Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
Folks, As a newbie to Ubuntu I have to say it is hard to believe that Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server come from the same stable. The Ubuntu server should come in two offerings; i.e. the unfriendly existing Ubuntu server, and, more importantly to the masses, a friendly pre-configured Ubuntu server that uses SME Server (http://smeserver.com) and ClarkConnect (http://clarkconnect.com) as a starting point only not crippled, and much better. It is only a matter of time before people start running servers from home (check out Windows Home Server and no doubt Apple will have something up its sleeves before very long too). Ubuntu server should be leading the way and definitely before Microsoft cooks up its next bit of mischief. The last thing people want is to have to mess around down in the bowels to configure the thing (should be easy). The server section of the 2007 The Official Ubuntu Book is way too vague too and designed to scare people from using the server. Preconfigure the thing, give it a GUI web admin, make it easy for someone to set up a Web server/Webmail/File server either in server only mode or server and gateway mode. All I should need to set up is a couple of users, provide the IP address and say whether I want RAID and maybe how I want the partitions configured (but with suggested recommendations along the way at every step). I have my own registered domain currently hosted with an ISP. I want to move it into my home. How to do it? That's where the focus should be. There are many, many thousands like me. Regards, Tony -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
Hello, On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Remco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have the same sentiments. How does a normal computer user set up a web server, music server, file server, or a mail server with the current Ubuntu? I think Ubuntu server should come with an X11-based configuration GUI (and a comparable Web GUI) that lets you configure these things in a few clicks, and then shut down X. Or keep X running. X is very lightweight. For specific information on configuring Ubuntu Server see the Ubuntu Server Guide [1]. If there are some subjects that are not covered that should be, I'd be glad to review any contributions. See the Server Team Knowledge Base page for some quick instructions for contributing to the Server Guide [2] Including X on Ubuntu Server has been debated multiple times. If you'd like to install a GUI on Ubuntu Server see the ServerGui wiki page [3]. Also, for remote web management you might take a look at eBox, and for just Apache GUI management the rapache project has been created. [1] https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/serverguide/C/index.html [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#head-0ae127e06ffba31c94b458fbef6eb033e5d8461e [3] https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ServerGUI -- Party On, Adam -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Anthony Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Ubuntu server should come in two offerings; i.e. the unfriendly existing Ubuntu server, and, more importantly to the masses, a friendly pre-configured Ubuntu server that uses SME Server (http://smeserver.com) and ClarkConnect (http://clarkconnect.com) as a starting point only not crippled, and much better. a) It's not unfriendly to those who run servers and know how these things are supposed to work. b) Servers absolutely should not come pre-configured, as that would mean that they were full of bloat and unnecessary applications (along with the security risks of having too many ports open), and would likely not be correctly configured for anyone. c) I don't know what SME Server even is, since they don't have a functional web site. Why would I trust anything like that? d) ClarkConnect looks largely like what I mentioned in b) - installing everything by default so you have as much bloat and open entry points as possible, something no server admin would touch with a 20-foot pole. It is only a matter of time before people start running servers from home (check out Windows Home Server and no doubt Apple will have something up its sleeves before very long too). Ubuntu server should be leading the way and definitely before Microsoft cooks up its next bit of mischief. The last thing people want is to have to mess around down in the bowels to configure the thing (should be easy). Most people use them for things like sharing files, which can be accomplished just as easily from a standard desktop installation if that's what you're going for. Also, Apple already has all the server functions built in, in a similar manner to Ubuntu - they just don't call it Home Server Edition and charge more for it. The server section of the 2007 The Official Ubuntu Book is way too vague too and designed to scare people from using the server. Server documentation is designed to teach server administrators how to use a new piece of software, not new home users how to become server administrators. What you are looking for is running an Ubuntu system that