Server comments

[Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom)]

   The desktop is for graphical admin functions. I am not always available. 
It is extremely usefull to be able to have a less able person (albeit 
responsible person) admin common things. This is just out of the question 
absent a desktop. WebMin could be used I suppose, but not including a 
desktop is a false economy and just encourages the use of underpowered and 
configured systems as servers.

   This is more about a deployed server than my personal server.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julio Biason" <julio.biason at gmail.com>
To: "Ubuntu Help and User Discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Server comments


On 2/16/06, Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom) <JimBodkins at yahoo.com> wrote:
>    My real problem is with the server install. Come on guys. Are you
> serious? What you call a server install, stopped being useful ten years 
> ago.
> Contemporary servers require desktops and more. (I am more than capable of
> admining a server from a command line. But a credible and 'deployed' 
> server
> needs admining by others, not just me)

I don't get it. I mean, why a server would ever need a desktop? A
server won't be used for anything other than serving a network. You
won't write a document on a server, just store it there.

But I agree that the name "server" is a little bit misleading: it
actually install just the base system. It won't even install apache or
any other serve (except for postfix, that also comes with the desktop
install), so it isn't a server on the real meaning of the word. Maybe
"base"?

[PS: Looking at that perspective, your view of a server is just a
normal desktop install followed by the installation of the servers you
want]

--
Julio Biason <julio.biason at gmail.com>

-- 
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users