Perhaps not, but there's a difference between not "making any serious attempts to compete" and rolling over all together.

It's just my opinion, but I don't think Apple would lose anything by fully supporting Active Directory. They're Xserve's must be serving a purpose, otherwise they wouldn't sell them at all. But adding support for AD to OS X would mean Mac's could be wholeheartedly adopted by IT departments everywhere.

If it shouldn't be treated as proprietary, shouldn't it be opened up? That's not a decision for Apple to make even if they did license it.

Depends on your point of view I guess. Microsoft would gain nothing by doing so, but depending on your view of good business ethics, it might be the right idea.

Microsoft would gain nothing by doing so,

Maybe some hearts and minds in the open source realm, but then again, I don't know what exactly Apple would gain by licensing either (I haven't yet heard that Active Directory is the only reason that a company doesn't go all Mac).

So, we've got a company that wouldn't lose anything by supporting a certain technology, and a company that wouldn't gain anything by licensing said technology.

I don't mean to nitpick, it's just that the argument always pops up that Apple should do X or Y that always seems to lead to (a) them copying Microsoft's business models or (b) licensing something from Microsoft, and neither company is in dire need of that.

Maybe some hearts and minds in the open source realm, but then again, I don't know what exactly Apple would gain by licensing either (I haven't yet heard that Active Directory is the only reason that a company doesn't go all Mac).

You're right, but its definitely a huge contributing factor. One less reason to not go Mac would benefit Apple I feel, especially since they wouldn't be introducing any new ones by doing so.

I guess it comes down to my own headaches as an IT guy. I love my Mac at home, but right now I couldn't even consider using one at work. And supporting our Macs at the office is definitely not the easiest part of our job.

Microsoft makes plenty of client software for the Mac: they have an entire business unit dedicated to it. Again, if you want to use proprietary Microsoft technologies, then lean on Microsoft to provide the required compatibility, or stop using their flawed software. How much do you pay them a year for CALs and support anyway? You'd think they could earn some of that money rather than just mailing you a Software Assurance invoice every so often.

AdipicAcid, I understand what you're saying, but you're missing my point. Microsoft have nothing to gain from making Macs work in Active Directory environments. The limited support/options they do provide offer them no financial benefits. They've already got the corporate IT market sewn up.

Its in Apple's best interests to make it happen. You can sit on your throne and bark on and on about how wrong it is, but its just the way it is.

AFAIK there are no feasible alternatives. Have you found any that you like?

Stop me if I'm repeating myself.

I would think ActiveX and and inability/unwillingness/lack of time/funds/energy to port custom apps to the Mac are far bigger hurdles.

I'm not too sure on the first one; our Macs at work here have Internet Explorer for Mac where needed. And developers seem to be moving away from apps that rely on ActiveX.

But part two of that line does hit the nail on the head. That's easily the number one hurdle. But for my mind (and my admittedly limited experience), lack of Active Directory/Group Policy support is number two. I just think Apple might as well cross that one off the list if they can.