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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-27-2008, 02:36 PM
"JAWUD"
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

sorry, I didn't know that. But what do you think of working together and build a
"Ubuntu Server Console" instead of a cursus gui? You are building the same as
Satega but you want to use a cursus gui.

I'd like to develop all the interfaces and do the usability testing.

- jawud


> I'm not packaging augeas just to have it included on ubuntu there is a
> project behind it:
> http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCentralizedServiceAdministrator
>
>
> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:08 +0200, JAWUD wrote:
>> Just my thoughts on ubuntu server GUI.
>>
>> English is not my native language so I apologize for grammar mistakes.
>>
>> Windows server system is very popular and I think it is because of the GUI it
>> has. In my opinion a user should be able to configure a server without the
>> cli.
>> GUIs have some big advantage over the cli, itâ??s easier to learn, more users
>> are
>> comfortable with it and it just looks better. There is also a huge demand for
>> a
>> good gui, see all the brainstorm ideas.
>> But a server without CLI is also not nice. A lot of Linux sysadmins are used
>> to
>> it and some things are very hard to do with GUIs. So the perfect server os
>> should provide the user with a nice clean GUI but without disrupting the usual
>> cli.
>>
>> Building a GUI doesnâ??t automatically mean that the problem is solved.
>> Developing
>> a bad GUI isnâ??t that difficult. The GUI needs a lot of usability testing. I
>> also
>> believe that the GUI shouldnâ??t be developed with the current situation in
>> mind.
>> Systems like webmin provide a GUI for a lot of server software, but it isnâ??t
>> easy.
>>
>> The target group of a GUI are people with less Linux experience and who wants
>> a
>> stable and secure server. People who knows the cli are probable not interested
>> in the GUI. People with large deployments are also not interested in a GUI.
>> They
>> want control over all the details.
>>
>> Server GUI options:
>>
>> There are several options for a GUI. First one is to run X/gnome and make a
>> GUI
>> for the server. Remote server management can be done with VNC. This is the
>> windows way of server management. Running X/gnome takes a lot of resources and
>> VNC is not so fast. So this is not a nice option.
>>
>> Another option is to run a web server and make a web interface. As far as I
>> know
>> this is the current vision of the ubuntu server team (ebox). Running a web
>> server also takes some resources. Another disadvantage is that web interfaces
>> are not as nice and rich as QT/GTK apps. The real time graphs like system
>> monitor are not possible with html/css etc.
>>
>> The third option is to create a curses GUI. The advantages are that it
>> doesnâ??t
>> take a lot of resources, doesnâ??t need some external services like a web
>> server
>> and it is accessible via SSH. Some huge disadvantage is that it looks
>> horrible.
>> How things looks are also important on the server. Server admin are also
>> humans
>> just like desktop users.
>>
>> The last option is to make a remote GUI system. Hereâ??s a example: a user
>> installs the â??Ubuntu Server Consoleâ?? program on his desktop. Itâ??s a GTK
>> or QT
>> app which can be used to connect to a supported ubuntu server via ssh so it
>> can
>> be configured. In my opinion this is the best option. It has a nice and rich
>> GUI
>> and there is no web server or X/gnome. Itâ??s comparable with Rapache.
>>
>> Maybe I can do a small usability test to figure out what people think of cli,
>> curses or remote gtk. I can also create a ubuntuforum poll to get peoples
>> preference.
>>
>> All the interfaces are just different front ends. So I think ubuntu needs a
>> configuration abstraction layer. Something like Augeas. Augeas can become the
>> back end and then itâ??s easier to build different GUIs. Augeas intend to
>> cover
>> all commonly used configuration files and it is still possible to edit the
>> config files manual.
>>
>> Work together?
>> There are several people working on some gui option. Why not create one big
>> project, define some goals, create a roadmap and start working. These people
>> might be interested in working together..
>>
>> Nxvl â?? packaging augeas for ubuntu and want to build a cursus gui
>> Rapache â?? working on a remote apacke gui tool
>> Satega â?? working on ubuntu home server
>> Someone else??
>>
>> As far as I know all these people are on this mailing list. Together we can do
>> nice things and I'm interested in your opinion about this. Especially in
>> creating a "Ubuntu Server Console".
>>
>> - JAWUD
>>
>>
>
> --
> aka nxvl
> Key fingerprint = BCE4 27A0 D03E 55DE DA2D BE06 891D 8DEE 6545 97FE
> gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 654597FE
>
>



--
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 06-27-2008, 02:40 PM
Lam Pak Ting
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

Well, I like the idea "Ubuntu Server Console" too. This is hopefully, if
done, a great solution in terms of balance between user-friendliness and
server workload.

