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 05-03-2008, 07:20 AM
Ante Karamatic
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500
"Dustin Kirkland" <kirkland@canonical.com> wrote:

> I haven't seen anyone yet mention "fluxbox". It, too, is a very
> minimal approach to a gui desktop.

I was trying avoiding this discussion, but I can't anymore

What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on
server? It's not like you have some point and click application for
setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables.

Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server
management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X
window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or
KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm.

Having some small footprint window manager and then open 10-15 xterm
sessions with vim running is kind of dumb It's much better to just
ssh to server. Or even, set up ssh GVFS/KIO inside (k)ubuntu desktop
and edit files with gedit, if vim is to complicated

--
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 05-03-2008, 07:52 AM
Paul Elliott
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

Hi Ante,

Ante Karamatic wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500
> "Dustin Kirkland" <kirkland@canonical.com> wrote:
> What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on
> server? It's not like you have some point and click application for
> setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables.

We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a
full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I
agree with, I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present
for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also
something outside of our control.

> Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server
> management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X
> window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or
> KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm.

I would suggest the opposite. If a GUI is required on a server then it's
best to install the smallest possible environment to save resources and
crucially, to limit the attack vector. On average, less code = less
chance of a security hole. Coverity[1] research shows that a range of
Open Source software contained 0.434 bugs per 1000 lines of code. The
more code, the more bugs. We're only human after all. :-)

[1] http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3589361

--
Paul Elliott
UNIX Systems Administrator and Programmer
Computing Service, University of York

--
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 05-03-2008, 09:48 AM
"Jim Tarvid"
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

After our border gateway hard drive crashed yesterday, we installed
Hardy Alternate CLI on an old spare server which served honorably on
the work bench testing hardware. We installed openssh-server and ebox*
(mostly) and moved to a workstation.

After dealing with network interfaces and adding one firewall rule, we
were back in business. An hour or so of tweaking, mostly with Ebox, we
snatched an Ebox backup and settled into a night of Java which was the
original goal for the day.

It is hard to imagine the utility of a desktop on this server for any
purpose. I wouldn't mind some specific examples where that might be
true.

Ebox has a few rough spots and the documentation is "general" and
presupposes a general understanding of server maintenance. The IRC
chatroom on freenode and the wiki pages at
http://trac.ebox-platform.com/wiki are a help for the unfamiliar.
There is an Apache modules in the works.

We plan on doing a roll up of three servers this month which will
check out the utility of most of the features.

Jim

On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Paul Elliott <pre500@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ante,
>
>
> Ante Karamatic wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500
> > "Dustin Kirkland" <kirkland@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> > What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on
> > server? It's not like you have some point and click application for
> > setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables.
>
> We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a
> full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I
> agree with, I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present
> for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also
> something outside of our control.
>
>
> > Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server
> > management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X
> > window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or
> > KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm.
>
> I would suggest the opposite. If a GUI is required on a server then it's
> best to install the smallest possible environment to save resources and
> crucially, to limit the attack vector. On average, less code = less
> chance of a security hole. Coverity[1] research shows that a range of
> Open Source software contained 0.434 bugs per 1000 lines of code. The
> more code, the more bugs. We're only human after all. :-)
>
> [1] http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3589361
>
> --
> Paul Elliott
> UNIX Systems Administrator and Programmer
> Computing Service, University of York
>
>
>
> --
> 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 05-03-2008, 01:34 PM
MJang
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote:
> Ante Karamatic wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500
> > "Dustin Kirkland" <kirkland@canonical.com> wrote:
> > What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on
> > server? It's not like you have some point and click application for
> > setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables.
>
> We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a
> full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I
> agree with,

In many cases, I find that X over SSH works for that purpose (with the X
server and GUI on some remote client). In addition, fewer packages are
required on the server to run an X client over SSH - than even a minimal
GUI on the server - much less a full version of GNOME, KDE, or Xfce. And
as Paul suggests, a smaller footprint means a smaller attack vector.

