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 05-31-2008, 12:11 AM
Dan Shearer
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

I have put some text for Bug 0 up at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0#preview . I didn't get into the
solutions we worked on at UDS, thinking this is what bug report followup
comments are for and the body was already too long.

Edit away people, but please don't try to turn it into a classic bug
report. This bug has a different purpose :-)

Regards,

--
Dan Shearer
dan@shearer.org

--
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 05-31-2008, 03:59 PM
Matt Darcy
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

Dan Shearer wrote:
> I have put some text for Bug 0 up at
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0#preview . I didn't get into the
> solutions we worked on at UDS, thinking this is what bug report followup
> comments are for and the body was already too long.
>
> Edit away people, but please don't try to turn it into a classic bug
> report. This bug has a different purpose :-)
>
> Regards,
>
>

This is a well written wiki page, with viable and thought out input.

The aim of the text in the wiki page appears to (in my opinion) be aimed
at small/medium intergration targets, which is of course a viable
market, hence the focus on things like "gui tools".

A core issue for me with Ubuntu's server model is Ubuntus release model
in general. A release every 6 months is not a model that can be pushed
beyond home servers or work group services. This is for multiple reasons.

1.) a business of any nature cannot be expected to upgrade one server -
let alone a multiple server estate every 6 months, throwing the LTS
agrument into scope is also not viable (see point 2 and 3 for more
detail) For me the server model needs to move away from 6 month release
windows to gain any sort of credability in the business market.

2.) LTS fixes and backports. There is no enough fixes, updates and
upgrades to make LTS a viable long term (3 year) stratergy for business
use. Too much focus is on "fix for next release" or "upgrade product for
next release", which relates to point 1. If a server model is to be
considered usable it needs to have regular fixes applied to that
release, not pushed out into current +1. I understand why this is done
as unless the bug is mission critical it makes more sense from an ubuntu
standpoint to target the fix into the next release, as that release will
have updates in and is less than 6 months away. This is not an option
for a long term server audience. The 6.06 release was crippled on later
edition dell servers due to the lack of back ports on the kernel for
specific hardware controllers, if the LTS edition is to be truly LTS,
then I'm afraid kernel updates/back-ports will need to be on the radar
more, and things learnt from the non-LTS products need to be pushed back.

3.) the 6 month release cycle from my experience is a real blocker for
major corperate application players (Oracle being an easy example) to
get on board and help make Oracle (again as an example only) a supported
platform on Ubuntu Server. It's all very well having great lamp
applications available to Ubuntu, but a few corperate big boys need to
have their product on Ubuntu to be a realistic option for larger
businesses.


The RHEL and Centos (to some extent) releases have problems, and are not
current in a lot of products, however the level of back ports, fixes and
updates makes them a much more attractive option for paid (RHEL) and
free (Centos) support. Yes they have their problems and I'm not pushing
them as a replacment, I'm commenting on feedback I've had when offering
Ubuntu as a Linux solution on the server platform, I'd like to see
analysis of the good and bad things of RHEL and Centos and seeing what
can be applied and learnt from them to be pushed into Ubuntu. I have
very little issue pushing RHEL (apart from cost) or Centos to small,
medium or even Large businesses but I do have issues pushing Ubuntu.

There is also a lack of enterprise focus for me in Ubuntu server
currenty, tools such as Redhats Satellite product which will allow easy
mass managment of RHEL server and desktops are core to businesses
picking this up.

I'd like to see some good focus and discussion on the points raised
above, rather than trying to make "gui" tools for the server release.

My thoughts.

Matt


--
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 06-02-2008, 10:05 PM
Dan Shearer
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 04:59:10PM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote:
> Dan Shearer wrote:
> > I have put some text for Bug 0 up at
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0
:
> The aim of the text in the wiki page appears to (in my opinion) be aimed
> at small/medium intergration targets, which is of course a viable
> market, hence the focus on things like "gui tools".