Ting

On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:08 +0200, JAWUD wrote:
> Just my thoughts on ubuntu server GUI.
>
> English is not my native language so I apologize for grammar mistakes.
>
> Windows server system is very popular and I think it is because of the GUI it
> has. In my opinion a user should be able to configure a server without the cli.
> GUIs have some big advantage over the cli, it’s easier to learn, more users are
> comfortable with it and it just looks better. There is also a huge demand for a
> good gui, see all the brainstorm ideas.
> But a server without CLI is also not nice. A lot of Linux sysadmins are used to
> it and some things are very hard to do with GUIs. So the perfect server os
> should provide the user with a nice clean GUI but without disrupting the usual
> cli.
>
> Building a GUI doesn’t automatically mean that the problem is solved. Developing
> a bad GUI isn’t that difficult. The GUI needs a lot of usability testing. I also
> believe that the GUI shouldn’t be developed with the current situation in mind.
> Systems like webmin provide a GUI for a lot of server software, but it isn’t
> easy.
>
> The target group of a GUI are people with less Linux experience and who wants a
> stable and secure server. People who knows the cli are probable not interested
> in the GUI. People with large deployments are also not interested in a GUI. They
> want control over all the details.
>
> Server GUI options:
>
> There are several options for a GUI. First one is to run X/gnome and make a GUI
> for the server. Remote server management can be done with VNC. This is the
> windows way of server management. Running X/gnome takes a lot of resources and
> VNC is not so fast. So this is not a nice option.
>
> Another option is to run a web server and make a web interface. As far as I know
> this is the current vision of the ubuntu server team (ebox). Running a web
> server also takes some resources. Another disadvantage is that web interfaces
> are not as nice and rich as QT/GTK apps. The real time graphs like system
> monitor are not possible with html/css etc.
>
> The third option is to create a curses GUI. The advantages are that it doesn’t
> take a lot of resources, doesn’t need some external services like a web server
> and it is accessible via SSH. Some huge disadvantage is that it looks horrible.
> How things looks are also important on the server. Server admin are also humans
> just like desktop users.
>
> The last option is to make a remote GUI system. Here’s a example: a user
> installs the “Ubuntu Server Console” program on his desktop. It’s a GTK or QT
> app which can be used to connect to a supported ubuntu server via ssh so it can
> be configured. In my opinion this is the best option. It has a nice and rich GUI
> and there is no web server or X/gnome. It’s comparable with Rapache.
>
> Maybe I can do a small usability test to figure out what people think of cli,
> curses or remote gtk. I can also create a ubuntuforum poll to get peoples
> preference.
>
> All the interfaces are just different front ends. So I think ubuntu needs a
> configuration abstraction layer. Something like Augeas. Augeas can become the
> back end and then it’s easier to build different GUIs. Augeas intend to cover
> all commonly used configuration files and it is still possible to edit the
> config files manual.
>
> Work together?
> There are several people working on some gui option. Why not create one big
> project, define some goals, create a roadmap and start working. These people
> might be interested in working together..
>
> Nxvl – packaging augeas for ubuntu and want to build a cursus gui
> Rapache – working on a remote apacke gui tool
> Satega – working on ubuntu home server
> Someone else??
>
> As far as I know all these people are on this mailing list. Together we can do
> nice things and I'm interested in your opinion about this. Especially in
> creating a "Ubuntu Server Console".
>
> - JAWUD
>
>
>


--
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 06-27-2008, 02:50 PM
Matthew D Barley
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

