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 11-21-2007, 01:51 AM
"David L. Willson"
 
Default Server issues

On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 14:59 -0700, David L. Willson wrote:
> About this .local domain: I know there's an RFC that defines it for use
> with multicast, but I was not aware that "the Microsoft one is the one
> the IETF standardized". I always thought that Microsoft made this
> recommendation for using .local in violation of the RFC, like they
> violate the CSS standard (one pixel off render bug), and the DHCP
> standard (non-release at shutdown, continued use of an expired lease),
> and some DNS standards (undocumented client fail-over).
>
> Can someone point me to the relevant IETF document, so I know what the
> standard is?

My question needs to be amended, since I now understand that Microsoft
and (somebody else) have published different RFCs, but that both
define .local as a/the multicast TLD.

Why does every installation of Microsoft Active Directory strongly
recommend the use of .local as the TLD, when (1) there is no advantage
to .local over .int, .lan, or .msft, (2) this will clearly invalidate
~both~ of the RFCs by using .local for unicast, and (3) there are
partial implementations of .local as a multicast TLD in popular products
(MacOS and SUSE, at least) and this practice causes those products to
appear broken?


--
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 11-21-2007, 11:23 AM
Soren Hansen
 
Default Server issues

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Thilo Six wrote:
> > sebest@mercure:~$ sudo netstat -upna | grep dhclient
> > udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:68 0.0.0.0:*
> > 6708/dhclient
> ^^^^
> > is it only accessible from inside?
> dhclient is no service

It listens for DHCP responses and alters your network configuration as a
result of those responses. That counts as a service in my book.

--
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Server Team
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 11-21-2007, 11:37 AM
Soren Hansen
 
Default Server issues

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:38:50AM -0600, Loye Young wrote:
> > It's perfectly intelligible to someone who knows zeroconf, avahi is
> > just an implementation of of it.
> Well . . . that's my point: You have to already know zeroconf to
> understand the documentation. But that's silly, of course, because if
> you already know how it works, you don't need the documentation in the
> first place.

It's difficult to write documentation that strikes the perfect balance
in this situation. Let's take a different example: Apache. Should
Apache's documentation spend a lot of time explaining what HTTP is and
how it works? Should it explain TCP? IP? Ethernet? Electrons
travelling through copper? All of that information is useful,
interesting, and all of it plays a significant role when Apache is
serving web pages to a browser, but not really in scope if you're just
trying to get a web server running.

I'm not saying that the avahi documentation has drawn the line at the
right level of detail; I'm simply trying to make the point that "the
right level of detail" is not an unambigious entity.

A lot of folks have a basic understanding of how http works, so a lot of
that can be left out of Apache's documentation. That is (for the time
being) apparantly not the case for Avahi and zeroconf, but just like the
details of http are of relatively little interest if you just want to
start serving web pages with Apache, the details of zeroconf are of
relatively little interst if you just want to discover or broadcast
services on your lan.

--
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Server Team
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 11-21-2007, 11:39 AM
Soren Hansen
 
Default Server issues

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:52:33AM -0600, Loye Young wrote:
> AVAHI
> I absolutely hate avahi.

Then why did you install it in the first place?

--
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Server Team
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 11-21-2007, 11:44 AM
Soren Hansen
 
Default Server issues

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:15:53PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >i think it's not specific to avahi, but to zeroconf and dns in
> >general.
> And the Microsoft one is the one the IETF standardized. All the more
> reason not to install, let alone enable, it by default.

I don't know if it's me or all of you who's doing something wrong, but I
don't have it installed on my servers, and I'm quite sure that I didn't
do anything in particular to avoid it?

--
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Server Team
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 11-21-2007, 03:41 PM
"Loye Young"
 
Default Server issues

> On Nov 21, 2007 6:39 AM, Soren Hansen <soren@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:52:33AM -0600, Loye Young wrote:
> > AVAHI
> > I absolutely hate avahi.


>Then why did you install it in the first place?

I didn't! That's the whole problem! Avahi gets dragged in as a dependency to all the *buntu desktop GUIs, the CUPS server, and various client applications as well.


The only method I see to avoid having avahi on a system is to use only a command line interface and not use the CUPS server, or else spend a few days trying to figure out how to roll-your-own desktop. That's a difficult pill to swallow for customers who are making the switch from MS Server and other GUI-based server products.


You have to understand the market for the Ubuntu Server Edition. Enterprise customers are largely using RedHat, SUSE, or other products built specifically for the enterprise. Those customers have system administrators and network administrators dedicated to taking care of the server. They are comfortable with the command line, or else are paid to get comfortable with it.