That's interesting (and quite possibly valid) but when I wrote it entire focus
of my interest was on medium/large integration targets. It needs to be
understood that in these sorts of corporate markets -- large banks, telcos,
mil/aero, etc -- GUI tools are a precondition to even having a discussion. It
is true that Microsoft is now working hard on producing commandline tools, but
that's an extra.

Ah, reading further down, you're referring to GUI tools as pretty sugar. Yes,
that would be a poor goal. We need things that have the concept of repeating
operations on groups of servers, tools like webmine don't even know multiple
servers exist let alone how they might be related! Imagine something with the
topographical understanding of a well-configured nagios and the detailed
operation ability of webmin/$BETTER, and with authentication and fine-grained
ACL control everywhere you browse/manage via LDAP/AD integration, and that's
what I have in mind. I strongly dislike Microsoft Systems Management Server,
but out of the box it is better than anything I can get from OSS with less than
weeks of fiddling. To me GUI tools should build on underlying infrastructure
for provisioning and configuration management, as well as status reporting and
hands-on management for entire networks.

As to the rest of your message, I thought there were really good points there
and I'll reply in another thread about strategy for release cycle and
maintenance. As a detail, you focussed on real hardware installs
whereas very many server installs happen on virtual hardware these days.

> There is also a lack of enterprise focus for me in Ubuntu server
> currenty, tools such as Redhats Satellite product which will allow easy
> mass managment of RHEL server and desktops are core to businesses
> picking this up.

Has anyone seen a current summary of Linux management products? There are quite
a few of them including
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/oem/omp_linux.html , and there's a
2006 article http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/nsm/2006/0306nsm2.html . I
don't feel up to date.

> I'd like to see some good focus and discussion on the points raised
> above, rather than trying to make "gui" tools for the server release.

If we have a good provisioning, configuration management, hands-on management
and monitoring system, but it hasn't got a GUI, medium and larger corporates
just laugh. You can't even get in the door. I don't say Ubuntu Server
has these things, but it does also have to have a GUI.

--
Dan Shearer
dan@shearer.org

--
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 06-02-2008, 10:22 PM
Matt Darcy
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

Dan Shearer wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 04:59:10PM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote:
>
>> Dan Shearer wrote:
>>
>>> I have put some text for Bug 0 up at
>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0
>>>
> :
>
>> The aim of the text in the wiki page appears to (in my opinion) be aimed
>> at small/medium intergration targets, which is of course a viable
>> market, hence the focus on things like "gui tools".
>>
>
> That's interesting (and quite possibly valid) but when I wrote it entire focus
> of my interest was on medium/large integration targets. It needs to be
> understood that in these sorts of corporate markets -- large banks, telcos,
> mil/aero, etc -- GUI tools are a precondition to even having a discussion. It
> is true that Microsoft is now working hard on producing commandline tools, but
> that's an extra.
>
> Ah, reading further down, you're referring to GUI tools as pretty sugar. Yes,
> that would be a poor goal. We need things that have the concept of repeating
> operations on groups of servers, tools like webmine don't even know multiple
> servers exist let alone how they might be related! Imagine something with the
> topographical understanding of a well-configured nagios and the detailed
> operation ability of webmin/$BETTER, and with authentication and fine-grained
> ACL control everywhere you browse/manage via LDAP/AD integration, and that's
> what I have in mind. I strongly dislike Microsoft Systems Management Server,
> but out of the box it is better than anything I can get from OSS with less than
> weeks of fiddling. To me GUI tools should build on underlying infrastructure
> for provisioning and configuration management, as well as status reporting and
> hands-on management for entire networks.
>
> As to the rest of your message, I thought there were really good points there
> and I'll reply in another thread about strategy for release cycle and
> maintenance. As a detail, you focussed on real hardware installs
> whereas very many server installs happen on virtual hardware these days.
>
>
>> There is also a lack of enterprise focus for me in Ubuntu server
>> currenty, tools such as Redhats Satellite product which will allow easy
>> mass managment of RHEL server and desktops are core to businesses
>> picking this up.
>>
>
> Has anyone seen a current summary of Linux management products? There are quite
> a few of them including
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/oem/omp_linux.html , and there's a
> 2006 article http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/nsm/2006/0306nsm2.html . I
> don't feel up to date.
>
>
>> I'd like to see some good focus and discussion on the points raised
>> above, rather than trying to make "gui" tools for the server release.
>>
>
> If we have a good provisioning, configuration management, hands-on management
> and monitoring system, but it hasn't got a GUI, medium and larger corporates
> just laugh. You can't even get in the door. I don't say Ubuntu Server
> has these things, but it does also have to have a GUI.
>
>

