[ubuntu-uk] Desktop or Server?

[Rob Beard]

Tony Travis wrote:
> Rob Beard wrote:
>   
>> [...]
>> The only time I would install a complete desktop on a server is if it is
>> to run as an LTSP server.  Then it can need everything a desktop
>> requires.  When I last installed an LTSP server I was also pleased to
>> see that FreeNX works with it as well. :-)
>>     
>
> Hello, Rob.
>
> I don't use LTSP, because most of our users run Windows on their PC's 
> and they don't want to reboot their PC's to run as Linux Xterminals...
>
> FreeNX gives me the option of providing Linux GUI login sessions via a 
> stand-alone NX client downloaded by the Nomachine Java 'helper' applet 
> on the server. In this way, people can use Linux with minimal impact on 
> their existing Windows desktop environment and don't need administrator 
> rights to run the stand-alone NX client unless hostile network admin 
> restrict which Windows executables are allowed to use the network.
>
>   
Ahh I didn't realise there was a Java client, that's handy.  I've used 
FreeNX in the past myself to connect to remote machines (my desktop PC, 
remote desktops) and found it to be really rather good, I just wish 
there was a free version of FreeNX available for Windows (I gather there 
is a commercial version, but not a free version).
> I've used this approach successfully for several years now in computer 
> classrooms, and on individual user's Windows PC's. Some people do make 
> the switch to run Linux on their own PC after using it like this via 
> FreeNX, but they are only a small minority. Providing a FULL desktop 
> environment for 'fat' clients like this is, of course, a compromise. 
> However, it does enable me to provide a Linux desktop in an otherwise 
> Windows-centric environment. I don't think I am alone in doing that.
>
>   
Nope, I think it's a good idea.  In fact I'll probably be implementing 
FreeNX on a client's server (well it will be a VM running Ubuntu 9.10 
with LTSP).
> What irritates me is the implicit assumption that this is somehow the 
> 'wrong' way to run a server: In my opinion, it is absurd to avoid using 
> GUI tools to manage a server. Long ago, there might have been an issue 
> about memory fooprint or disk space but these days it is not an issue. 
> One of the arguments in favour of Windows on the server is that it's 
> easier to manage because of the GUI tools. Of course 'real' Windows 
> admins to everything from the command-line in Perl just like we do!
>
>   
I'd say it depends on what you want to do.  Personally my servers just 
sit there and I don't need a GUI as I do everything via SSH, although I 
can see the benefit of sometimes having a GUI on a server, just not on 
every server (especially when some of the servers I deal with are 
running older hardware and are already limited for resources).
> The 'right' way to run a server is to provide the services required.
>   
I agree, the servers that I generally work with just need to provide 
e-mail and samba so don't need a GUI, although I do support a couple of 
LTSP servers, one of which is in a community centre, the server is quite 
beefy (Quad Core Xeon, 4GB Ram) and probably overkill for 6 LTSP 
clients, but the clients themselves are really old Dell P3 desktops 
which were donated and wouldn't be much cop for running a full Ubuntu 
desktop.

Rob