happens to perform some server functions, not an Ubuntu server. Those are in fact different things. Preconfigure the thing, give it a GUI web admin, make it easy for someone to set up a Web server/Webmail/File server either in server only mode or server and gateway mode. All I should need to set up is a couple of users, provide the IP address and say whether I want RAID and maybe how I want the partitions configured (but with suggested recommendations along the way at every step). I still don't know what you mean by preconfigure. Shall someone from Canonical come out to survey my setup and interview me about my needs, go back to their office and configure it, then ship it out to me? No configuration will be shared from one user to another, so shipping anything by default would be worthless. If you need someone else to configure it, you want to hire an Ubuntu server administration consultant. Agreed with other posters that eBox would be worth a look for you, and that the ServerGUI wiki page would be a good read to start with. -- Tony Yarusso http://tonyyarusso.com/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:38 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: This is not about running an enterprise/business server which I agree should be understood at a deeper level. It is about giving home users a simple, nice way to get some functionality from Ubuntu. Generally you can do any server things from a desktop if you install the needed things. For easy Apache configurations there is: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rapache There's a pending request to have it backported to Hardy. What's needed are people who understand the under the hood part of servers well enough to write such a thing and also care enough about the GUI experience to do it. Ubuntu Server is a young project and is headed toward being able to support such things, but it won't happen overnight. What we lack isn't ideas or understanding of the need, but people to do the actual work to provide it. Yes it's true and I do understand this. We also need to have people understand that the server market is split into pieces. The enterprise,business,home servers should essentially be two or three different configurations of Ubuntu. Take a look at the Microsoft home server project. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/windowshomeserver/default.mspx It is light years ahead of Ubuntu server for the **average** home user, not the geek home user. It's a market that can't be ignored. I'm sure you are all aware of this anyway, it was the post that users should just learn to configure the server which misses the whole MS Home Server idea and opportunity. Market share are key words. Cheers -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 06:14:06PM -0700, Anthony Watters wrote: The Ubuntu server should come in two offerings; i.e. the unfriendly existing Ubuntu server, and, more importantly to the masses, a friendly pre-configured Ubuntu server that uses SME Server (http://smeserver.com) and ClarkConnect (http://clarkconnect.com) as a starting point only not crippled, and much better. Thanks for the input. Note that's the wrong URL for the CentOS-based SME Server, aka E-smith. See http://www.smeserver.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SME_Server http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=smeserver Many of us agree that a really friendly Ubuntu offering for the home or small business server market is a high priority, and we've been tossing around ideas for some time now. What we really need is more testers and contributors to eBox, and some more upgraded specs along the lines of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EboxSpec Please join the Server Team and get involved! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam Cheers, Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ It is only a matter of time before people start running servers from home (check out Windows Home Server and no doubt Apple will have something up its sleeves before very long too). Ubuntu server should be leading the way and definitely before Microsoft cooks up its next bit of mischief. The last thing people want is to have to mess around down in the bowels to configure the thing (should be easy). The server section of the 2007 The Official Ubuntu Book is way too vague too and designed to scare people from using the server. Preconfigure the thing, give it a GUI web admin, make it easy for someone to set up a Web server/Webmail/File server either in server only mode or server and gateway mode. All I should need to set up is a couple of users, provide the IP address and say whether I want RAID and maybe how I want the partitions configured (but with suggested recommendations along the way at every step). I have my own registered domain currently hosted with an ISP. I want to move it into my home. How to do it? That's where the focus should be. There are many, many thousands like me. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