Great responses all around, thanks for reading them through properly and
taking the time to respond in the correct context.

I think we are discussing the same things in terms of gui, when you say
enterprise managment tools, and I'm referencing thing like Redhat's
Satellite server, we are on the same page, tools such as managing and
interacting with LDAP/AD all core stuff that your getting no argument
from me from. The "sugar gui" you mentioned is something I believe is
being focused on too much (not from your mail - but from community
discussion/support in general) as a response to Microsofts "home server"
product, but as you rightly said thats not the intention of bug0.

The comments I made are from feedback from clients, and I only picked on
Oracle as an easy example, not the defacto one, I'd be happy to pickup
this discussion in more detail in a seperate thread perhaps.

Your points on virtual managment was only a valid point I didn't pick up
on, and today I saw some mail discussion on tools such as Ovirt, which
I'd love to see tools like this being looked at both as a tool to
improve managment of a server system in the enterprise, and as an
alternative way / tool that the current norm.

There is a lot of potential from what your saying, and something I feel
has been lacking from the server product from an enterprise perspective.

I'll look forward to your comments on the release cycle, as I understand
how much of a double edged sword that is.

It would be interesting to see some building on your bug0 text linked to
specific discussion and plans to try to get some real targeted focus and
consensus.

Again, great responses.

Matt



--
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 06-02-2008, 10:26 PM
"Dustin Kirkland"
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Dan Shearer <dan@shearer.org> wrote:
> I have put some text for Bug 0 up at
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0#preview . I didn't get into the
> solutions we worked on at UDS, thinking this is what bug report followup
> comments are for and the body was already too long.

Hey Dan-

Here's some candid feedback on your wiki page...

First of all, I'm afraid some people might take offense at calling
this initiative "Bug #0", thinking that it precedes or supercedes Bug
#1. Bug #1 has really been Ubuntu's rallying point for nearly 4 years
now, with the thread gathering some ~700 comments in that time. I'm
not sure how people will take suddenly putting Ubuntu Server "ahead"
of Ubuntu Desktop.

That said, I recognize what I think is your key point... That in Bug
#1, Mark very clearly states: "Microsoft has a majority market share
in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug, which Ubuntu is
designed to fix." This statement quite overtly omits the "server PC
marketplace". If and/or when he decides to target the server
marketplace in full force, perhaps an update by Mark to that bug
report is in order.

In the mean time, I think constructing this as a Blueprint in
Launchpad (http://blueprints.launchpad.net) would be a more
appropriate approach. You can link it to Bug #1 as the motivation,
and track the progress there. Every Blueprint points to a
Specification in the wiki (template at
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecSpec). Your current Bug0 page is the seed
for the specification. That's where you'd define a summary,
rationale, use cases, design, and implementation details for how we
would go about taking market share by making Ubuntu's server
technology superior in the market.

And actually, I think you have several distinct ideas in the Bug0
page... You could really create a Blueprint/Spec for each of those.
Each is a unique problem that could and perhaps should be solved in a
future Ubuntu release. These are the individual sorts of work items
we try to gather at UDS and coherently present in Blueprints/Specs
(eg, Active Directory Integration, Outlook-compatible replacement,
Large Filesystem Replication). And we did discuss a number of those.

In any case, I think you have some excellent ideas in there! I'm just
not quite sure that creating a single, super-bugreport is going to be
the most effective method to actually solving the problem. However, I
think we do have some excellent tools within the Ubuntu/Launchpad
infrastructure for defining precise technical shortcomings, designing
appropriate solutions, and tracking them into Ubuntu releases.


