ServerInstallationProfles - Let's make it easier!!!
Danson Michael Joseph
danson.joseph at baobabelectric.com
Mon Oct 22 20:17:27 UTC 2007
Thanks for your comments.
Carsten Aulbert wrote:
> Danson Michael Joseph wrote:
>> Let's make ubuntu servers the best to run AND the easiest to use. When
>> I put in my hardy server CD next year, let the base be installed, and
>> when I choose ntp server, samba file server and mail server, let those
>> modules of ebox be installed and configured. Thus my server installation
>> will entail the non-graphical CD installation, but there-after, all my
>> admin tasks can be done from ebox.
> I cannot fully support this idea since there are many people who use a
> server install via serial connections only, i.e. without any X
> installed. Plus I would really not like to have X installed on a server
> since this would open extra security holes and at least IMHO a server
> should be much more secured than a standard desktop system.
This wouldn't be an X connection, it's an https connection.
I understand about serial comms but, consider the many small business
and schools, etc who need a simple, fast
server solution, not having to look at man pages just to setup the
correct LDAP schemas (for instance).
If they saw our current solution they would call microsoft to buy Server
2003 with AD.
>> Some may say but then we prevent those who would like to run command
>> line from doing so. No, we don't. Before the selection of services
>> that can be installed, a simple yes/no question can be asked as to
>> whether or not the user wants an ebox installation. However, we must
>> consider ubuntu's broader users. Yes, 10% will want to run command
>> line. The corporates, schools, NGOs and other's will want to be ables
>> to click and go!
> I guess this could be done simply by a meta package which might be part
> of the standard "packages" to install (LAMP, NTP, ...)
probably the best method, but the dependency hierarchy would be important.
>> The other more important part to this is that it makes our commitment to
>> the development of ebox and it's module more concrete. If we make it a
>> primary goal of the server team, then ebox will soar to greater heights!
> I've never used ebox, but it seems already to depend on a lot which I
> would not willingly have running on a server which is dedicated to
> certain tasks, e.g. postgresql or apache on a mail server.
> So I guess I see the need but I don't know if ebox would be the way to go.
> PS: Since I don't know ebox what are the possiblities to safe/backup the
> settings or move the settings to other computers/clone systems?
ebox works well, but there are some fundamental design principles that
make it a server system as opposed to a server tool. EG: it stores
config in an intermediary XML file and writes to system/config files
from there. Thus custom configs would be negated every time a setting
in ebox is saved.
However, ubuntu has chosen it for it's benefits.
The ideal situation would be the choice of an ebox or ebox-free
More information about the ubuntu-server