George Farris wrote: Lets start again. Yes, contrary to popular geek culture, there are people that would like to: A) Install a home server from CD B) Login and be presented with a list of options for configuring that server C) Not have to understand how to run the server at the guts level. Do you want to shared your music on your network? Yes Where is your music located? Done Do you want to share files with others on your network? Yes Fine - Proceed to share definitions. Define file locations and security Would you like to run a web server? Yes Fine this is now set up and you can connect here: It sounds like you're asking for gnome-app-install (the Add/Remove application in the main menu) to include Apache in its application list, and to add whatever bits and pieces are necessary for Samba and related packages to be counted as supported applications. If someone from the gnome-app-install team is listening, they might be able to tell you how much technical know-how is needed to make the above happen. Otherwise, you could e-mail one of them or post a question asking how you'd get started on it: https://answers.launchpad.net/gnome-app-install Either way, I think this is a good idea, and I'm glad you volunteered to do something about it :p - Andrew -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: xserver-xorg-core intrepid 2:1.4.99.905-0ubuntu4 missing librecord.so (Record module)
Timo Aaltonen wrote: On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Chris wrote: Hello, during the package build of xserver-xorg-core it does not --enable-record=yes. I think it should, right? The default disables it. True, xorg-server 1.5 does not build it by default. Where do you need it? t Hi, I'm a developer and require it for my own software. I went into the package and enabled it rebuilt for the time being. Isn't there some software in Ubuntu that requires it? Xwindow application automated testing? Video recording of the desktop? (I think this one just grabs the cursor) Debugging an app? I guess they disable it for security purposes. Chris -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: xserver-xorg-core intrepid 2:1.4.99.905-0ubuntu4 missing librecord.so (Record module)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:00PM -0400, Chris wrote: Timo Aaltonen wrote: On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Chris wrote: Hello, during the package build of xserver-xorg-core it does not --enable-record=yes. I think it should, right? The default disables it. True, xorg-server 1.5 does not build it by default. Where do you need it? t Hi, I'm a developer and require it for my own software. I went into the package and enabled it rebuilt for the time being. Isn't there some software in Ubuntu that requires it? Xwindow application automated testing? Video recording of the desktop? (I think this one just grabs the cursor) Debugging an app? I guess they disable it for security purposes. There was a discussion at the last XDC about modules with security issues. I don't recall offhand if this particular one was on that list but am guessing that to be the cause of the current settings. I've no opinion myself; you're the first I've heard ever mention using it. Bryce -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: xserver-xorg-core intrepid 2:1.4.99.905-0ubuntu4 missing librecord.so (Record module)
Bryce Harrington wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:00PM -0400, Chris wrote: Timo Aaltonen wrote: On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Chris wrote: Hello, during the package build of xserver-xorg-core it does not --enable-record=yes. I think it should, right? The default disables it. True, xorg-server 1.5 does not build it by default. Where do you need it? t Hi, I'm a developer and require it for my own software. I went into the package and enabled it rebuilt for the time being. Isn't there some software in Ubuntu that requires it? Xwindow application automated testing? Video recording of the desktop? (I think this one just grabs the cursor) Debugging an app? I guess they disable it for security purposes. There was a discussion at the last XDC about modules with security issues. I don't recall offhand if this particular one was on that list but am guessing that to be the cause of the current settings. I've no opinion myself; you're the first I've heard ever mention using it. Bryce http://www.sandklef.com/xnee/ I believe xnee uses XRecord (the headers refer to it). So I think the xorg record module should be enabled during the build. Chris -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: xserver-xorg-core intrepid 2:1.4.99.905-0ubuntu4 missing librecord.so (Record module)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:46:20PM -0400, Chris wrote: Bryce Harrington wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:00PM -0400, Chris wrote: Hi, I'm a developer and require it for my own software. I went into the package and enabled it rebuilt for the time being. Isn't there some software in Ubuntu that requires it? Xwindow application automated testing? Video recording of the desktop? (I think this one just grabs the cursor) Debugging an app? I guess they disable it for security purposes. There was a discussion at the last XDC about modules with security issues. I don't recall offhand if this particular one was on that list but am guessing that to be the cause of the current settings. I've no opinion myself; you're the first I've heard ever mention using it. Bryce http://www.sandklef.com/xnee/ I believe xnee uses XRecord (the headers refer to it). So I think the xorg record module should be enabled during the build. Chris Got a debdiff to send me? Bryce -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: xserver-xorg-core intrepid 2:1.4.99.905-0ubuntu4 missing librecord.so (Record module)
