any

[foertsch]

I tried to study the postings regarding

[Anatoli]

RE: It would mean, that FileMaker is not a serious product

... only on Mac OS X.

[Kurt Knippel]

We run Filemaker on Mac OS 9.x without problems. Honestly I cannot see any advantage to running FMS or FMU in OS X. Neither takes advantage of anything that OS X offers.

[foertsch]

My question is not a matter of a workaround, it touches legal issues like deliberate and constant betrayal, for instance. FM is not giving away FMU 6 for Mac OS X as a cost-free beta, it is selling it as a product and trying to confuse those, who see that it is not working, with config- or corruption issues - very well knowing instead that it cannot work as an application because of memory-leaking. Probably the fix would be too big and they are trying to get this betrayal through until FM 7 comes. But - would that be different then? I see this as a danger to anyone who has future plan for FMU on OS X. They told me to use windows, remember?

P. S.: Even if FMU 6 does not use OS X.2-capabilities - OS X is far better to administer remotely than Classic, so this i s an issue for a large database.

[Kurt Knippel]

It is? I have yet to ever have any problems administering any of my 5 FM Server or 2 ASIP servers remotely. All are running OS 9.04

I understand that you are mad because you spent the money on a product that is not really ready (although I do not consider OS X ready either).

[foertsch]

I remember administering an ASIP FileServer, a FM 5.5 Intranet-Database-Server and a FMU 5.5 Internet-Database-Server, doing Updates, Backups and Design Changes. Often I had to drive to our Institute because the machines have gone

[Kurt Knippel]

Personally my opinion is that OS X is not yet out of the BETA stage. I recently bought a new laptop and decided to leave OS X running on it, I needed to spend abouy $300 additional dollars just to get comparable functionality to OS 9.22. Now this does not mean that OS X is junk or that I got cheated by Apple, however this is definately not somthing that I would count on for any mission critical apps.

Same thing with Filemaker on OS X. Either OS X has some inherant flaws which Filemaker is sensitive to, or Filemaker native for OS X is not really more than a beta product. Either way, I'll stick with my servers on OS 9.04, which if I have 1 of 7 crashing in any given month it is a very bad month. Mostly I do all administration (aside from changing backup tapes) remotely.

So is Apple at fault for the failings of OS X - YES!

So is Filemaker at fault for the failings of Filemaker apps on OS X - YES!

Are you at fault for relying on OS X for your servers - YES!

Another good example is WinNT 4.0, which is arguably the most stable version of Windows ever produced and I am sure runs on many times more servers than Win2k or XP Professional. Even though I am sure that both Win2k and XP are easier to administer, I would not think that people with rock solid servers in NT4 are flocking to Win2k.

So basically if running a server with unstable software, because it is easier to administer is an acceptable solution to you then stick with OS X. If you want a more established, more stable server platform, that you consider more difficult to administer, then run OS 9.

At this point it is kinda a choice on your part.

All that said, I am sure that in a couple of years we will look back and wonder what ever took us so long to adopt OS X (which will probable by OS XII or somthing) and remember fondly how goofy OS 9 seems by comparison. However to me, we are not there yet and I'll stick with OS 9 for a while.