I really like the idea. I am one of those individuals that you refer to
who are somewhat new to the Ubuntu/Linux environment and a GUI interface
on the server-end sounds like a fantastic idea.
>
> Ting
>
> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:08 +0200, JAWUD wrote:
>
>> Just my thoughts on ubuntu server GUI.
>>
>> English is not my native language so I apologize for grammar mistakes.
>>
>> Windows server system is very popular and I think it is because of the GUI it
>> has. In my opinion a user should be able to configure a server without the cli.
>> GUIs have some big advantage over the cli, it’s easier to learn, more users are
>> comfortable with it and it just looks better. There is also a huge demand for a
>> good gui, see all the brainstorm ideas.
>> But a server without CLI is also not nice. A lot of Linux sysadmins are used to
>> it and some things are very hard to do with GUIs. So the perfect server os
>> should provide the user with a nice clean GUI but without disrupting the usual
>> cli.
>>
>> Building a GUI doesn’t automatically mean that the problem is solved. Developing
>> a bad GUI isn’t that difficult. The GUI needs a lot of usability testing. I also
>> believe that the GUI shouldn’t be developed with the current situation in mind.
>> Systems like webmin provide a GUI for a lot of server software, but it isn’t
>> easy.
>>
>> The target group of a GUI are people with less Linux experience and who wants a
>> stable and secure server. People who knows the cli are probable not interested
>> in the GUI. People with large deployments are also not interested in a GUI. They
>> want control over all the details.
>>
>> Server GUI options:
>>
>> There are several options for a GUI. First one is to run X/gnome and make a GUI
>> for the server. Remote server management can be done with VNC. This is the
>> windows way of server management. Running X/gnome takes a lot of resources and
>> VNC is not so fast. So this is not a nice option.
>>
>> Another option is to run a web server and make a web interface. As far as I know
>> this is the current vision of the ubuntu server team (ebox). Running a web
>> server also takes some resources. Another disadvantage is that web interfaces
>> are not as nice and rich as QT/GTK apps. The real time graphs like system
>> monitor are not possible with html/css etc.
>>
>> The third option is to create a curses GUI. The advantages are that it doesn’t
>> take a lot of resources, doesn’t need some external services like a web server
>> and it is accessible via SSH. Some huge disadvantage is that it looks horrible.
>> How things looks are also important on the server. Server admin are also humans
>> just like desktop users.
>>
>> The last option is to make a remote GUI system. Here’s a example: a user
>> installs the “Ubuntu Server Console” program on his desktop. It’s a GTK or QT
>> app which can be used to connect to a supported ubuntu server via ssh so it can
>> be configured. In my opinion this is the best option. It has a nice and rich GUI
>> and there is no web server or X/gnome. It’s comparable with Rapache.
>>
>> Maybe I can do a small usability test to figure out what people think of cli,
>> curses or remote gtk. I can also create a ubuntuforum poll to get peoples
>> preference.
>>
>> All the interfaces are just different front ends. So I think ubuntu needs a
>> configuration abstraction layer. Something like Augeas. Augeas can become the
>> back end and then it’s easier to build different GUIs. Augeas intend to cover
>> all commonly used configuration files and it is still possible to edit the
>> config files manual.
>>
>> Work together?
>> There are several people working on some gui option. Why not create one big
>> project, define some goals, create a roadmap and start working. These people
>> might be interested in working together..
>>
>> Nxvl – packaging augeas for ubuntu and want to build a cursus gui
>> Rapache – working on a remote apacke gui tool
>> Satega – working on ubuntu home server
>> Someone else??
>>
>> As far as I know all these people are on this mailing list. Together we can do
>> nice things and I'm interested in your opinion about this. Especially in
>> creating a "Ubuntu Server Console".
>>
>> - JAWUD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


--
Kindest regards,

Matthew
OIT Help Desk
Duke University
684.2200


--
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 06-28-2008, 12:15 AM
"Nicolas Valcarcel"
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

Well i was thinking on doing it using MVO model so it would be easy to
add more GUI's, so if you want to do it i'm ok with that, also i'm
more a backend man than a GUI one, so if you want to write the GUI and
the i add the backend i will be happy with the idea so we can load
balance an i can concentrate my efforts on writing the backend.

