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 11-22-2007, 01:44 AM
"David L. Willson"
 
Default Server issues

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:10:54 +0100, Ante [UTF-8?]Karamatić wrote
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:15:59 +0100
> "Sebastien Estienne" <sebastien.estienne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > sebest@delly2:~$ cat /etc/default/avahi-daemon
> > # 0 = don't start, 1 = start
> > AVAHI_DAEMON_START=1
>
> But, that's not enough. Avahi (and everything done to make it
> usable) breaks some stuff on computers on which it doesn't even run.
>
> Best example is broken PPTP (VPN) when the other side is using .local
> domain. Then you have to edit /etc/nsswitch.conf and remove all the
> mdns stuff.
>
> I'm all for removing avahi. It did me more harm than good.

Can we make Ubuntu fix Microsoft's split-horizon DNS bug, too? And the other ones?
Shouldn't we should fork Mozilla to make it render more like IE? After all, IE is the
standard, even though it's broken and non-conformant to CSS. That CSS-conformant
rendering does more harm than good, too, doesn't it?

Stop using .local for unicast, and everything works great. Microsoft's problem. NOT
Ubuntu's. Not MacOS's. Not SUSE's. I like that [Ubuntu] Linux does things
properly. By the by, does the default workgroup ~have~ to be MSHOME? And why
does 'dd' default to decimal megs/gigs, not binary...

Oh fine, I'll give it a rest.

David L. Willson
Trainer/Engineer/Consultant
MCT, MCSE, Linux+
(720) 333-LANS


--
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 11-22-2007, 02:25 AM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Server issues

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 21:44, David L. Willson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:10:54 +0100, Ante [UTF-8?]Karamatić wrote
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:15:59 +0100
> >
> > "Sebastien Estienne" <sebastien.estienne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > sebest@delly2:~$ cat /etc/default/avahi-daemon
> > > # 0 = don't start, 1 = start
> > > AVAHI_DAEMON_START=1
> >
> > But, that's not enough. Avahi (and everything done to make it
> > usable) breaks some stuff on computers on which it doesn't even run.
> >
> > Best example is broken PPTP (VPN) when the other side is using .local
> > domain. Then you have to edit /etc/nsswitch.conf and remove all the
> > mdns stuff.
> >
> > I'm all for removing avahi. It did me more harm than good.
>
> Can we make Ubuntu fix Microsoft's split-horizon DNS bug, too? And the
> other ones? Shouldn't we should fork Mozilla to make it render more like
> IE? After all, IE is the standard, even though it's broken and
> non-conformant to CSS. That CSS-conformant rendering does more harm than
> good, too, doesn't it?
>
> Stop using .local for unicast, and everything works great. Microsoft's
> problem. NOT Ubuntu's. Not MacOS's. Not SUSE's. I like that [Ubuntu]
> Linux does things properly. By the by, does the default workgroup ~have~
> to be MSHOME? And why does 'dd' default to decimal megs/gigs, not
> binary...
>
> Oh fine, I'll give it a rest.

I guess from my perspective having an OS (Desktop or Server) automatically
start looking around for other computers to interact with by default and with
no user interaction is, in fact, a very Microsoft kind of thing to do.

I'll give it a rest too.

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 11-22-2007, 03:11 AM
Jonathan Jesse
 
Default Server issues

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 13:47:13 David L. Willson wrote:
> I'll bet Soren is rather more in touch with the corporate direction for
> Ubuntu Server than either of us. Let's speak only on our own part.
>
> Here's my opinion: I'll be sad to see "Ubuntu Server" become jeOS. I
> liked the fact that Ubuntu had both poles, the best (most featureful)
> Linux Desktop, and the best (smallest group of core components) Linux
> Server. Now, jeOS will be the best Linux Server by my definition, and
> Ubuntu Server will really be Ubuntu Server for Beginners.
>
<SNIP>

From the discussion at UDS-Boston JeOS was not going to replace Ubuntu Server.
In fact the server team has a lot of cool things on its plate. In fact as
far as I can tell jeOS or however it is correctly spelled is nothing more
then a version of Ubuntu to help you setup and run Virtual Machines with a
more stripped down kernel.

Please correct me if I am wrong as well.

Thanks,

Jonathan


--
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 11-22-2007, 05:18 AM
Nick Barcet
 
Default Server issues

Jonathan Jesse wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 November 2007 13:47:13 David L. Willson wrote:
>> I'll bet Soren is rather more in touch with the corporate direction for
>> Ubuntu Server than either of us. Let's speak only on our own part.
>>
>> Here's my opinion: I'll be sad to see "Ubuntu Server" become jeOS. I
>> liked the fact that Ubuntu had both poles, the best (most featureful)
>> Linux Desktop, and the best (smallest group of core components) Linux
>> Server. Now, jeOS will be the best Linux Server by my definition, and
>> Ubuntu Server will really be Ubuntu Server for Beginners.
>>
> <SNIP>
>
> From the discussion at UDS-Boston JeOS was not going to replace Ubuntu Server.
> In fact the server team has a lot of cool things on its plate. In fact as
> far as I can tell jeOS or however it is correctly spelled is nothing more
> then a version of Ubuntu to help you setup and run Virtual Machines with a
> more stripped down kernel.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong as well.

