Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
Hi, I don't want to comment this mail in particular, but regarding the difference of SysAdmins and HomeAdmins: There is a difference of people who are used to graphical configuration stuff which hides a lot of important things which are important to real sysadmins. IMHO the usecase for Ubuntu Server is to reach the server market like debian or rhel or sles does...not to feed the person who is coming from the windows xp I'm the admin user. Yes, you can use even the desktop version of Ubuntu to install server services like apache, icecast, ftpd etc. But this is not the server usecase. And on a sidenote, I don't think web uis for admin work will help to secure a root server for personal homepages. And with this web uis I don't mean webapps like RHN or Landscape. Regards, \sh On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Anthony Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] -- 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 Stephan, Fair comment, maybe a Ubuntu Personal SOHO server could be a spinoff from Ubuntu Desktop, namely provide ClarkConnect (http://clarkconnect.com) type install options when installing Ubuntu Desktop? Regards, Tony - Original Message From: Stephan Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Sent: Friday, August 1, 2008 2:32:00 PM Subject: Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience Hi, I don't want to comment this mail in particular, but regarding the difference of SysAdmins and HomeAdmins: There is a difference of people who are used to graphical configuration stuff which hides a lot of important things which are important to real sysadmins. IMHO the usecase for Ubuntu Server is to reach the server market like debian or rhel or sles does...not to feed the person who is coming from the windows xp I'm the admin user. Yes, you can use even the desktop version of Ubuntu to install server services like apache, icecast, ftpd etc. But this is not the server usecase. And on a sidenote, I don't think web uis for admin work will help to secure a root server for personal homepages. And with this web uis I don't mean webapps like RHN or Landscape. Regards, \sh On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Anthony Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] -- 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 -- 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I think this is my first post on this list so I make a little introduction of myself: I'm a SysAdmin for more than 10 years. Worked in different networks with all sorts of OSs ( SunOS, Irix, FreeBSD, NetbSD, OpenBSD, Linux (most popular Distros), Windows, Mac OS X) for server and desktop use. I do some Ubuntu work in the local German usergroup ubuntu-berlin. (It is an open user group for Ubuntu users in the Berlin area.) I really like to use the console to setup servers and desktop systems alike. So naturally I disagree with some parts in this thread ;-). But sometimes I use some GUIs for various SysAdmin task, too. Like phpldapadmin for some parts of LDAP administration, or SWAT for Samba Administration. But most of the time I use the console with vi, sed, awk and so on. Even to setup and maintain a /etc/ldap/slapd.conf files :-). This is secure, easy! and very very fast, if you know what you do. And I think it is not really hard to learn, if you really want to. But that's just my opinion... In the past month I have seen a lot of mail threads in various Ubuntu related mailinglists, where people ask why Ubuntu/Linux does not provide an easy way of doing things like Windows does. All the time I ask myself why should Linux and Ubuntu go the same way Microsoft does? And why does everybody thinks administration with Windows is easy? It is not! And I even think why do someone use Linux if he/she wants it to work the same way Windows does? Not that I do not think Ubuntu should invent new ways. But why has it to be a way someone already goes? And why a way that is not a good way... By the way ( ;-) ): someone who things administering a Windows Server is easy because you have a click and point interface, never setup a Windows Server for production use! It is not. Without the knowledge what you are doing, you are lost! And things will not work the way you expect it! This is one of the biggest marketing lie around. I have seen a lot of small companies where the network was broken, because everybody things system administration is so easy with Windows... For setting up servers and network in a secure and reliable way it is not the most important thing to have an easy to use interface. Most important is knowledge! Doing some conceptual work before deployment and knowing the pros and cons of your configuration are also important. Even if you use a nice click here and click there interface. That is also true for the mentioned Windows Vista (and Win XP; it also provides an easy setup your network mode) easy network setup mode. Note: I like the idea of having some easy way of integrating Ubuntu Server and Ubuntu Desktop boxes. It would be cool to setup an Ubuntu server with various features and the Ubuntu boxes get all these features automagically. But this is not easily done! 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. Ok. Does the server team has a use for a console admin who sometimes uses the already available GUIs and who likes to disagree a lot with all this server administration has to be easy stuff? ;-) Than I am willing to help, if I can find the time. I am really good at setting up things and testing. Another thing somebody in this thread mentioned: There are already a lot of good SysAdmin GUIs for various administration tasks and most of them are already available as an Ubuntu package. Ok all these applications do not have a common look feel but these tools work most of the time. Why not bundle it in a metapackage (ubuntu-server-gui-admin-stuff-metapackage ;-) ) for example? To mention some tools: - - SWAT - - phpLDAPAdmin - - luma (for LDAP administration) - - gbindadmin - GTK+ configuration tool for bind9 - - gdhcpd - GTK+ configuration tool for dhcpd3-server and a lot of other tools I do not know by heart. And now I know rapache ;-). I will take a look into this program immediately. I think with such tools installed it should be possible to setup a home server with GUIs. Not by everyone but interested people should have a start. You only have to know the names of all these programs. Regards, Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIkshaBvfZ5167qr8RAm/YAJ4jPXVf0pymptWhCN+RLi/iqex3YACfZHaU SOdtS/+Azj6YLx9tAoMVBMg= =gWqd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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: Installation report: Ubuntu desktop Alpha 3 amd64 - my turn