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Matthew D Barley <matt.barley@duke.edu> wrote:
> I really like the idea. I am one of those individuals that you refer to
> who are somewhat new to the Ubuntu/Linux environment and a GUI interface
> on the server-end sounds like a fantastic idea.
>>
>> Ting
>>
>> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:08 +0200, JAWUD wrote:
>>
>>> Just my thoughts on ubuntu server GUI.
>>>
>>> English is not my native language so I apologize for grammar mistakes.
>>>
>>> Windows server system is very popular and I think it is because of the GUI it
>>> has. In my opinion a user should be able to configure a server without the cli.
>>> GUIs have some big advantage over the cli, it's easier to learn, more users are
>>> comfortable with it and it just looks better. There is also a huge demand for a
>>> good gui, see all the brainstorm ideas.
>>> But a server without CLI is also not nice. A lot of Linux sysadmins are used to
>>> it and some things are very hard to do with GUIs. So the perfect server os
>>> should provide the user with a nice clean GUI but without disrupting the usual
>>> cli.
>>>
>>> Building a GUI doesn't automatically mean that the problem is solved. Developing
>>> a bad GUI isn't that difficult. The GUI needs a lot of usability testing. I also
>>> believe that the GUI shouldn't be developed with the current situation in mind.
>>> Systems like webmin provide a GUI for a lot of server software, but it isn't
>>> easy.
>>>
>>> The target group of a GUI are people with less Linux experience and who wants a
>>> stable and secure server. People who knows the cli are probable not interested
>>> in the GUI. People with large deployments are also not interested in a GUI. They
>>> want control over all the details.
>>>
>>> Server GUI options:
>>>
>>> There are several options for a GUI. First one is to run X/gnome and make a GUI
>>> for the server. Remote server management can be done with VNC. This is the
>>> windows way of server management. Running X/gnome takes a lot of resources and
>>> VNC is not so fast. So this is not a nice option.
>>>
>>> Another option is to run a web server and make a web interface. As far as I know
>>> this is the current vision of the ubuntu server team (ebox). Running a web
>>> server also takes some resources. Another disadvantage is that web interfaces
>>> are not as nice and rich as QT/GTK apps. The real time graphs like system
>>> monitor are not possible with html/css etc.
>>>
>>> The third option is to create a curses GUI. The advantages are that it doesn't
>>> take a lot of resources, doesn't need some external services like a web server
>>> and it is accessible via SSH. Some huge disadvantage is that it looks horrible.
>>> How things looks are also important on the server. Server admin are also humans
>>> just like desktop users.
>>>
>>> The last option is to make a remote GUI system. Here's a example: a user
>>> installs the "Ubuntu Server Console" program on his desktop. It's a GTK or QT
>>> app which can be used to connect to a supported ubuntu server via ssh so it can
>>> be configured. In my opinion this is the best option. It has a nice and rich GUI
>>> and there is no web server or X/gnome. It's comparable with Rapache.
>>>
>>> Maybe I can do a small usability test to figure out what people think of cli,
>>> curses or remote gtk. I can also create a ubuntuforum poll to get peoples
>>> preference.
>>>
>>> All the interfaces are just different front ends. So I think ubuntu needs a
>>> configuration abstraction layer. Something like Augeas. Augeas can become the
>>> back end and then it's easier to build different GUIs. Augeas intend to cover
>>> all commonly used configuration files and it is still possible to edit the
>>> config files manual.
>>>
>>> Work together?
>>> There are several people working on some gui option. Why not create one big
>>> project, define some goals, create a roadmap and start working. These people
>>> might be interested in working together..
>>>
>>> Nxvl – packaging augeas for ubuntu and want to build a cursus gui
>>> Rapache – working on a remote apacke gui tool
>>> Satega – working on ubuntu home server
>>> Someone else??
>>>
>>> As far as I know all these people are on this mailing list. Together we can do
>>> nice things and I'm interested in your opinion about this. Especially in
>>> creating a "Ubuntu Server Console".
>>>
>>> - JAWUD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kindest regards,
>
> Matthew
> OIT Help Desk
> Duke University
> 684.2200
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