Bryce Harrington wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:46:20PM -0400, Chris wrote: Bryce Harrington wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 01:24:00PM -0400, Chris wrote: Hi, I'm a developer and require it for my own software. I went into the package and enabled it rebuilt for the time being. Isn't there some software in Ubuntu that requires it? Xwindow application automated testing? Video recording of the desktop? (I think this one just grabs the cursor) Debugging an app? I guess they disable it for security purposes. There was a discussion at the last XDC about modules with security issues. I don't recall offhand if this particular one was on that list but am guessing that to be the cause of the current settings. I've no opinion myself; you're the first I've heard ever mention using it. Bryce http://www.sandklef.com/xnee/ I believe xnee uses XRecord (the headers refer to it). So I think the xorg record module should be enabled during the build. Chris Got a debdiff to send me? Bryce This debdiff enables the RECORD extension. Chris diff -u xorg-server-1.4.99.905/debian/changelog xorg-server-1.4.99.905/debian/changelog --- xorg-server-1.4.99.905/debian/changelog +++ xorg-server-1.4.99.905/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +xorg-server (2:1.4.99.905-0ubuntu5) intrepid; urgency=low + + * debian/rules: +Added --enable-record. By default, xorg-server does not build the +RECORD extension. Added the record module (for Xnee and other purposes). + + -- Chris Nasho [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:26:00 -0400 + xorg-server (2:1.4.99.905-0ubuntu4) intrepid; urgency=low * debian/rules: diff -u xorg-server-1.4.99.905/debian/rules xorg-server-1.4.99.905/debian/rules --- xorg-server-1.4.99.905/debian/rules +++ xorg-server-1.4.99.905/debian/rules @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ --enable-xtrap \ --enable-glx-tls \ --enable-dmx \ +--enable-record \ --enable-vfb \ --enable-kdrive \ --enable-xephyr \ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
Scott Kitterman, on Thu Jul 31 17:38:30 BST 2008 Generally you can do any server things from a desktop if you install the needed things. For easy Apache configurations there is: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rapache There's a pending request to have it backported to Hardy. What's needed are people who understand the under the hood part of servers well enough to write such a thing and also care enough about the GUI experience to do it. Ubuntu Server is a young project and is headed toward being able to support such things, but it won't happen overnight. What we lack isn't ideas or understanding of the need, but people to do the actual work to provide it. Scott K Hello, I am one of the developers of Rapache. I subscribed this ml just to answer ScottK and drop my 2 cents on the topic. I am likely to keep my subscription for the next week, if you like to reply. Disclaimer What follows may be a little delirious, but took me hours to put it together, so I sending it straight away. I'll post a more lucid rewrite on ubuntuweblogs when I get the time. And maybe open a blueprint about this. I really don't know if I am allowed to post on this mailing list, so bear with me if I am out of place. In what follows, I'll take Rapache as an example, but the point I'd like to make is, of course, general. I'd like to respectfully disagree with ScottK. Linux in general (as well as Ubuntu) generally lacks the understanding of the need of such desktop-to-server applications. The proof is, more than the lacking of such applications, the fact that Ubuntu lacks a related workgroup/team. Did I miss it ? Resources are of course limited and all things have a priority. The lack of a workgroup dedicated to 'develop guis to configure server things' just show they don't seem important enough at the moment. Have you ever seen a comment like this ? http://www.reddit.com/comments/6ncun/rapache_is_a_simple_apache_administration_tool_it/c04cxa1 I guess you have, and someone of you could even agree. As Bud Roth points, the point raised by Scottk doesn't seems really a lacking of ubuntu-server group itself. Let me elaborate: I had the pleasure to quickly present Rapache to the ubuntu-server meeting. They were really kind to me but became evident that a Gnome gui to configure Apache was not something inherently related to the #ubuntu-server workgroup. I then asked what was the right irc channel / workgroup to discuss this kind of application. The answer was Rapache seemed to be something in between ubuntu-server and ubuntu-desktop. Who's going to care about taking care of this kind of applications in Ubuntu? My experience What do I agree with ScottK is the wider audience thing. I used to work in a non-tech savy environment (a computer magazines publisher, lol). Some facts about it: 1) I could get permission to use Ubuntu as local network web-development server, as long as I provided to perform the actual installation myself. 