Olá Adilson e a todos. On Saturday 26 July 2008 20:22:17 Adilson Oliveira wrote: After the first boot my nvidia card was correctly detected and I was given the chance to install 3 different versions of the same proprietary driver. I'm not sure this is the way it should be. Is there any reason for that? Anyway, I selected the latest one and it was installed but the download bar didn't update during the process, staying at 0% the whole time which made me wonder for a minute if it was really downloading and installing the driver. I have two available: 173 and 177. I installed 173 that is the one for my 8400 card. 2) Compiz wasn't enabled by default. I had to enable it manually but even so it does not remain enabled during reboots. Adilson. Not only that, mine every so often reverts to metacity. i dont know what is causing it. -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) http://Ubuntu.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- 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 Mark, I've had email correspondence with the editor of APCMag. I think it might be possible to get them to run an article on using Ubuntu desktop as a server with GUI/Web tools to create a Web Server/Webmail Server/File Server. APCMag have run several articles on Ubuntu desktop in the past assessing each version as to whether it was possible to live without Windows using Ubuntu Desktop so they might run such an article, we'll see. I'll probably have to send the editor a few more emails to stir the pot a bit. Okay, I'm done with this thread, it was worth a shot. Thanks everyone for the posts, very interesting. All the best, Regards, Tony P.S. I'll think about participating in one of the various projects e.g. eBox but that just seems to be a gateway offering at the moment. ClarkConnect seems to be much further along. I think the APCMag approach where they run a workshop type set of articles over several editions is probably more the go right now. If that doesn't work, I'll probably have a go myself and maybe even write a book on how to do it seeing as there is nothing on this right now. - Original Message From: Mark Shuttleworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Anthony Watters [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Sent: Friday, August 1, 2008 4:39:06 PM Subject: Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience The server is more difficult to define as a single thing than the desktop. We've taken the view that the best service we can provide to the free software community is to ensure that Ubuntu's server offering is highly modular, so you can start with something minimalist (the out of the box experience that you've seen) and then add the specific components you want. Ubuntu server follows from the Debian heritage of striving to be the best platform for a serious Linux system administrator, and I think we succeed very much in delivering to that promise. I would credit the server team with great work in recent releases and am very excited by the plans they have committed to for 8.10. I do agree with you that this requires a more expert understanding of the free software stack, and thus is quite different to our promise with the Ubuntu desktop, which is the easiest and most modular desktop experience possible with free software. I can understand that this creates a potential shock for users who are new to Linux, find Ubuntu very easy to use on the desktop, and then are dropped into the deep end when they install Ubuntu server. I would suggest, however, that those users can quite easily use the normal desktop edition as a server-with-GUI, and that there are a number of easy to use web administrated server management tools that are already available with Ubuntu. I think there has been a push to get eBox working well, and you might want to join that effort. This would allow someone to install a minimal server with eBox and be productive in the way you describe. I don't want Ubuntu server to lose it's minimalist, component oriented sensibilities, so I can't support your call to have a GUI out-of-the-box on the server. But I would welcome your participation in any of the existing efforts to make it possible to get the benefits of that minimalist approach together with an easy-to-use administrative interface, either GUI or web based. Mark -- 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: passwd -l
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:27:17AM +0200, Thilo Six wrote: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/shadow/+bug/238755 summary: * cronjobs are broken for system that has a 'passwd -l root' with hardy http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user/330437 * the implematation of the patch that changed 'passwd -l' is broken: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=492307 * + the confusion it causes at users-side due to unexpeted behaviour. All of this is fixed in debian now. For hardy this all is imho a serve regression. Pls devs fix it. The bug is targeted for fixing in 8.04. -- - mdz -- 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: passwd -l