--
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 06-28-2008, 12:20 AM
"Nicolas Valcarcel"
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

btw, i don't think satega and i have the same objectives, he's writing
an easy to use server packet i'm writing a management center for
experienced sysadmins, not only for easy of use and to catch new user,
what i want is to have a tool i can use on real world servers (which
doesn't have Graphical interface) so it need to run in CLI, but i'm
open to the idea of having a GTK/QT/Whatever frontend, but i think
this will make the sysadmins to clicky, so i don't think is a good
idea to start with a Graphical interface, that's why i prefer to use a
curses one.

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel
<nvalcarcel@ubuntu-pe.org> wrote:
> Well i was thinking on doing it using MVO model so it would be easy to
> add more GUI's, so if you want to do it i'm ok with that, also i'm
> more a backend man than a GUI one, so if you want to write the GUI and
> the i add the backend i will be happy with the idea so we can load
> balance an i can concentrate my efforts on writing the backend.
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Matthew D Barley <matt.barley@duke.edu> wrote:
>> I really like the idea. I am one of those individuals that you refer to
>> who are somewhat new to the Ubuntu/Linux environment and a GUI interface
>> on the server-end sounds like a fantastic idea.
>>>
>>> Ting
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:08 +0200, JAWUD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just my thoughts on ubuntu server GUI.
>>>>
>>>> English is not my native language so I apologize for grammar mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> Windows server system is very popular and I think it is because of the GUI it
>>>> has. In my opinion a user should be able to configure a server without the cli.
>>>> GUIs have some big advantage over the cli, it's easier to learn, more users are
>>>> comfortable with it and it just looks better. There is also a huge demand for a
>>>> good gui, see all the brainstorm ideas.
>>>> But a server without CLI is also not nice. A lot of Linux sysadmins are used to
>>>> it and some things are very hard to do with GUIs. So the perfect server os
>>>> should provide the user with a nice clean GUI but without disrupting the usual
>>>> cli.
>>>>
>>>> Building a GUI doesn't automatically mean that the problem is solved. Developing
>>>> a bad GUI isn't that difficult. The GUI needs a lot of usability testing. I also
>>>> believe that the GUI shouldn't be developed with the current situation in mind.
>>>> Systems like webmin provide a GUI for a lot of server software, but it isn't
>>>> easy.
>>>>
>>>> The target group of a GUI are people with less Linux experience and who wants a
>>>> stable and secure server. People who knows the cli are probable not interested
>>>> in the GUI. People with large deployments are also not interested in a GUI. They
>>>> want control over all the details.
>>>>
>>>> Server GUI options:
>>>>
>>>> There are several options for a GUI. First one is to run X/gnome and make a GUI
>>>> for the server. Remote server management can be done with VNC. This is the
>>>> windows way of server management. Running X/gnome takes a lot of resources and
>>>> VNC is not so fast. So this is not a nice option.
>>>>
>>>> Another option is to run a web server and make a web interface. As far as I know
>>>> this is the current vision of the ubuntu server team (ebox). Running a web
>>>> server also takes some resources. Another disadvantage is that web interfaces
>>>> are not as nice and rich as QT/GTK apps. The real time graphs like system
>>>> monitor are not possible with html/css etc.
>>>>
>>>> The third option is to create a curses GUI. The advantages are that it doesn't
>>>> take a lot of resources, doesn't need some external services like a web server
>>>> and it is accessible via SSH. Some huge disadvantage is that it looks horrible.
>>>> How things looks are also important on the server. Server admin are also humans
>>>> just like desktop users.
>>>>
>>>> The last option is to make a remote GUI system. Here's a example: a user
>>>> installs the "Ubuntu Server Console" program on his desktop. It's a GTK or QT
>>>> app which can be used to connect to a supported ubuntu server via ssh so it can
>>>> be configured. In my opinion this is the best option. It has a nice and rich GUI
>>>> and there is no web server or X/gnome. It's comparable with Rapache.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I can do a small usability test to figure out what people think of cli,
>>>> curses or remote gtk. I can also create a ubuntuforum poll to get peoples
>>>> preference.
>>>>
>>>> All the interfaces are just different front ends. So I think ubuntu needs a
>>>> configuration abstraction layer. Something like Augeas. Augeas can become the
>>>> back end and then it's easier to build different GUIs. Augeas intend to cover
>>>> all commonly used configuration files and it is still possible to edit the
>>>> config files manual.
>>>>
>>>> Work together?
>>>> There are several people working on some gui option. Why not create one big
>>>> project, define some goals, create a roadmap and start working. These people
>>>> might be interested in working together..
>>>>
>>>> Nxvl – packaging augeas for ubuntu and want to build a cursus gui
>>>> Rapache – working on a remote apacke gui tool
>>>> Satega – working on ubuntu home server
>>>> Someone else??
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know all these people are on this mailing list. Together we can do
>>>> nice things and I'm interested in your opinion about this. Especially in
>>>> creating a "Ubuntu Server Console".
>>>>
>>>> - JAWUD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Matthew
>> OIT Help Desk
>> Duke University
>> 684.2200
>>
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-server mailing list
>> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
>> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>