2) The only thing I got shouted about in the whole career there was.. daring to install ubuntu on my workstation. 3) Our (windows) sysadmin installed Ubuntu on a computer to be run Vmware machines on it. It choose Ubuntu because a) some colleague dropped some installation cd's on our desks, one day. b) I could help him with ubuntu related issues much better than with fedora/suse/whatever related ones. 4) Sysadmin had to configure Samba shares to connect to a given domain with certain permissions. He was shocked by the fact to not having a gui to perform the operations. After a while he found some gui utility in synaptic and felt quite happy with the result. He felt much more in control with a gui than with command line thinkering. Conclusions: == People do fear what they don't know. I got shouted because my coordinator never tried how good it feels like to work on a ubuntu workstation (no more putty, nautilus ssh integration etc). (a) The sysadmin was actually happy to have guis to configure local network things (4). It's only complain is not having Gui for *anything* like it happens on Windows 2000/NT. People don't know about linux, they won't try it if it doesn't allow them to get their stuff done. What the reasons are for a sysadmin to use (paid licensed) Windows instead of Linux ? GUI. And things they feel in control on (when they don't, point 2) happens) Ignorance has reasons behind it - people don't want to learn. Bad, but we could get them as users anyway. Why not ? - people has stuff to get done, and no time to learn. - people has to take responsibility on any choice they make. They would like to switch but they have delivery-schedules. With a gui they can do things easily and follow best practices at the very same time. (i.e. Rapache detects if you have virtualhosts .conf present only in sites-enabled and offers the user to normalize the situation). And they will be able to learn more throughout the process. -
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
Folks, First an apology; when I said in the subject line of my post Disappointed with Ubuntu Server... I did not mean to imply at all that Ubuntu Server is an inferior product, far from it, merely that in its present offering it is simply not suitable for use by the masses (an untapped new market, although it won't remain untapped for very long). I am impressed with Ubuntu Desktop which naturally led me to look at Ubuntu Server and was surprised that there isn't a ClarkConnect type offering for Ubuntu Server when there really should be. Home users/SOHO business and small businesses simply doen't have the time or necessarily the knowledge/skills to do the things necessary to configure Ubuntu Server to create a secure Web Server/WebMail Server/File Server in say either server only mode or a server + gateway mode. For one thing small businesses don't have access to the resources of big business. Microsoft is surely trying to start tapping into this massive new market: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/windowshomeserver/default.mspx Also, Microsoft is up to its old tricks with things like PNRP (clearly it wants to make the Internet its own by making the existing Internet way obsolete over time - much like it did to Novell Netware), and as usual it is doing this quietly so that when people realise and try to do something about it it will be too late. If Ubuntu Server doesn't offer a ClarkConnect type installation it will miss a massive opportunity. And the last thing I'd like to see is Microsoft win in this space. To those seeking my involvement, sure, I would be happy to get involved and test such a system if you guys create it but I am not a developer. In the meantime it looks like ClarkConnect is probably all I have available to use. By the way, SME Server is called SME Server because it is aimed at small to medium businesses. Small to medium businesses require a functioning Web Server/Webmail Server/File Server but they mostly won't be attempting to use multiple processors, multiple machines and all the other stuff that big enterprises are interested in. The Web site of a small business is likely to use maybe 20 or so html pages with some PHP forms and that's about it, and they probably won't get that many hits on their Web site, and maybe max of 40 or so users i.e. they don't need a sledge hammer to crack a nut, but they do need a big helping hand to hide them from the bowels of the server and the command line. Regards, Tony - Original Message From: Anthony Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:14:06 AM Subject: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience Folks, As a newbie to Ubuntu I have to say it is hard to believe that Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server come from the same stable. The Ubuntu server should come in two offerings; i.e. the unfriendly existing Ubuntu