FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Server Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-23-2008, 02:32 PM
"James Dinkel"
 
Default Platform vs Product

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Jamie Strandboge <jamie@canonical.com> wrote:
> I suggest we have on the
> server CD a boot option like 'linux minimal' (this has been
> suggested/implied elsewhere in this thread). This might simply be
> ubuntu-standard with the server kernel and a note that mentions running
> tasksel for additional packages (but this will need to be discussed).
>
> Using this methodology, we allow for the functionality and integration
> work that defines Ubuntu, but also provide a server platform that is
> useful for those with specialized needs.
>
> Jamie
>
>

ooh, I also like the idea of putting this as a boot option rather than
within the install. This would keep an "unnecessary" question out of
the installer, leaving less for a newbie to think about (I think this
is very important), while also allowing us "die-hard" sysadmins an
easy way to exclude anything but the bare platform.

James

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-23-2008, 02:32 PM
"Brett Alton"
 
Default Platform vs Product

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Jamie Strandboge <jamie@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Michael Hipp wrote:
>
>> I think that's a *good* thing because I consider a server to be a *platform*
>> upon which I add the things (applications) that make it do what I need.
>>
> This is going to echo some of Soren's lastest post, but think it bears
> repeating:
>
> It's clear to me what is really being discussed is should Ubuntu Server
> be a platform or a product akin to Ubuntu Desktop? Both are valid and
> useful, but *distinct*.
>
> To quote Soren: Ubuntu is "about making everything more useful by
> default". I absolutely agree with this, and through discussion, things
> like screen and other software, where appropriate and after thorough
> review, should be part of Ubuntu Server's default installation. This
> functionality and integration work is what gets at the heart of what
> Ubuntu is-- "Linux for Human Beings".
>
> On the other hand, there is a clear need to have an install method for
> server that is minimal, or platform oriented. Right now, the mini ISO,
> the alternate CD, JeOS and the current server CD all approach this from
> different angles, but come close to the same end result (though, IIRC,
> you end up with a different kernel in each). I suggest we have on the
> server CD a boot option like 'linux minimal' (this has been
> suggested/implied elsewhere in this thread). This might simply be
> ubuntu-standard with the server kernel and a note that mentions running
> tasksel for additional packages (but this will need to be discussed).
>
> Using this methodology, we allow for the functionality and integration
> work that defines Ubuntu, but also provide a server platform that is
> useful for those with specialized needs.
>
> Jamie
>
> --
> Ubuntu Security Engineer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
> Canonical Ltd. | http://www.canonical.com/
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFIX6oRW0JvuRdL8BoRAjCuAJ9Ovr56BM6ByzdsgRXdXi agpzcM7ACeM4RY
> RoNnGPBE0TrHDGtpjBfFeOw=
> =C+qI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>

I would like Ubuntu to install a minimal server with the option of
using tasksel. I think that's a great idea! It'll be pretty much JeOS,
correct?

But no matter what, we'll still need a full CD for users who don't
have ethernet connections. Not that they have dial-up but some have to
setup a server with no ethernet connected and need a full server on
CD.

Brett Alton
brett.jr.alton@gmail.com

Do you really need to print this email? Help preserve our environment!

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-23-2008, 03:03 PM
Soren Hansen
 
Default Platform vs Product

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:50:09AM -0400, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> It's clear to me what is really being discussed is should Ubuntu
> Server be a platform or a product akin to Ubuntu Desktop? Both are
> valid and useful, but *distinct*.

Very good point.

> To quote Soren: Ubuntu is "about making everything more useful by
> default".

Not surprising, I agree with this I think I should point out that I
don't think just installing more packages is going to make anything more
useful. If you know the name of a command, with command-not-found,
you're even told which command to run to install the package, you're
missing, so this is really the least interesting part of the discussion.

It's true that 99.9% of the changes we can make, we do by making changes
to packages. (The remaing 0.1% would be in CD building process and
such). This makes it easy to get caught up in stuff like how we can make
tiny changes to each package to make it just a few percent more useful.
This is all good stuff, and these changes can get us a long way, but
things don't start to get really interesting until we take a step back
and consider in a more broad perspective what we want to achieve, and
how we can use the tools we have to do it.

For Hardy we tried to get postfix and dovecot to integrate with each
other by default. For various reasons this never came to be, but it's a
rather good example of the kind of stuff we can do because we control
are the suppliers of both pieces of software.

My ssh-login-to-screen idea a few e-mails ago is another example. It
might be silly, but it's an example of thinking outside the confines of
single packages, and considering the software stack as more a whole.