--
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 06-28-2008, 12:26 PM
"Mario Spinthiras"
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

My 2p,

You don't need a higher layer on top of ubuntu or any other Linux
distro to handle your linux distro. The thought only complicates an
admin's life and is unecessary. As for a GUI , stick to windows if you
feel a GUI is appropriate. People with Linux have done just fine with
an "as is" approach to the UI and it's not going to change whatever
you say or do.
--
Warm Regards,
Mario A. Spinthiras
Blog: http://www.spinthiras.net
Mail: mspinthiras@gmail.com
Skype: smario125

--
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 06-28-2008, 05:02 PM
"Luke L"
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Mario Spinthiras <mspinthiras@gmail.com> wrote:
> My 2p,
>
> You don't need a higher layer on top of ubuntu or any other Linux
> distro to handle your linux distro. The thought only complicates an
> admin's life and is unecessary. As for a GUI , stick to windows if you
> feel a GUI is appropriate. People with Linux have done just fine with
> an "as is" approach to the UI and it's not going to change whatever
> you say or do.


You're one of "those"... Listen, Linux is powerful and can do anything
you want it to do in terms of software (Except play Supreme Commander)
from the command line. We are all aware. But GUIs really can and do
help productivity with increasingly complicated tasks. A GUI or
"Server Console", as the term is coined, is an abstraction layer to
help make the system more integrated and easy to manage.

Ubuntu's goal is to be a Linux distribution for the masses, for the
desktop AND server; to make things easy and understandable without
compromising power. The server console is a part of this, and I fully
believe it will be developed as some of our programmers are done with
this hectic 6-month period.

Finally, don't EVER tell people "Use Windows for a GUI". That is a
misguided statement that does not take into consideration of the other
MANY reasons why someone would be using a Linux box over a Windows
one.
--
Luke L.

--
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 06-28-2008, 05:07 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

On Saturday 28 June 2008 13:02, Luke L wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Mario Spinthiras <mspinthiras@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > My 2p,
> >
> > You don't need a higher layer on top of ubuntu or any other Linux
> > distro to handle your linux distro. The thought only complicates an
> > admin's life and is unecessary. As for a GUI , stick to windows if you
> > feel a GUI is appropriate. People with Linux have done just fine with
> > an "as is" approach to the UI and it's not going to change whatever
> > you say or do.
>
> You're one of "those"... Listen, Linux is powerful and can do anything
> you want it to do in terms of software (Except play Supreme Commander)
> from the command line. We are all aware. But GUIs really can and do
> help productivity with increasingly complicated tasks. A GUI or
> "Server Console", as the term is coined, is an abstraction layer to
> help make the system more integrated and easy to manage.
>
> Ubuntu's goal is to be a Linux distribution for the masses, for the
> desktop AND server; to make things easy and understandable without
> compromising power. The server console is a part of this, and I fully
> believe it will be developed as some of our programmers are done with
> this hectic 6-month period.
>
> Finally, don't EVER tell people "Use Windows for a GUI". That is a
> misguided statement that does not take into consideration of the other
> MANY reasons why someone would be using a Linux box over a Windows
> one.

