Server issues

[Loye Young]

> I realise that this says something of my way of communicating, but I
> feel it necessary to point out that I'm by no means trying to be
> offensive, I'm just trying to get a point across. If you feel offended,
> I apologise in advance.

You aren't being offensive; you are returning to a constructive discussion
and I appreciate that.

>  The
> problem isn't that our desktop system provides avahi out of the box. Far
> from it. The problem isn't that small business owners won't know how to
> disable avahi.

I believe that avahi is inherently problematic in any environment and
doesn't provide concomitant benefit, but I do agree that's better taken up
with the desktop team.

> The problem might be that using the Ubuntu Server edition
> is too difficult for these users. Does that sound about right? If so,
> please let's work on solving that, rather than worrying about whether
> our desktop edition does something you disagree with.

For those "in the know," the server edition is fine as it is. However, many
(perhaps most?) users will need or want a gui desktop to administer the
server. At first blush, one of the already existing desktops seem to work
and have the added advantage of familiarity, so users have a strong desire
to install one. However, the existing desktops aren't ideal because they
include applications that are either unnecessary or affirmatively dangerous
in the server context. Avahi in particular is fundamentally inconsistent
with a server install, for the reasons I've been harping on for two days.
(If you are beginning to think I'm obsessive, tedious, or anything like
that, you aren't alone. My own wife agrees.)

I've used the MS Server desktop tools in the past. They are intuitive and a
big part of the reason people keep paying Microsoft exorbitant fees for an
otherwise shoddy product.

> Again: Wrong question. Wrong problem. Actual problem: Getting from a
> plain server install to one with eBox ready to go is too difficult. See?

No, installing eBox isn't the "actual problem." The actual installing of
eBox and apache isn't difficult, thanks to our beloved APT system and
related tools. The actual problem is that the users still need a comfortable
interface to administer the server, including the http server, whether or
not the http server is running or even installed.

Besides, even if everyone in this conversation agreed that eBox is the
"best" administrative solution, users still want a desktop environment,
because that's what they know how to use. If we don't give them one tuned
for server administration, they'll install one on their own and applications
like avahi will shoot them in the foot. They won't know otherwise. Of
course, the IT guy will report to the boss "All I know is that I installed
Ubuntu and it left me vulnerable."

> Right tool for the right job.

Can't disagree with you in principle, and you have put your finger on the
central question: What's the right tool? The vast majority of server
administrators in small businesses would answer that a desktop gui is what a
modern OS should provide. It's what they're accustomed to now, it's what
they are willing to pay for, and there's no reason not to give it to them,
at least as an option.

I've tested many of the available open-source desktop GUI server
administration tools. While they could use some polish, they are extremely
helpful and have the added advantage of being already built.

That said, there's no reason that web-based and desktop tools couldn't be
independent choices for the administration of the server. Perhaps a
check-the-box approach would provide the flexibility needed.


Loye Young
Isaac & Young Computer Company
Laredo, Texas
(956) 857-1172
loye.young at iycc.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/attachments/20071121/ebcf9a5f/attachment.html>