server, and, more importantly to the masses, a friendly pre-configured Ubuntu server that uses SME Server (http://smeserver.com) and ClarkConnect (http://clarkconnect.com) as a starting point only not crippled, and much better. It is only a matter of time before people start running servers from home (check out Windows Home Server and no doubt Apple will have something up its sleeves before very long too). Ubuntu server should be leading the way and definitely before Microsoft cooks up its next bit of mischief. The last thing people want is to have to mess around down in the bowels to configure the thing (should be easy). The server section of the 2007 The Official Ubuntu Book is way too vague too and designed to scare people from using the server. Preconfigure the thing, give it a GUI web admin, make it easy for someone to set up a Web server/Webmail/File server either in server only mode or server and gateway mode. All I should need to set up is a couple of users, provide the IP address and say whether I want RAID and maybe how I want the partitions configured (but with suggested recommendations along the way at every step). I have my own registered domain currently hosted with an ISP. I want to move it into my home. How to do it? That's where the focus should be. There are many, many thousands like me. Regards, Tony -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
On Thursday 31 July 2008 18:59, tacone wrote: Scott Kitterman, on Thu Jul 31 17:38:30 BST 2008 Generally you can do any server things from a desktop if you install the needed things. For easy Apache configurations there is: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rapache There's a pending request to have it backported to Hardy. What's needed are people who understand the under the hood part of servers well enough to write such a thing and also care enough about the GUI experience to do it. Ubuntu Server is a young project and is headed toward being able to support such things, but it won't happen overnight. What we lack isn't ideas or understanding of the need, but people to do the actual work to provide it. Scott K Hello, I am one of the developers of Rapache. I subscribed this ml just to answer ScottK and drop my 2 cents on the topic. I am likely to keep my subscription for the next week, if you like to reply. Disclaimer What follows may be a little delirious, but took me hours to put it together, so I sending it straight away. I'll post a more lucid rewrite on ubuntuweblogs when I get the time. And maybe open a blueprint about this. I really don't know if I am allowed to post on this mailing list, so bear with me if I am out of place. In what follows, I'll take Rapache as an example, but the point I'd like to make is, of course, general. I'd like to respectfully disagree with ScottK. Linux in general (as well as Ubuntu) generally lacks the understanding of the need of such desktop-to-server applications. The proof is, more than the lacking of such applications, the fact that Ubuntu lacks a related workgroup/team. Did I miss it ? We actually agree. This type of discussion was a major focus of discussion in the server team at the last UDS in Prague. We all recognize the problem. Resources are of course limited and all things have a priority. The lack of a workgroup dedicated to 'develop guis to configure server things' just show they don't seem important enough at the moment. Have you ever seen a comment like this ? http://www.reddit.com/comments/6ncun/rapache_is_a_simple_apache_administrat ion_tool_it/c04cxa1 I guess you have, and someone of you could even agree. That doesn't mean there aren't people that don't get it. As Bud Roth points, the point raised by Scottk doesn't seems really a lacking of ubuntu-server group itself. Let me elaborate: I had the pleasure to quickly present Rapache to the ubuntu-server meeting. They were really kind to me but became evident that a Gnome gui to configure Apache was not something inherently related to the #ubuntu-server workgroup. I then asked what was the right irc channel / workgroup to discuss this kind of application. I think it was. To date the development of Ubuntu Server has focused on development of capabilities of individual Ubunu Servers. We talked a lot at UDS about giving better administration tools that were not on the same box (SOHO and Enterprise have different needs in this space, but fundamentally it's about a different axis of the problem than how well does this one box integrate with itself). The answer was Rapache seemed to be something in between ubuntu-server and ubuntu-desktop. Who's going to care about taking care of this kind of applications in Ubuntu? Good question. I think the initial answer is whoever cares enough to work on the problem and a community will form around this. My experience What do I agree with ScottK is the wider audience thing. I used to work in a non-tech savy environment (a computer magazines publisher, lol). Some facts about it: 1) I could get permission to use Ubuntu as local network web-development server, as long as I provided to perform the actual installation myself. 2) The only thing I got shouted about in the whole career there was.. daring to install ubuntu on my workstation. 