Cheers,
:-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 06-02-2008, 10:31 PM
Jonathan Jesse
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

Sorry for the top posting... My phone messes up bottom posting.... Anyways .ore to coem later. Check out the conversation in regards to gui on the server we had previously on thos list

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Shearer <dan@shearer.org>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:05 PM
To: Matt Darcy <ubuntu.lists@projecthugo.co.uk>
Cc: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Bug 0 review pls

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 04:59:10PM +0100, Matt Darcy wrote:
> Dan Shearer wrote:
> > I have put some text for Bug 0 up at
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0
:
> The aim of the text in the wiki page appears to (in my opinion) be aimed
> at small/medium intergration targets, which is of course a viable
> market, hence the focus on things like "gui tools".

That's interesting (and quite possibly valid) but when I wrote it entire focus
of my interest was on medium/large integration targets. It needs to be
understood that in these sorts of corporate markets -- large banks, telcos,
mil/aero, etc -- GUI tools are a precondition to even having a discussion. It
is true that Microsoft is now working hard on producing commandline tools, but
that's an extra.

Ah, reading further down, you're referring to GUI tools as pretty sugar. Yes,
that would be a poor goal. We need things that have the concept of repeating
operations on groups of servers, tools like webmine don't even know multiple
servers exist let alone how they might be related! Imagine something with the
topographical understanding of a well-configured nagios and the detailed
operation ability of webmin/$BETTER, and with authentication and fine-grained
ACL control everywhere you browse/manage via LDAP/AD integration, and that's
what I have in mind. I strongly dislike Microsoft Systems Management Server,
but out of the box it is better than anything I can get from OSS with less than
weeks of fiddling. To me GUI tools should build on underlying infrastructure
for provisioning and configuration management, as well as status reporting and
hands-on management for entire networks.

As to the rest of your message, I thought there were really good points there
and I'll reply in another thread about strategy for release cycle and
maintenance. As a detail, you focussed on real hardware installs
whereas very many server installs happen on virtual hardware these days.

> There is also a lack of enterprise focus for me in Ubuntu server
> currenty, tools such as

[The entire original message is not included]

--
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 06-02-2008, 10:36 PM
"Daniel Robitaille"
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Matt Darcy
<ubuntu.lists@projecthugo.co.uk> wrote:

> 2.) LTS fixes and backports. There is no enough fixes, updates and
> upgrades to make LTS a viable long term (3 year) stratergy for business
> use. Too much focus is on "fix for next release" or "upgrade product for
> next release", which relates to point 1. If a server model is to be
> considered usable it needs to have regular fixes applied to that
> release, not pushed out into current +1. I understand why this is done
> as unless the bug is mission critical it makes more sense from an ubuntu
> standpoint to target the fix into the next release, as that release will
> have updates in and is less than 6 months away. This is not an option
> for a long term server audience. The 6.06 release was crippled on later
> edition dell servers due to the lack of back ports on the kernel for
> specific hardware controllers, if the LTS edition is to be truly LTS,
> then I'm afraid kernel updates/back-ports will need to be on the radar
> more, and things learnt from the non-LTS products need to be pushed back.

Being the owner of a Dell server running 7.04 because that was the
only version of Ubuntu that could deal with its hardware when it was
set up in the spring of 2007, I totally agree with that paragraph.
Doing a double upgrade (7.04 to 7.10 to 8.04) on a production box is
not something I look forward in the next 6 months I have before
Feisty's support runs out. Given the choice last year, we would have
used an older LTS version instead of a currenty non-LTS version, but
we simply didn't have the option while continuing using Ubuntu.