You are perfectly right Jonathan.

Nick


--
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 11-22-2007, 07:39 AM
Ante Karamatić
 
Default Server issues

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:11:01 -0500
Jonathan Jesse <jjesse@iserv.net> wrote:

> Ubuntu Server. In fact the server team has a lot of cool things on
> its plate. In fact as far as I can tell jeOS or however it is

Yeah, much cooler than JeOS

--
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 11-22-2007, 03:00 PM
Soren Hansen
 
Default Server issues

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 03:00:42PM -0600, Loye Young wrote:
>> The problem might be that using the Ubuntu Server edition is too
>> difficult for these users. Does that sound about right? If so, please
>> let's work on solving that, rather than worrying about whether our
>> desktop edition does something you disagree with.
> For those "in the know," the server edition is fine as it is. However,
> many (perhaps most?) users will need or want a gui desktop to
> administer the server.

I disagree. On several levels, actually, but let's keep things simple:
Assuming users will need a graphical interface for administering their
servers does not imply the need for a desktop environment on the server.
The (perceived, IMO) ease of use of a graphical representation of things
does not stem from all the bells and whistles of the surrounding
desktop, but rather from the management interface itself. As such, a
rich web interface should (and IMO does) provide the same fuzzy feeling
to users as a separate application. On top of this, a web interface has
the added advantage that we needn't control the desktop (i.e. the
desktop does not need to run Ubuntu) to provide a usable server
management system. Sure, having the desktop run Ubuntu would be
benificial as well, but requiring this will cost us potential users, and
there's no particular reason why we can't provide a more seamless
experience if the user runs Ubuntu on the desktop, too. For instance, I
have a cunning plan about defining a configuration file format for
OpenVPN which will make it trivially easy to setup Ubuntu (and other
OS's when they catch up) as OpenVPN clients. The world is at our feet,
we just need to identify the actual problems and fix them.

> Avahi in particular is fundamentally inconsistent with a server
> install, for the reasons I've been harping on for two days. (If you
> are beginning to think I'm obsessive, tedious, or anything like that,
> you aren't alone. My own wife agrees.)

Forgive me if I just let the avahi issue rest in this part of the
thread. Personally, I'm not running avahi on my servers, but if I were,
I wouldn't be losing much sleep over it.

> > Again: Wrong question. Wrong problem. Actual problem: Getting from a
> > plain server install to one with eBox ready to go is too difficult.
> > See?
> No, installing eBox isn't the "actual problem." The actual installing
> of eBox and apache isn't difficult, thanks to our beloved APT system
> and related tools. The actual problem is that the users still need a
> comfortable interface to administer the server, including the http
> server, whether or not the http server is running or even installed.

Help me out here... With "eBox ready to go" (my words) what is it
exactly you feel you (and by "you" I mean these imaginary people we're
both making assumptions about ) need that is not there? eBox *is* the
comfortable interface to administer the server. Granted, it does not
currently have an interface for fiddling with apache configuration, I
don't consider that a problem in itself. (Compare "An interface to
configure apache" to "An interface to configure sharing of files" and
"An interface to configure a website")

> Besides, even if everyone in this conversation agreed that eBox is the
> "best" administrative solution, users still want a desktop
> environment, because that's what they know how to use.

And that's fine. The point is: It should not be a requirement to use
Ubuntu as a server.

> > Right tool for the right job.
> Can't disagree with you in principle, and you have put your finger on
> the central question: What's the right tool?

We won't know until we've defined the problem.

> The vast majority of server administrators in small businesses would
> answer that a desktop gui is what a modern OS should provide.

Because that's all they've ever known. They're not the innovators, so I
don't expect them to come up with the idea that maybe, just maybe, it's
not a hard requirement to have my adminsitration tools use the same GUI
widgets as my text editor. People *do* manage to set up routers and
stuff even though that's over a web interface (and a shoddy one in most
cases).

> It's what they're accustomed to now,

If they can't handle the tiny switch from using an application to using
a rich web interface, they wouldn't be able to handle a switch from
Windows to Ubuntu anyway, IMO.

> it's what they are willing to pay for,

Ubuntu's free

> I've tested many of the available open-source desktop GUI server
> administration tools. While they could use some polish, they are
> extremely helpful and have the added advantage of being already built.

eBox is built, too.

--
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 11-22-2007, 03:02 PM
Soren Hansen
 
Default Server issues

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 04:41:03PM -0500, Aaron Kincer wrote:
> Heck, you could, if you really wanted, make a standard desktop
> installation a server. Apache will run on a Linux desktop just as
> happily as it will a server. Of course you don't get security updates
> for as long a period of time as you do a server.

Yes, you would. Desktop and server use the same repositories, so you'll
get the exact same updates for Apache regardless of which version you
installed to begin with.

> I would like to point out that as far as servers go, a full-time GUI
> is an absolute waste of resources. With the exception of installing
> security updates, I rarely ever even touch my servers.

I've got a few servers, I've never even seen

--
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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:12 AM.

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