3) Our (windows) sysadmin installed Ubuntu on a computer to be run Vmware machines on it. It choose Ubuntu because a) some colleague dropped some installation cd's on our desks, one day. b) I could help him with ubuntu related issues much better than with fedora/suse/whatever related ones. 4) Sysadmin had to configure Samba shares to connect to a given domain with certain permissions. He was shocked by the fact to not having a gui to perform the operations. After a while he found some gui utility in synaptic and felt quite happy with the result. He felt much more in control with a gui than with command line thinkering. Two decades of Windows thinking have taught people that their systems are essentially incomprehensible black boxes that they cannot understand. This is not true of Linux and other Unix like operating systems. I was helping someone out this week on #ubuntu-server with a Postfix problem. He'd given up and reinstalled his system and still had the same problem. He'd never really
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:38:53 -0700 Dylan McCall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This thread pokes quite nicely at the idea of an Ubuntu home server metapackage to complement the rest of the desktop. I think this could be a very edgy move if approached correctly. First of all, I am amongst those who think this should have nothing to do with Ubuntu Server. Excellent. I've seen people think they could do integration without knowing anything about the thing they were integrating. Such stories do not typically have a happy ending. Now that's out of the way, how about having both a desktop and a server preconfigured to detect and talk with each other? For example, new desktop users get logins set up on the server for all services at once instead of needing to prod it with commands for six hours. The server could handle remote calendars for Evolution (a concept which I have yet to wrap my own head around), generic file storage. Maybe client side scripts could automatically request that it download software to, for example, seamlessly have Workrave integrated across all connected computers. It could keep its IP known and continually update clients on what it is, just in case Internet access is necessary, and keep track of connected clients such that it knows certain accounts on various devices to all associate with the same user account on itself. (I have a little concept bumbling along for a sort of free, distributed mesh-like DNS system that relies on trusted hosts - eg: Friends' devices. That would be cool!) Last year I had a serious hardware problem and the only solution was to build and deploy a new box (long story - bad idea on my part got me in a bad spot). When I started with the parts for the server in boxes it didn't take me 6 hours to set up. As something aimed straight at the Ubuntu desktop, this could use Avahi from top to bottom to expose services and be automatically configured by scripts on clients. þÿMaybe Nautilus could list another Place which for the server's public files. It would not be just 'vanilla Apache and PHP and MySQL for your web development convenience. Go find the avahi running by default on a server. I think that could be a pretty powerful thing. There is a lot of software that needs repetitive configuration, a problem which could be overcome by a server that complements Ubuntu and is entirely powered by autodetection instead of needing convoluted guides and config files. Oh gee let's get rid of all this complexity that is only put there to confuse us is something that's often requested, but harder to do in real life. Fortunately no one who knows about this stuff should be involved in your project. I mention that this could be edgy, because right now the non-free competition are working really hard on their online services and big screen media centres. This sort of thing for Ubuntu would be an interesting shot back, encouraging the idea of individual users owning single low-power servers like Linutop, hooked up to their routers (perhaps placed right below them, or acting as routers themselves) to centralize all that stuff. All the devices in one's possession are then working on a convenient client-server model. In contrast to the competition's centralization, this would be a single personal server that can be trusted and that can be customized, has no subscription fees and prevents the confusing dilution that occurs when one's identity spreads over hundreds of competing online services, which is bound to happen as long as we continue to use the current poorly integrated web based applications. Basically, I agree that there should be a project dedicated to a pre-configured personal server system, because that would change the entire world... but calling it Ubuntu Server would very much limit its growing room. The fundamental problem here is unique to neither the sever nor the desktop. In Ubuntu we are organized around providing a single box to meet a certain use (desktop, server, whatever). There is no one particularly minding the larger qustion of the next level of system that integrates multiple boxes. We need such an effort to move thing to another level and while people who understand both desktops and servers need to be involved, it's really a higher order of problem. Scott K P.S. The Ubuntu desktop experience is much larger than Gnome. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