Daniel

--
Daniel Robitaille
http://friendfeed.com/robitaille

--
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 06-02-2008, 10:51 PM
Matt Darcy
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

Daniel Robitaille wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Matt Darcy
> <ubuntu.lists@projecthugo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> 2.) LTS fixes and backports. There is no enough fixes, updates and
>> upgrades to make LTS a viable long term (3 year) stratergy for business
>> use. Too much focus is on "fix for next release" or "upgrade product for
>> next release", which relates to point 1. If a server model is to be
>> considered usable it needs to have regular fixes applied to that
>> release, not pushed out into current +1. I understand why this is done
>> as unless the bug is mission critical it makes more sense from an ubuntu
>> standpoint to target the fix into the next release, as that release will
>> have updates in and is less than 6 months away. This is not an option
>> for a long term server audience. The 6.06 release was crippled on later
>> edition dell servers due to the lack of back ports on the kernel for
>> specific hardware controllers, if the LTS edition is to be truly LTS,
>> then I'm afraid kernel updates/back-ports will need to be on the radar
>> more, and things learnt from the non-LTS products need to be pushed back.
>>
>
> Being the owner of a Dell server running 7.04 because that was the
> only version of Ubuntu that could deal with its hardware when it was
> set up in the spring of 2007, I totally agree with that paragraph.
> Doing a double upgrade (7.04 to 7.10 to 8.04) on a production box is
> not something I look forward in the next 6 months I have before
> Feisty's support runs out. Given the choice last year, we would have
> used an older LTS version instead of a currenty non-LTS version, but
> we simply didn't have the option while continuing using Ubuntu.
>
> Daniel
>
>


It wasn't just dell servers, it was HP servers, and some X86_64 Sun
servers which as ubuntu partners didn't look good.

I used dell as an example as it was the biggest server player that hit
me on a regular basis when trying to design enterprise environments and
intergration for large enterprises.

This is a critical thing that, for me needs addressing as part of bug 0,
as all the cool stuff and tools in the world won't help if you have to
use hardware of current -6 months to boot it.

Matt


--
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 06-02-2008, 10:54 PM
"Anders Häggström"
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

2008/6/3 Daniel Robitaille <robitaille@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Matt Darcy
> <ubuntu.lists@projecthugo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 2.) LTS fixes and backports. There is no enough fixes, updates and
>> upgrades to make LTS a viable long term (3 year) stratergy for business
>> use. Too much focus is on "fix for next release" or "upgrade product for
>> next release", which relates to point 1. If a server model is to be
>> considered usable it needs to have regular fixes applied to that
>> release, not pushed out into current +1. I understand why this is done
>> as unless the bug is mission critical it makes more sense from an ubuntu
>> standpoint to target the fix into the next release, as that release will
>> have updates in and is less than 6 months away. This is not an option
>> for a long term server audience. The 6.06 release was crippled on later
>> edition dell servers due to the lack of back ports on the kernel for
>> specific hardware controllers, if the LTS edition is to be truly LTS,
>> then I'm afraid kernel updates/back-ports will need to be on the radar
>> more, and things learnt from the non-LTS products need to be pushed back.
>
> Being the owner of a Dell server running 7.04 because that was the
> only version of Ubuntu that could deal with its hardware when it was
> set up in the spring of 2007, I totally agree with that paragraph.
> Doing a double upgrade (7.04 to 7.10 to 8.04) on a production box is
> not something I look forward in the next 6 months I have before
> Feisty's support runs out. Given the choice last year, we would have
> used an older LTS version instead of a currenty non-LTS version, but
> we simply didn't have the option while continuing using Ubuntu.
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel Robitaille
> http://friendfeed.com/robitaille
>
> --
> 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 am an Ubuntu user (both desktop and server platforms) and I want to
give my point of view. When I install a server with LTS I want to be
able to update bugs found in the software for the whole LTS-period. If
I install a new server (with fresh hardware) in the middle of an
LTS-period I want to be able to use the last released LTS-release and
upgrade drivers to support my new hardware that was not supported when
the LTS-release was first released. I do not want to install a normal
release just because the LTS-resease didn't support my hardware at the
release time (when for example my hardware was not manufactured yet).

For the GUI discussion I don't want the server depending on Xorg. I
would rather see a good integrated webinterface with little overhead
and nice ajax-applications for various tasks on the server.