However, if an admin chooses to run a full GUI on Ubuntu Server, I'd
think he/she would want a - supported - system. While I like
alternatives like Fluxbox or even Fvwm, I don't think they're in the
main repository. I suspect at least a substantial minority of Ubuntu
Server users have some Canonical support subscription.

> I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present
> for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also
> something outside of our control.

Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too.

Thanks,
Mike


--
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 05-03-2008, 02:30 PM
Neal McBurnett
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 06:34:51AM -0700, MJang wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote:
> > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present
> > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also
> > something outside of our control.
>
> Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too.

What a shame. Can you give some examples?

Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/

--
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 05-03-2008, 02:52 PM
"James Dinkel"
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

> On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 06:34:51AM -0700, MJang wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote:
>
> > > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present
> > > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also
> > > something outside of our control.
> >
> > Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too.

I can not think of a single server application that can not be
installed with apt completely from the command line on Ubuntu/Devian.
Likewise, I can not think of a single server application that can not
be installed with yum completely from the command line on Redhat.

I'm not saying they don't exist, but I would be really curious to hear
an example.

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 05-03-2008, 03:15 PM
"Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva"
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it?

https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/serverguide/C/libvirt.html


Cheers, Leandro.

2008/5/3 James Dinkel <jdinkel@gmail.com>:

> On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 06:34:51AM -0700, MJang wrote:

> *>

> *> On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote:

>

> > > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present

> *> > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also

> *> > something outside of our control.

> *>

> *> Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too.



I can not think of a single server application that can not be

installed with apt completely from the command line on Ubuntu/Devian.

Likewise, I can not think of a single server application that can not

be installed with yum completely from the command line on Redhat.



I'm not saying they don't exist, but I would be really curious to hear

an example.



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



--
Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva
--
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 05-03-2008, 03:21 PM
MJang
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 06:34 -0700, MJang wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote:
> > Ante Karamatic wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500
> > > "Dustin Kirkland" <kirkland@canonical.com> wrote:
> > > What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on
> > > server? It's not like you have some point and click application for
> > > setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables.
> >
> > We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a
> > full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I
> > agree with,
>
> In many cases, I find that X over SSH works for that purpose (with the X
> server and GUI on some remote client). In addition, fewer packages are
> required on the server to run an X client over SSH - than even a minimal
> GUI on the server - much less a full version of GNOME, KDE, or Xfce. And
> as Paul suggests, a smaller footprint means a smaller attack vector.
>
> However, if an admin chooses to run a full GUI on Ubuntu Server, I'd
> think he/she would want a - supported - system. While I like
> alternatives like Fluxbox or even Fvwm, I don't think they're in the
> main repository. I suspect at least a substantial minority of Ubuntu
> Server users have some Canonical support subscription.
>
> > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present
> > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also
> > something outside of our control.
>
> Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too.

Let me clarify a bit - by Red Hat CLI installers, I'm referring to tools
like printconf and setup - yes, they are not package installers, but CLI
configuration tools nevertheless. printconf is no longer there, and I
think setup is deprecated.

But I'm also thinking of LVM configuration - at least through RHEL 5, a
custom LVM setup requires the GUI version of Anaconda.

Thanks,
Mike


--
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 05-03-2008, 04:05 PM
Ante Karamatic
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300
"Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva" <leandro@limaesilva.com.br> wrote:

> I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following
> Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it?

If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool
you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of
ubuntu servers.

--
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 05-03-2008, 04:34 PM
"Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva"
 
Default Ubuntu Server graphical interface?

I'm talking about virt-install, which will open a VNC connection to the machine and only allow connections from localhost.

Cheers, Leandro.

2008/5/3 Ante Karamatic <ivoks@grad.hr>:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300

"Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva" <leandro@limaesilva.com.br> wrote:



> I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following

> Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it?



If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool

you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of

ubuntu servers.



--

ubuntu-server mailing list

ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com

https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server

More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam



--
Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva
--
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 07:13 AM.

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