Hello Tacone, People from the Windows world don't like the command line because it is all too easy to forget to do something that should be done. Not only that but one has to remember all the commands etc. GUI dialogs etc contain radio option buttons, checkboxes, Wizards etc protecting the user from doing stupid things, and, more importantly, making sure that certain things are done behind the scenes. This is what the masses are used to in the Windows world. Even Windows server is GUI based, not just the Windows desktop! This is not an argument that the Ubuntu server team is doing something wrong, it's just that there should be another offering too. If Ubuntu doesn't create a, let's for argument's sake, call it Ubuntu Personal SOHO Server (which contains Web server, Webmail server, File server) then Microsoft with its Microsoft Home Server (or a deriviative) with its patented proprietary standards such as PNRP (note PNRP is preinstalled on Vista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNRP will win. I appreciate that PNRP might present a security issue but it's there and people will use it, particularly as IPv6 takes off which it soon will. The market for a Ubuntu Personal SOHO Server is huge and Microsoft knows it which is why it's already doing things in this area. Regards, Tony - Original Message From: tacone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Sent: Friday, August 1, 2008 6:59:48 AM Subject: Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience Scott Kitterman, on Thu Jul 31 17:38:30 BST 2008 Generally you can do any server things from a desktop if you install the needed things. For easy Apache configurations there is: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rapache There's a pending request to have it backported to Hardy. What's needed are people who understand the under the hood part of servers well enough to write such a thing and also care enough about the GUI experience to do it. Ubuntu Server is a young project and is headed toward being able to support such things, but it won't happen overnight. What we lack isn't ideas or understanding of the need, but people to do the actual work to provide it. Scott K Hello, I am one of the developers of Rapache. I subscribed this ml just to answer ScottK and drop my 2 cents on the topic. I am likely to keep my subscription for the next week, if you like to reply. Disclaimer What follows may be a little delirious, but took me hours to put it together, so I sending it straight away. I'll post a more lucid rewrite on ubuntuweblogs when I get the time. And maybe open a blueprint about this. I really don't know if I am allowed to post on this mailing list, so bear with me if I am out of place. In what follows, I'll take Rapache as an example, but the point I'd like to make is, of course, general. I'd like to respectfully disagree with ScottK. Linux in general (as well as Ubuntu) generally lacks the understanding of the need of such desktop-to-server applications. The proof is, more than the lacking of such applications, the fact that Ubuntu lacks a related workgroup/team. Did I miss it ? Resources are of course limited and all things have a priority. The lack of a workgroup dedicated to 'develop guis to configure server things' just show they don't seem important enough at the moment. Have you ever seen a comment like this ? http://www.reddit.com/comments/6ncun/rapache_is_a_simple_apache_administration_tool_it/c04cxa1 I guess you have, and someone of you could even agree. As Bud Roth points, the point raised by Scottk doesn't seems really a lacking of ubuntu-server group itself. Let me elaborate: I had the pleasure to quickly present Rapache to the ubuntu-server meeting. They were really kind to me but became evident that a Gnome gui to configure Apache was not something inherently related to the #ubuntu-server workgroup. I then asked what was the right irc channel / workgroup to discuss this kind of application. The answer was Rapache seemed to be something in between ubuntu-server and ubuntu-desktop. Who's going to care about taking care of this kind of applications in Ubuntu? My experience What do I agree with ScottK is the wider audience thing. I used to work in a non-tech savy environment (a computer magazines publisher, lol). Some facts about it: 1) I could get permission to use Ubuntu as local network web-development server, as long as I provided to perform the actual installation myself. 2) The only thing I got shouted about in the whole career there was.. daring to install ubuntu on my workstation. 3) Our (windows) sysadmin installed Ubuntu on a computer to be run Vmware machines on it. It choose Ubuntu because a) some colleague dropped some installation cd's on our desks, one day. b) I could help him with ubuntu related issues much better than with fedora/suse/whatever related ones. 4) Sysadmin had to configure Samba shares to