> I absolutely agree with this, and through discussion, things like
> screen and other software, where appropriate and after thorough
> review, should be part of Ubuntu Server's default installation. This
> functionality and integration work is what gets at the heart of what
> Ubuntu is-- "Linux for Human Beings".

I wholeheartedly agree. To a great extent, Ubuntu Server is like Debian,
but with some patches, a release schedule, support options, and
dedicated ressources. This is good, but it could be much, much better.
There's a *lot* of potential for improvement.

> On the other hand, there is a clear need to have an install method for
> server that is minimal, or platform oriented.

Quite true. In our integration efforts we need to also keep in mind that
folks might want to use a different combination of packages, so the
coupling should be rather loose.

> Right now, the mini ISO, the alternate CD, JeOS and the current server
> CD all approach this from different angles, but come close to the same
> end result (though, IIRC, you end up with a different kernel in
> each).

Alternate and the mini ISO will get you the same kernel. JeOS uses the
virtual kernel, and the server CD gets you the server kernel.
Additionally JeOS doesn't install standard, AFAIR, but only minimal, but
yes, their end result is rather similar.

> I suggest we have on the server CD a boot option like 'linux minimal'
> (this has been suggested/implied elsewhere in this thread). This
> might simply be ubuntu-standard with the server kernel and a note that
> mentions running tasksel for additional packages (but this will need
> to be discussed).

Agreed.

--
Soren Hansen |
Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-23-2008, 09:31 PM
"Dustin Kirkland"
 
Default Platform vs Product

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Soren Hansen <soren@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Alternate and the mini ISO will get you the same kernel.

It would be nice if these two had "server" as a possible installation
target (or "server-minimal" as the case may be), which installed the
server kernel instead. As well as an option on the Server install CD
for a minimal installation (not default, but a target specifiable at
boot time).

--

Beyond that, I like the way this conversation has turned...a
productive discussion about the difference between an "Ubuntu Server
Product", which is true to the spirit of "Linux for Human Beings (who
happen to also be sysadmins)", as well as an "Ubuntu Server Minimal"
installation, without the bells and whistles for the uber Ubuntu
sysadmins (aka old school, die hard).

:-Dustin

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-23-2008, 11:19 PM
"James Dinkel"
 
Default Platform vs Product

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> Beyond that, I like the way this conversation has turned...a
> productive discussion about the difference between an "Ubuntu Server
> Product", which is true to the spirit of "Linux for Human Beings (who
> happen to also be sysadmins)", as well as an "Ubuntu Server Minimal"
> installation, without the bells and whistles for the uber Ubuntu
> sysadmins (aka old school, die hard).
>
> :-Dustin
>

ooh, and we can call it.... Uberbuntu.

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-23-2008, 11:55 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Platform vs Product

On Monday 23 June 2008 17:31, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Soren Hansen <soren@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > Alternate and the mini ISO will get you the same kernel.
>
> It would be nice if these two had "server" as a possible installation
> target (or "server-minimal" as the case may be), which installed the
> server kernel instead. As well as an option on the Server install CD
> for a minimal installation (not default, but a target specifiable at
> boot time).
>
> --
>
> Beyond that, I like the way this conversation has turned...a
> productive discussion about the difference between an "Ubuntu Server
> Product", which is true to the spirit of "Linux for Human Beings (who
> happen to also be sysadmins)", as well as an "Ubuntu Server Minimal"
> installation, without the bells and whistles for the uber Ubuntu
> sysadmins (aka old school, die hard).
>
> :-Dustin

The major challenge is that as a product, there is no single Ubuntu Server.
There are as many servers as there are use cases. We can deal with this any
of at least three ways:

1. Provide the minimal system and tell people to make their own product.
This will appeal to a certain market segment and is not hard to do. I think
as a community there is definite interest in this, but I suspect not a lot of
Canonical support revenue. I do think we ought to do this as it can serve
(pun intended) as the basis for a lot of specific projects.

2. Provide a mostly right for a number of common use cases, but still
probabyl not exactly what you want, you'll have to tweak it. This is, I
would argue, what we provide today. It's useful, but also needs some
extentsion to use beyond a couple of very specific use cases.

3. Provide a way to scalably provide a lot of different configurations for
many specific use cases that doesn't require much additional configuration
and sysadmin time. I've proposed a spec for one approach to move in this
direction:

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-flavors

To get to a truly Ubuntu solution in servers, we are going to need something a
lot more configurable than what we have now.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org