I think both of you have your points, but are rather missing what nxvl is
trying to accomplish. Personally I have about half a dozen servers that I
manage related to my business. I can, and do, ssh into each one and
do "stuff" to administer them. This is a good and right way to do
Linux 'stuff'. I encourage admins to know how to do this and not be
dependent on a GUI even if one is available. This is not the problem that
(as I understand it) nxvl is trying to work on.

If I had 1,000 web servers running on blades with a SAN backend, then I have
to administer them completely differently. What we do not have at all is
higher level tools to manage large sets of servers effectively. This, I
think, is the problem space he's working in.

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
 
Old 06-28-2008, 05:07 PM
"Brett Alton"
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Luke L <lukehasnoname@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Mario Spinthiras <mspinthiras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My 2p,
>>
>> You don't need a higher layer on top of ubuntu or any other Linux
>> distro to handle your linux distro. The thought only complicates an
>> admin's life and is unecessary. As for a GUI , stick to windows if you
>> feel a GUI is appropriate. People with Linux have done just fine with
>> an "as is" approach to the UI and it's not going to change whatever
>> you say or do.
>
>
> You're one of "those"... Listen, Linux is powerful and can do anything
> you want it to do in terms of software (Except play Supreme Commander)
> from the command line. We are all aware. But GUIs really can and do
> help productivity with increasingly complicated tasks. A GUI or
> "Server Console", as the term is coined, is an abstraction layer to
> help make the system more integrated and easy to manage.
>
> Ubuntu's goal is to be a Linux distribution for the masses, for the
> desktop AND server; to make things easy and understandable without
> compromising power. The server console is a part of this, and I fully
> believe it will be developed as some of our programmers are done with
> this hectic 6-month period.
>
> Finally, don't EVER tell people "Use Windows for a GUI". That is a
> misguided statement that does not take into consideration of the other
> MANY reasons why someone would be using a Linux box over a Windows
> one.
> --
> Luke L.
>
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>

In agreement with Luke.

How many resources could a web-based administration program take up
when it's not being administered? Apache, or even the python server
take no process power and very little memory while sleeping. If you're
an advanced server admin, that's fine, don't install it.

--
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 06-29-2008, 12:13 AM
"Luke L"
 
Default Ubuntu server GUI

> I think both of you have your points, but are rather missing what nxvl is
> trying to accomplish. Personally I have about half a dozen servers that I
> manage related to my business. I can, and do, ssh into each one and
> do "stuff" to administer them. This is a good and right way to do
> Linux 'stuff'. I encourage admins to know how to do this and not be
> dependent on a GUI even if one is available. This is not the problem that
> (as I understand it) nxvl is trying to work on.
>
> If I had 1,000 web servers running on blades with a SAN backend, then I have
> to administer them completely differently. What we do not have at all is
> higher level tools to manage large sets of servers effectively. This, I
> think, is the problem space he's working in.

I admit I do not know the details of the nxvl spec; I've heard a lot
of different ideas about a lot of management tools in the past month,
and I shall attempt (on Monday) to get my head straightened out on the
details.

However, the OP has suggested the usefulness of a GUI of some form to
manage Ubuntu servers. This is a broad concept, indeed. I do wish to
defend the idea of developing easier, more friendly ways of managing
servers. Tasks that can be made easier should be, as most people do
not need to know the dozens of console commands and the cryptic
switches for each.

There is no "right" or wrong way to admin a server, Scott. There can
be simpler and advanced, more or less automation and control, but not
a "right" and "wrong". If custom, "by-hand" installation of software
gives more control to the user, why do we need tasksel, for example? A
GUI is a tool that many users can appreciate, even if you do not wish
to.

I tell you this: If Ubuntu were to be the first Linux distro with
out-of-the-box customization and easy to use management of services
(in the form of a custom shell or GUI), it would increase its userbase
drastically.

I've often wondered if IT types wish to keep things complex in order
to maintain job security, heh.

--
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 07:35 PM.

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