Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday 31 July 2008 18:59, tacone wrote:
> Scott Kitterman, on Thu Jul 31 17:38:30 BST 2008
>
> > Generally you can do any server things from a desktop if you install the
> > needed things.  For easy Apache configurations there is:
> >
> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rapache
> >
> > There's a pending request to have it backported to Hardy.
> >
> > What's needed are people who understand the under the hood part of
> > servers well enough to write such a thing and also care enough about the
> > GUI experience to do it.  Ubuntu Server is a young project and is headed
> > toward being able to support such things, but it won't happen overnight.
> >
> > What we lack isn't ideas or understanding of the need, but people to do
> > the actual work to provide it.
> >
> > Scott K
>
> Hello, I am one of the developers of Rapache. I subscribed this ml
> just to answer ScottK and drop my 2 cents on the topic. I am likely to
> keep my subscription for the next week, if you like to reply.
>
> Disclaimer
> ========
> What follows may be a little delirious, but took me hours to put it
> together, so I sending it straight away.
> I'll post a more lucid rewrite on ubuntuweblogs when I get the time.
> And maybe open a blueprint about this. I really don't know if I am
> allowed to post on this mailing list, so bear with me if I am out of
> place.
> In what follows, I'll take Rapache as an example, but the point I'd
> like to make is, of course, general.
>
> I'd like to respectfully disagree with ScottK.
> Linux in general (as well as Ubuntu) generally lacks the understanding
> of the need of such desktop-to-server applications.
> The proof is, more than the lacking of such applications, the fact
> that Ubuntu lacks a related workgroup/team. Did I miss it ?

We actually agree.  This type of discussion was a major focus of discussion in 
the server team at the last UDS in Prague.  We all recognize the problem.

> Resources are of course limited and all things have a priority. The
> lack of a workgroup dedicated to 'develop guis to configure server
> things' just show they don't seem important enough at the moment.
>
> Have you ever seen a comment like this ?
> http://www.reddit.com/comments/6ncun/rapache_is_a_simple_apache_administrat
>ion_tool_it/c04cxa1 I guess you have, and someone of you could even agree.

That doesn't mean there aren't people that don't get it.

> As Bud Roth points, the point raised by Scottk doesn't seems really a
> lacking of ubuntu-server group itself.
>
> Let me elaborate: I had the pleasure to quickly present Rapache to the
> ubuntu-server meeting. They were really kind to me but became evident
> that a Gnome gui to configure Apache was not something inherently
> related to the #ubuntu-server workgroup.
> I then asked what was the right irc channel / workgroup to discuss
> this kind of application.

I think it was.  To date the development of Ubuntu Server has focused on 
development of capabilities of individual Ubunu Servers.  We talked a lot at 
UDS about giving better administration tools that were not on the same box 
(SOHO and Enterprise have different needs in this space, but fundamentally 
it's about a different axis of the problem than how well does this one box 
integrate with itself).  

> The answer was Rapache seemed to be something in between ubuntu-server
> and ubuntu-desktop.
> Who's going to care about taking care of this kind of applications in
> Ubuntu?

Good question.  I think the initial answer is whoever cares enough to work on 
the problem and a community will form around this.

> My experience
> ============
> What do I agree with ScottK is the wider audience thing. I used to
> work in a non-tech savy environment (a computer magazines publisher,
> lol). Some facts about it:
>
> 1) I could get permission to use Ubuntu as local network
> web-development server, as long as I provided to perform the actual
> installation myself.
> 2) The only thing I got shouted about in the whole career there was..
> daring to install ubuntu on my workstation.
> 3) Our (windows) sysadmin installed Ubuntu on a computer to be run
> Vmware machines on it. It choose Ubuntu because
>   a) some colleague dropped some installation cd's on our desks, one day.
>   b) I could help him with ubuntu related issues much better than with
> fedora/suse/whatever related ones.
> 4) Sysadmin had to configure Samba shares to connect to a given domain
> with certain permissions. He was shocked by the fact to not having a
> gui to perform the operations. After a while he found some gui utility
> in synaptic and felt quite happy with the result. He felt much more in
> control with a gui than with command line thinkering.

Two decades of Windows thinking have taught people that their systems are 
essentially incomprehensible black boxes that they cannot understand.  This 
is not true of Linux and other Unix like operating systems.  I was helping 
someone out this week on #ubuntu-server with a Postfix problem.  He'd given 
up and reinstalled his system and still had the same problem.  He'd never 
really looked at the error he was getting and tried to understand it and how 
to fix it.  His Windows experience told him he couldn't.

I can understand wanting a GUI because it is helpful (hey, I'm writing this in 
Kmail and not Mutt), but they should also work on learning to understand 
their systems.  I'm in favor of GUI tools where they are more effecient and 
where they help people get started, but not as a long term substitute for 
knowing what you are doing.