Ubuntu Server Edition, by contrast, appeals to the small and medium sized company, which typically has a very small IT department, if it have one at all. The poor soul managing the IT "department" of a small business has to administer client systems, the network, and the servers, plus provide tech support for user applications. Basically, everything connected to a keyboard or a monitor. That IT manager wants a GUI because he or she can't remember every geek-speak command necessary to run everything.


When the GUI desktop gets installed, the desktop dependencies drag in avahi and network-manager, which both hijack the network configuration in thinly documented ways. Although I'm not in love with network-manager either, at least it does provide an intuitive and explicit method to opt out of it. Avahi, on the other hand, lurks behind the scenes looking for and responding to other machines. It doesn't tell you what it's up to, what it's found, or what has found it. If several *buntu systems are around, they all start setting up connections to each other without telling you. To add insult to injury, getting avahi off the system (or even disabling it), requires an a priori understanding of zeroconf and a knowledge of exactly where and how it has embedded itself in the network subsystem.


If we ever get around to creating a server GUI, as I have proposed from time-to-time, perhaps the issue can quietly die because such a GUI could simply run the administrative applications, but without avahi. (See,
e.g., the gadmintools, gbindadmin, gdhcpd, gproftpd, gsambad, gkdebconf, gps, tinyca, fwbuilder, bluefish, system-config-cluster, and mysql-admin packages.)


--
Loye Young
Isaac & Young Computer Company

Laredo, Texas
(956) 857-1172
loye.young@iycc.net
--
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 11-21-2007, 03:55 PM
"Sebastien Estienne"
 
Default Server issues

If you use the ubuntu server cd, and then install desktop
applications, it's more or less like using the classic ubuntu cd.

Imo, if you install cups, you'll always have avahi as a dependency:
cups use zeroconf because networked printers do.

I really don't understand why you want to install desktop applications
on your server and refuse to disable avahi?
If you really don't want avahi for whatever mysterious reason that
disabling it can't solve, you'll have to modify all the packages that
depends on avahi.

IMO instead of using gtk apps to setup a server, ebox (
http://ebox-platform.com/index ) would be a better alternative.

On Nov 21, 2007 5:41 PM, Loye Young <loye.young@iycc.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 2007 6:39 AM, Soren Hansen <soren@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:52:33AM -0600, Loye Young wrote:
> > > AVAHI
> > > I absolutely hate avahi.
>
> >Then why did you install it in the first place?
>
> I didn't! That's the whole problem! Avahi gets dragged in as a dependency to
> all the *buntu desktop GUIs, the CUPS server, and various client
> applications as well.
>
> The only method I see to avoid having avahi on a system is to use only a
> command line interface and not use the CUPS server, or else spend a few days
> trying to figure out how to roll-your-own desktop. That's a difficult pill
> to swallow for customers who are making the switch from MS Server and other
> GUI-based server products.
>
> You have to understand the market for the Ubuntu Server Edition. Enterprise
> customers are largely using RedHat, SUSE, or other products built
> specifically for the enterprise. Those customers have system administrators
> and network administrators dedicated to taking care of the server. They are
> comfortable with the command line, or else are paid to get comfortable with
> it.
>
> Ubuntu Server Edition, by contrast, appeals to the small and medium sized
> company, which typically has a very small IT department, if it have one at
> all. The poor soul managing the IT "department" of a small business has to
> administer client systems, the network, and the servers, plus provide tech
> support for user applications. Basically, everything connected to a keyboard
> or a monitor. That IT manager wants a GUI because he or she can't remember
> every geek-speak command necessary to run everything.
>
> When the GUI desktop gets installed, the desktop dependencies drag in avahi
> and network-manager, which both hijack the network configuration in thinly
> documented ways. Although I'm not in love with network-manager either, at
> least it does provide an intuitive and explicit method to opt out of it.
> Avahi, on the other hand, lurks behind the scenes looking for and responding
> to other machines. It doesn't tell you what it's up to, what it's found, or
> what has found it. If several *buntu systems are around, they all start
> setting up connections to each other without telling you. To add insult to
> injury, getting avahi off the system (or even disabling it), requires an a
> priori understanding of zeroconf and a knowledge of exactly where and how it
> has embedded itself in the network subsystem.
>
> If we ever get around to creating a server GUI, as I have proposed from
> time-to-time, perhaps the issue can quietly die because such a GUI could
> simply run the administrative applications, but without avahi. (See, e.g.,
> the gadmintools, gbindadmin, gdhcpd, gproftpd, gsambad, gkdebconf, gps,
> tinyca, fwbuilder, bluefish, system-config-cluster, and mysql-admin
> packages.)
>
>
> --
>
> Loye Young
> Isaac & Young Computer Company
> Laredo, Texas
>
> (956) 857-1172
> loye.young@iycc.net
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>