Thanks for your time!
// Anders

--
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 06-02-2008, 11:14 PM
Dan Shearer
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 05:26:05PM -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Dan Shearer <dan@shearer.org> wrote:
> > I have put some text for Bug 0 up at
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0#preview . I didn't get into the
> > solutions we worked on at UDS, thinking this is what bug report followup
> > comments are for and the body was already too long.
>
> Hey Dan-
>
> Here's some candid feedback on your wiki page...
>
> First of all, I'm afraid some people might take offense at calling
> this initiative "Bug #0", thinking that it precedes or supercedes Bug
> #1.

I was trying to catch people's attention mostly, wanting to focus on
what the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would define as an SEP Field -
Someone Else's Problem and therefore invisible to everyone. From the
feedback I got back at the time this much worked. Now to finesse it.

> Bug #1 has really been Ubuntu's rallying point for nearly 4 years
> now, with the thread gathering some ~700 comments in that time. I'm
> not sure how people will take suddenly putting Ubuntu Server "ahead"
> of Ubuntu Desktop.

My justification for that is that Linux was a success on the server
before it was anywhere on the client, and the failure to compete on the
server is an embarassment first and a challenge second. People like me
who've been involved in the server side for years have managed to dither
away prime opportunities.

As it happens there's a new set of opportunties and we aren't limited to
just aping wherever Microsoft has gone... but refusing to acknowledge
clear failings does not bode well for the bold new wave.

As to numbers... I think even if this is Bug #7346492, if people take
the content seriously it's going to be turning up in the mainstream
press and maybe even in Microsoft PR.

> If and/or when he decides to target the server marketplace in full
> force, perhaps an update by Mark to that bug report is in order.

I'll be asking him what he thinks, but not until I've had the content of
this thoroughly chewed over. That's an option.

[chopped advice on going through the lp process. I'll study it and
probably just follow it as given. So far I have worked out that
Blueprint == MRD in enterprise speak.]

> And actually, I think you have several distinct ideas in the Bug0
> page... You could really create a Blueprint/Spec for each of those.

Blueprints only nest one deep. You're right, and I have already worked
out the categories. I also didn't want to overwhelm people, there's
several more major classes of problem with pragmatic solutions to hand
if only we want to use them. Integrated logging infrastructure. Working
LVM snapshots. Much better logging switched on out of the box. And more.
I get the feeling that if people just create content in launchpad it
gets ignored unless there was buyin in the first place... is that fair?

> Each is a unique problem that could and perhaps should be solved in a
> future Ubuntu release.

Well, I have, I hope, presented some of the cure as well as the poison,
for Intrepid if that's what the team wants to do. That was my proxy x 3
proposal, among other things.

> These are the individual sorts of work items we try to gather at UDS
> and coherently present in Blueprints/Specs (eg, Active Directory
> Integration, Outlook-compatible replacement, Large Filesystem
> Replication). And we did discuss a number of those.

Can you point me to anything online about these discussions, or should I
start blueprinting?

> In any case, I think you have some excellent ideas in there! I'm just
> not quite sure that creating a single, super-bugreport is going to be
> the most effective method to actually solving the problem.

The hardest thing to change is people's minds. And in my view a very
large chunk of the Linux community have regarded the notion of "Linux
can't compete as a server" as right in an SEP Field. Or even just nuts.
I have heard several times the idea "Debian is a great server therefore
there's not a lot to do to make Ubuntu Server wonderful." And that's a
hard hurdle to get over. I know what it is to have been surrounded by
SEP fields myself :-)

So, think of Bug0 as a wakeup call and marketing trick. Now to work...

> However, I think we do have some excellent tools within the
> Ubuntu/Launchpad infrastructure for defining precise technical
> shortcomings, designing appropriate solutions, and tracking them into
> Ubuntu releases.

I'll need some help working through the process. Thanks for your advice.

--
Dan Shearer
dan@shearer.org

--
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 02:35 AM.

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