> Conclusions:
> ==========
> People do fear what they don't know.
>
> I got shouted because my coordinator never tried how good it feels
> like to work on a ubuntu workstation (no more putty, nautilus ssh
> integration etc). (a)
>
> The sysadmin was actually happy to have guis to configure local
> network things (4). It's only complain is not having Gui for
> *anything* like it happens on Windows 2000/NT.
>
> People don't know about linux, they won't try it if it doesn't allow
> them to get their stuff done. What the reasons are for a sysadmin to
> use (paid licensed) Windows instead of Linux ? GUI. And things they
> feel in control on (when they don't, point 2) happens)
>
> Ignorance has reasons behind it
> ========================
>   - people don't want to learn. Bad, but we could get them as users
> anyway. Why not ?
>   - people has stuff to get done, and no time to learn.
>   - people has to take responsibility on any choice they make. They
> would like to switch but they have delivery-schedules. With a gui they
> can do things easily and follow best practices at the very same time.
> (i.e. Rapache detects if you have virtualhosts .conf present only in
> sites-enabled and offers the user to normalize the situation). And
> they will be able to learn more throughout the process.
>   - no one is guru by born. We need to lower the entry barrier.
>   - we shuold not discriminate, ever. Women from men, black from
> white, beginners from gurus.
>
> Why people hate command line (they do, yes they do)?
>   - they don't feel in control enough.
>   - they are forced to use that.
>   - if they didn't need it so often, when they really need it, they
> will be happy to have such a powerful command line environment.
>
> What are others doing ?
> =================
> Redhat: Augeas websites reports augeas as "Redhat emerging
> technology". That could be for a reason.

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/augeas

We've got it too.

> Suse: they already have already a Yast Apache Configurator plugin (and
> various other things i guess). They are not really Gnomish and they
> presume prior knowledge.
>    - we should strive to make things easier and let the user to learn
> while he's doing.
> Apple: my sysadmin came back from an Apple conference and kept talking
> about the guis apple did for Macosx server. They were so nice, so
> easy.
> Microsoft: the only reason I can't see to set up a WAMP stack is..
> being able to configure IIS with a gui.
>
> We need to lead this kind of momentum. If we lead, who will we steal
> market from ? Microsoft and Apple, mostly. People that already use
> linux could switch to ubuntu, but that's much more unlikely.
>
> What do we need ?
> ==============
> A group of people to spoof inadequacies and propose gui solutions.
> Finding an existing, semi-obscure project and making sure it runs
> properly on ubuntu would be fine. Upstream developers would feel
> encouraged when they see Ubuntu people supports them.
>
> Just as Apple don't have good offers for medium-sized workstations we
> don't have any good offer for non-gurus who need to go further the
> web-browse/mail/write-letter habits.
> A good offer for that segment would boost either server and desktop
> environment adoption.
>
> We need gui coverage. It's hard to do. But we do. And we *do* need to
> aknowledge that we really need it. I encourage everyone of you who
> don't feel the same to say that, and discuss it.

Now it gets into hard numbers.  Are the putative customers of such an effort 
in the class of users that will buy support contracts?  If they are, then 
maybe Canonical or some other company will find it worthwhile to invest in 
funding the development and integration of such things.  Otherwise it's up to 
people in the community that are interested in solving this problem.

Personally, I can see the utility and I even see some market potential the I 
might exploit is such solutions were more readily available, but for me the 
neither the fun factor nor the potential business case are sufficient for 
this to be my prime focus in Ubuntu.  I might be willing to help out a 
little.

> A server with a Desktop Environment installed ?
> ===================================
> Quite likely. Intranets do exists and small-medium businesses uses
> them. That obviously falls off the gui + server debate but it's
> related and equally important. There's noe good reasons for a small
> business sysadmin to not install desktop environment on a intranet
> server. He could start it, get stuff done, and stop it afterwards

Or just run the 'server' on his desktop.  For many use cases you really don't 
even need a separate box.

> In the long run (that's involves rapache as well, btw) an SSH (best
> practices approved) framework would be very handy. That would bring
> the best of both worlds (desktop/business)
>
> My Mom loves ubuntu !
> =================
> Sure, she calls you to resolve issues just as much as she would do
> with windows. Ask your 19 years old cousin. He would like to tweak the
> system, but he can't get past the gedit as root thing. The same
> applies to not-fully-savy tech people into small businesses.
>
> Well. Back to coding, thx for your time.
>
> Stefano Forenza

I'll also point you at 
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCentralizedServiceAdministrator

There is work going on in this area.  Those of you really interested in it 
ought to get together.

Scott K