Matt Zimmerman wrote the following on 01.08.2008 13:05 - *snip* - The bug is targeted for fixing in 8.04. Thanks Matt. -- bye Thilo key: 0x4A411E09 -- 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 Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:24:59 +0200 Michael Zoet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. Does the server team has a use for a console admin who sometimes uses the already available GUIs and who likes to disagree a lot with all this server administration has to be easy stuff? ;-) Than I am willing to help, if I can find the time. I am really good at setting up things and testing. Yes. You can join us on #ubuntu-server or at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scott K -- 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
The server is more difficult to define as a single thing than the desktop. We've taken the view that the best service we can provide to the free software community is to ensure that Ubuntu's server offering is highly modular, so you can start with something minimalist (the out of the box experience that you've seen) and then add the specific components you want. Ubuntu server follows from the Debian heritage of striving to be the best platform for a serious Linux system administrator, and I think we succeed very much in delivering to that promise. I would credit the server team with great work in recent releases and am very excited by the plans they have committed to for 8.10. I do agree with you that this requires a more expert understanding of the free software stack, and thus is quite different to our promise with the Ubuntu desktop, which is the easiest and most modular desktop experience possible with free software. I can understand that this creates a potential shock for users who are new to Linux, find Ubuntu very easy to use on the desktop, and then are dropped into the deep end when they install Ubuntu server. I would suggest, however, that those users can quite easily use the normal desktop edition as a server-with-GUI, and that there are a number of easy to use web administrated server management tools that are already available with Ubuntu. I think there has been a push to get eBox working well, and you might want to join that effort. This would allow someone to install a minimal server with eBox and be productive in the way you describe. I don't want Ubuntu server to lose it's minimalist, component oriented sensibilities, so I can't support your call to have a GUI out-of-the-box on the server. But I would welcome your participation in any of the existing efforts to make it possible to get the benefits of that minimalist approach together with an easy-to-use administrative interface, either GUI or web based. Mark -- 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 Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Stephan Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what do you (not you in particular) want to do at home? Setting up a webserver is easy...and adding a drupal or blog software, too. The default apache2 package from debian/ubuntu gives you most of the needed setup from the time after installation. You just need to adjust at least your IP or your hostname, but that's it. No need to install dangerous third level tool which are playing with the config and adding mostly uneeded stuff. What if you want to set up a (POP+SMTP) mail server? That's a lot more involved than just installing a package. It should be as easy as installing it and adding allowed addresses+logins. As you said, Apache is already that easy (though becomes more powerful with rapache), why stop there? What about a file/music/video server? A family has bought a box which will be used as central storage. Any computer in the LAN must have access to it (through NFS? Samba?), and the family wants to be able to play music by just starting Rhythmbox and discovering the server. The same goes for videos and Totem. but there is a difference between really doing admin work, where you need to touch the config files in /etc or whereever and the simple work you need to do at home..I know those lamp tools from windows, and it's horrible how those packages are degrading your system to a potential security risk for you and your family, because it's too easy to do something really stupid. That's what the GUI needs to prevent: doing stupid things. A GUI can do this much better than a configuration file. A GUI usually forces a sane configuration, while a config file has limitless possibilities. For example: I can imagine a simple button for a hypothetical Ubuntu Home Server which says: Enable weblog. It will make sure a LAMP server is set up properly, and some default weblog software will be installed. Everything has been secured by default, through the system login. It just tells the user that it can find his weblog at a certain URL. It will also give directions for setting up the router and buying a domain name in order to make it accessible to the world. Remco -- 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
