kamping_kaiser at internode.on.net
Thu Nov 22 00:35:05 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:00 -0600, Loye Young wrote:
> > The problem might be that using the Ubuntu Server edition
> > is too difficult for these users. Does that sound about right? If
> > please let's work on solving that, rather than worrying about
> > 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
some users? one problem is the lack of a 'standard user' to easily
> 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.
> 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.
Our ideas of intuitive seem to differ :) (i hardly use MS servers at
> > Again: Wrong question. Wrong problem. Actual problem: Getting from
> > plain server install to one with eBox ready to go is too difficult.
> 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.
i require ssh to admin my servers. i have to install it specially. i
also dont act supprised when i can no longer ssh in after the sshd stops
whatever you use to admin the server, if it will be done remotely, you
will risk having the service die on you.
> 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
This isnt a desktop. it doesnt need to operate like one.
> 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
> > 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.
Then get ahead of the curve and write them some horrible ajax thing ;)
> 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
> 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.
i was thinking about this, and it occured to me if something like
lighttp was used for the web ui, then even a breaking of apache (the
"real" web server) wouldnt be the end of the world.
> Loye Young
> Isaac & Young Computer Company
> Laredo, Texas
> (956) 857-1172
> loye.young at iycc.net
Karl Goetz <kamping_kaiser at internode.on.net>
Debian / Ubuntu / gNewSense
More information about the ubuntu-server