Ubuntu Domain Server

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

Steven Susbauer wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>
>> Dotan Cohen wrote:
>>>> For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Linux-savvy companies are not the issue here. GUI server tools will
>>> attract mom 'n pop small businesses as well.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Mom and pop small businesses do not need a server. They just need a
>> file/print sharing tool like what you have on Mac OS X, an account with
>> a local isp and a router from that isp. There are plenty of small
>> enterprises dotted around Hong Kong that have ZERO it personnel and the
>> last thing they need is to try to run a server themselves. It is
>> impossible to make the server foolproof for such outfits.
>
> That tool is generally called a server. That Mac OS X tool is called 
> Samba, with a nice interface to configure it. I see no reason why they 
> should be forced to run Mac OS X to do this.

Please learn to read properly before making replies. I never said they 
should be forced to run Mac OS X.
Just because samba is a daemon does not necessarily mean that its used 
function is that of a server that requires administration. Sharing a 
folder/directory is available from Windows 95 onwards using share level 
access that required ZERO user/password administration. I would 
differentiate that as file sharing and not setting up a 'file server' 
which was what Ryan/the OP had in mind in the beginning along with a 
host of other goodies..

>
> People should have the choice to do what they want, even if you 
> disagree with it. Advocating for licenses to run a server is 
> preposterous, and goes completely against the Ubuntu philosophy in 
> general [1], which is not limited to just Ubuntu Desktop. Who are you 
> to control what a mom 'n pop small business does or does not do? 
> Should they be forced to hire a full time IT staff to run 
> oldtownrootbeer.com because you don't think they should have access to 
> a powerful yet easy to use system, because they might do bad things?

They are free to do what they want and I am free to firewall them 
anytime their server gets rooted. Given the astronomical cost that 
botnets bring upon the world economy, I am surprised that nobody has 
decided to regulate the system administrator trade. Ubuntu Domain 
Server, run by clueless moms and pops, the perfect control centre for 
botnets. You bet they should be forced to get competent IT support if 
they intend to connect anything to the Internet. It is not whether they 
might do bad things, it is to prevent their server from being used for 
criminal activity because they will have no clue what is going when the 
FBI bursts in to seize their server for evidence/investigation/whatever 
in their attempts to track down Internet public enemy no. 1.

>
> In all of this you have also forgotten that Ubuntu is used worldwide, 
> including places without much IT infrastructure, let alone IT training 
> in order to be an uber sysadmin.


I do not see what desktop deployments have to do with this thread.