--
Sebastien Estienne

--
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 11-21-2007, 04:24 PM
Thilo Six
 
Default Server issues

Soren Hansen wrote the following on 21.11.2007 13:23
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Thilo Six wrote:
>>> sebest@mercure:~$ sudo netstat -upna | grep dhclient
>>> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:68 0.0.0.0:*
>>> 6708/dhclient
>> ^^^^
>>> is it only accessible from inside?
>> dhclient is no service
>
> It listens for DHCP responses and alters your network configuration as a
> result of those responses. That counts as a service in my book.

My Firefox sends out a HTTP request and alters the viewed content as a result
of this, but for sure i wonīt call Firefox a "service".

A service stays where it is a waits for *incomming* requests (dhcp*d*), a
client walks out and *does* a request (dhclient).

Thatīs my definition

--
Thilo

key: 0x4A411E09


--
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 11-21-2007, 04:36 PM
"Sebastien Estienne"
 
Default Server issues

On Nov 21, 2007 6:24 PM, Thilo Six <T.Six@gmx.de> wrote:
> Soren Hansen wrote the following on 21.11.2007 13:23
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Thilo Six wrote:
> >>> sebest@mercure:~$ sudo netstat -upna | grep dhclient
> >>> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:68 0.0.0.0:*
> >>> 6708/dhclient
> >> ^^^^
> >>> is it only accessible from inside?
> >> dhclient is no service
> >
> > It listens for DHCP responses and alters your network configuration as a
> > result of those responses. That counts as a service in my book.
>
> My Firefox sends out a HTTP request and alters the viewed content as a result
> of this, but for sure i wonīt call Firefox a "service".
>
> A service stays where it is a waits for *incomming* requests (dhcp*d*), a
> client walks out and *does* a request (dhclient).

if you use dhcp, issue this command : "sudo netstat -upna | grep dhclient"
You'll see that dhclient, is listening on udp port 68, if it listens on a port

>
> Thatīs my definition
>
>
> --
> Thilo
>
> key: 0x4A411E09
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>



--
Sebastien Estienne

--
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 11-21-2007, 04:43 PM
"Loye Young"
 
Default Server issues

> I really don't understand why you want to install desktop applications
> on your server and refuse to disable avahi?

[Loye banging head against desk]

I
don't know what more I can say that will enable you to see the world
through the eyes of small business owners, who are my customers for
server products.

I personally know how to set up a minimalistic, command-line,
server environment. I also know how to roll my own desktop that doesn't
drag in avahi, so I never have to disable it. (BTW, your simplistic
solution to "disable" avahi doesn't work over the long haul. Yes, it
stops it from starting on the next reboot. But experience has taught me
that it doesn't stay disabled over any reasonable number of software
updates. The real solution is never to install it in the first place.)


The small businesses who are the best candidates for Ubuntu SE
find a desktop environment on a server to be irresistible, even
required. The learning curve to administer a server is too steep
without a GUI to assist the admin. Besides, why should the customer be
put to the choice between (a) an insecure, unstable, but intuitive
server OS (MS Server) and (b) a secure, stable, but inscrutable server
OS (Ubuntu SE)? There is no reason NOT to give the administrator the
security, stability, and standards-compliance of Linux with an
intuitive, documented GUI in the spirit of Ubuntu.

> MO instead of using gtk apps to setup a server, ebox
> (http://ebox-platform.com/index
) would be a better alternative.

Again, you are looking at the world through the eyes of one who already knows.


eBox is great if you already know how to set up a webserver
using the command line and a text editor. But if the webserver itself
gets messed up (e.g., the admin forgot to put "/Directory" at the end
of the site configuration block and apache won't start), the admin is
SOL.

Instead, we need a desktop GUI to administer Apache, too. There is a project to port YaST to Ubuntu (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/YaST), which is a step in the right direction. See also
http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-22_11-93051.html. I'd prefer a gtk tool in order to minimize the number of dependencies, but the concept is the right one.



Loye Young

--
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 12:27 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright Đ2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org