Hi, On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:04:14 +0200 Remco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Stephan Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what do you (not you in particular) want to do at home? Setting up a webserver is easy...and adding a drupal or blog software, too. The default apache2 package from debian/ubuntu gives you most of the needed setup from the time after installation. You just need to adjust at least your IP or your hostname, but that's it. No need to install dangerous third level tool which are playing with the config and adding mostly uneeded stuff. What if you want to set up a (POP+SMTP) mail server? That's a lot more involved than just installing a package. It should be as easy as installing it and adding allowed addresses+logins. As you said, Apache is already that easy (though becomes more powerful with rapache), why stop there? Fact One: an ISP who allows people running smtp servers should be punished. Private users should use an SMTP Gateway at their ISP or on some root server, but shouldn't be able to send via smtp server - smtp server. (HInt: Spammers are using those methods) Setting up SMTP + POP3 server is definitly nothing you want to have at home...because it's unreliable. No usecase here. People who have a clue about those topics, don't do this, only people without a clue are trying to do this. That's my opinion and good to know that many of my colleagues are agreeing here. Fact Two: I don't even see a usecase to setup a public webserver at home. Yes, freaks like me or eventually you are doing that, but we know what we do...but to be honest, I have a webserver running which is not available from the outside...for public service there are enough servers who are providing those services much better). What about a file/music/video server? A family has bought a box which will be used as central storage. Any computer in the LAN must have access to it (through NFS? Samba?), and the family wants to be able to play music by just starting Rhythmbox and discovering the server. The same goes for videos and Totem. Well, I would say, that a DreamBox is much better as homevideobox then any linux server...ok, buy a already installed mythbuntu box or whatever...don't deal with nfs, samba ...yourself. Most partnership will break doing thisreally. Serious, for a normal familiy I would advise to by ready made appliances..they are tested, and are usable (well not everytime, but they work in the set ranges of usecases). the prices for those appliances are most of the time cheaper then to by a good PC box for doing this. Well, the usecase that people want to watch their movies on the TV you didn't mention ;) but there is a difference between really doing admin work, where you need to touch the config files in /etc or whereever and the simple work you need to do at home..I know those lamp tools from windows, and it's horrible how those packages are degrading your system to a potential security risk for you and your family, because it's too easy to do something really stupid. That's what the GUI needs to prevent: doing stupid things. A GUI can do this much better than a configuration file. A GUI usually forces a sane configuration, while a config file has limitless possibilities. A GUI will never prevent doing stupid things. If the GUI doesn't fit your needs, there is always the risk that you start playing around with something else and make things worse...it happened in the 90ties and it will happen in the 20ties..Really, a GUI doesn't help without the knowledge of what to do. It can actually help to ease your work when you know it, but having 500 or 1000 servers it's not possible to use GUI tools, there are better tools. For example: I can imagine a simple button for a hypothetical Ubuntu Home Server which says: Enable weblog. It will make sure a LAMP server is set up properly, and some default weblog software will be installed. Everything has been secured by default, through the system login. It just tells the user that it can find his weblog at a certain URL. It will also give directions for setting up the router and buying a domain name in order to make it accessible to the world. As I said, there are companies who are providing those services much better then you will ever do at home...they do backups for you, without your interaction, they have a contract that outages are only 0.01% per year to this server etc. all those services you can't get at home. And the work to stay up2date is much more then you imagine...even on Ubuntu and even with apt. You know, people with windows, they always get this little icon with updates available...how many of them are doing the updates everytime this pops up? (same question also comes for ubuntu or any linux distro in general). I do like the idea of an entainment home server or a media center edition of ubuntu, but it shouldn't be used for webserver or smtp server at home
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:23 -0700, George Farris wrote: On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 10:18 -0500, Tony Yarusso wrote: 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. Wow, this response seems to completely missed the entire point. 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. You forgot: D) Want to be cracked within a week Because as he said, if you pre-configure everything to super-duper-easy-peasy, you've also pre-configured it to super-duper-easy-peasy-to-crack. I'm personally disappointed by firewalls that allow outbound by default, because something could phone home if I put my trust in an application I shouldn't, but they're easy-peasy for users, so that's what people do. I can manually go through and fix it myself, but if some application is running about opening who knows how many ports and setting god-knows-what services to auto-start and mucking about with insecure options in config files...how many months is it going to take me to track all of that down? No way. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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: Installation report: Ubuntu desktop Alpha 3 amd64 - my turn
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:35 +0100, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote: 2) Compiz wasn't enabled by default. I had to enable it manually but even so it does not remain enabled during reboots. Adilson. Not only that, mine every so often reverts to metacity. i dont know what is causing it. Probably related to this bug: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/253606 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- 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
