Re: Ubuntu Domain Server
Letting someone use gparted to partition his disk who doesn't know anything about partitioning will probably end in a big data desaster. And whom will this user blame for it? Certainly not himself for doing tasks he doesn't understand but the GUI for letting it do him (even if it has big warnings). The user can blame anyone he wants. The rest of the world shouldn't care about that. I find this whole blaming angle very unproductive. Should Gparted not exist? Should Synaptic? Or the PolicyKit editor? Rapache? The LVM manager? All can be used to destroy data or create security leaks. But all are used to save time for those that understand how they work. And we have no problem with that. We have a problem with those who believe that such tools should be marketed to the uninitiated. This thread was started with the premise of doing what? What are your thoughts on having a server product that competes with Windows Server? Something which has a GUI, is very easy to manage and works best with Ubuntu workstations. My theory is that people trying Ubuntu Server are probably Windows administrators and find it daunting that there's no GUI. If they don't turn away then, they turn away when they discover there's 48 chapters of Samba documentation to read through just to get a functional domain server. Very few administrators would see this as a viable replacement for their Windows server. You want to tell me that most Windows administrators cannot handle the command line and scripts? You want to tell me that Windows is 'very easy to manage'? Right. Maybe for setups that just use the bare minimum, does not use group policy and scripts. But guess what. Microsoft uses a predefined configuration and so they can release tools that automate that. I say give those in such situations a predefined configuration and a foolproof gui tool but then somebody opposes that. I point out that a gui that 'supports' everything is not suitable to the uninitiated then somebody accuses me of protecting my iron rice bowl and being some elitist jerk. So, short of an AI, I cannot think of something that will satisfy all you out there. If someone can use a manual drive, that one is free to drive a manual or an automatic. You don't blame the manual's designer if it cannot accommodate a person that only knows how to use an automatic nor a semi-automatic's designer if the person does not understand the effects of trying to start off in the highest gear. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Am 21.11.2009 um 22:38 schrieb Remco: On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 19:58, Michael Bienia mich...@bienia.de wrote: On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: http://gparted.sourceforge.net/screens/gparted_1_big.jpg Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over gparted as well. It's doable and much more flexible :-) gparted is probably a good GUI (hadn't have to repartition my disk for a long time, so never used it till now). But does it help someone to partition his disk properly who doesn't know about primary/logical partitions, filesystem types, mount points, etc.? It doesn't. Well, it does. It gives a visual representation of how the result will be, it translates partition codes to human readable descriptions (ext2, FAT32, ...), it takes some care to avoid conflicts and it invokes the correct tools to format the newly created partitions. On the command line, you have a lot more chances to do things wrong. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 20:18, Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote: Am 21.11.2009 um 22:38 schrieb Remco: On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 19:58, Michael Bienia mich...@bienia.de wrote: On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: http://gparted.sourceforge.net/screens/gparted_1_big.jpg Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over gparted as well. It's doable and much more flexible :-) gparted is probably a good GUI (hadn't have to repartition my disk for a long time, so never used it till now). But does it help someone to partition his disk properly who doesn't know about primary/logical partitions, filesystem types, mount points, etc.? It doesn't. Well, it does. It gives a visual representation of how the result will be, it translates partition codes to human readable descriptions (ext2, FAT32, ...), it takes some care to avoid conflicts and it invokes the correct tools to format the newly created partitions. On the command line, you have a lot more chances to do things wrong. Yes, that's precisely the thing that Gparted helps you with. That's why I, as a partitioning expert (hee), still value Gparted. But it does not help my mom, who doesn't know the difference between a partition and a filesystem. I don't think we want to cater to these 'normal users' with these GUI administration tools. We want to cater to administrators with varying degrees of experience, making them more productive and less error prone. At least, that's why *I* want GUI tools. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Am 22.11.2009 um 20:44 schrieb Remco: We want to cater to administrators with varying degrees of experience, making them more productive and less error prone. At least, that's why *I* want GUI tools. Well said. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Deciding that those defaults actually would be is another kettle of fish entirely and I surmise that a democratic process of some sort, perhaps brainstorm, would be a good way to settle this inherently political section. That can of worms has to be opened and emptied. The one single problem about adopting 'Linux' has pretty much been a lack of a uniform standard whether it comes to administration or programming. We can thank the Linux kernel developers for contributing to this with their 'moving target interfaces' mantra too. I guess we can sigh with relief that at least with respects to office software, there is more or less one standard - Openoffice and ODF. Finally, I think it's fair to give MS its due here. Whether by fair means or foul, MS has a commanding presence in the market and we simply have to accept that as the way things currently are. Any meaningful effort to get market share away from MS needs to be able to successfully accomodate the windows users and help them migrate, at least long enough for them to get the feel for The Linux Way (tm). People used to Windows that are trying out Ubuntu anything for the first time are from their point of view venturing into uncharted waters. Those same people ventured into uncharted waters before getting used to Windows. You bet that they were quite happy to do the same when they bought their Mac. Of course, if we take the server side angle, it would be a whole different story. Users are probably more willing to learn something new than a certain breed of Microsoft administrators that is forever implied at here. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Deciding that those defaults actually would be is another kettle of fish entirely and I surmise that a democratic process of some sort, perhaps brainstorm, would be a good way to settle this inherently political section. That can of worms has to be opened and emptied. The one single problem about adopting 'Linux' has pretty much been a lack of a uniform standard whether it comes to administration or programming. We can thank the Linux kernel developers for contributing to this with their 'moving target interfaces' mantra too. I guess we can sigh with relief that at least with respects to office software, there is more or less one standard - Openoffice and ODF. Finally, I think it's fair to give MS its due here. Whether by fair means or foul, MS has a commanding presence in the market and we simply have to accept that as the way things currently are. Any meaningful effort to get market share away from MS needs to be able to successfully accomodate the windows users and help them migrate, at least long enough for them to get the feel for The Linux Way (tm). People used to Windows that are trying out Ubuntu anything for the first time are from their point of view venturing into uncharted waters. Those same people ventured into uncharted waters before getting used to Windows. You bet that they were quite happy to do the same when they bought their Mac. Of course, if we take the server side angle, it would be a whole different story. Users are probably more willing to learn something new than a certain breed of Microsoft administrators that is forever implied at here. That's not true for me. I manage Windows networks at work and use Ubuntu exclusively at home. I would love to migrate them all to Ubuntu and rid Windows from the workplace but Ubuntu has no suitable product to do so which just works out of the box. Though it would be interesting to know just how many Windows administrators have heard of Linux, used Linux, and done sysadmin tasks on Linux. -Ryan -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Ryan Dwyer wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk mailto:christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Deciding that those defaults actually would be is another kettle of fish entirely and I surmise that a democratic process of some sort, perhaps brainstorm, would be a good way to settle this inherently political section. That can of worms has to be opened and emptied. The one single problem about adopting 'Linux' has pretty much been a lack of a uniform standard whether it comes to administration or programming. We can thank the Linux kernel developers for contributing to this with their 'moving target interfaces' mantra too. I guess we can sigh with relief that at least with respects to office software, there is more or less one standard - Openoffice and ODF. Finally, I think it's fair to give MS its due here. Whether by fair means or foul, MS has a commanding presence in the market and we simply have to accept that as the way things currently are. Any meaningful effort to get market share away from MS needs to be able to successfully accomodate the windows users and help them migrate, at least long enough for them to get the feel for The Linux Way (tm). People used to Windows that are trying out Ubuntu anything for the first time are from their point of view venturing into uncharted waters. Those same people ventured into uncharted waters before getting used to Windows. You bet that they were quite happy to do the same when they bought their Mac. Of course, if we take the server side angle, it would be a whole different story. Users are probably more willing to learn something new than a certain breed of Microsoft administrators that is forever implied at here. That's not true for me. I manage Windows networks at work and use Ubuntu exclusively at home. I would love to migrate them all to Ubuntu and rid Windows from the workplace but Ubuntu has no suitable product to do so which just works out of the box. Windows networks do not work out of the box. You need to configure each computer from ADS controller to the last Windows XP/2000 Professional workstation. I hope you are not expecting something different with Linux (but I love to see that though - it would give whichever distro that does this an upper hand). But if you are looking for controlling the desktops/profiles, yada, yada, please thank the Kubuntu Team for taking KDE 3 off their packaging list as there is nothing else available but KDE 3.5 and kiosktool that gives you the ability to control desktops based on groups and nobody has as yet stepped up to the plate to port kiosktool over to KDE 4. Though it would be interesting to know just how many Windows administrators have heard of Linux, used Linux, and done sysadmin tasks on Linux. and what level of administrator they are too. I pretty much expect paper MCSEs not to be part of the list but now that Microsoft is phasing out the MCSE certificate, I guess we need a new name for those who got their certificate by cramming. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Hello, Please explain why this is more convenient/faster than reading the man page? You mean clicking around to see all the options is faster than doing 'man page' '/related term' or 'man page' 'Page Down' I hope you are not comparing application interfaces to application manuals and telling us they are expected to provide us the same type of usability/information. Man pages just like books are great if you need in-depth information, they are not that great as an interface for an application. GUIs are not expected to replace manpages or other complete sources of information, they are expected to increase your productivity by providing interface for tasks, something that really matters for frequent tasks that cannot be automated. I really don't understand this eternal concern of non-GUI advocates with GUI implementations, why do you keep questioning other people needs based on your own habits ? Being satisfied is not a good reason to question other people needs for satisfaction. Best regards, -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Joao Pinto wrote: Hello, Please explain why this is more convenient/faster than reading the man page? You mean clicking around to see all the options is faster than doing 'man page' '/related term' or 'man page' 'Page Down' I hope you are not comparing application interfaces to application manuals and telling us they are expected to provide us the same type of usability/information. How about NOT taking my question out of context? In any case, please give an example of an interface that makes it more convenient/faster to find an option that you know about but just cannot quite remember what it was called or where the setting is supposed to be put in the configuration file. Man pages just like books are great if you need in-depth information, they are not that great as an interface for an application. Everybody knows that vi/vim is the interface. /me ducks. GUIs are not expected to replace manpages or other complete sources of information, they are expected to increase your productivity by providing interface for tasks, something that really matters for frequent tasks that cannot be automated. Shucks, really? Tasks that cannot be automated? Gee, I wonder whether that is the fault of a lack of a gui or a fault in the design...I mean, one can share a folder with one command with...ZFS. Crumbs. In fact, if one makes a predefined configuration, one can make a GUI tool that will automate just that! I really don't understand this eternal concern of non-GUI advocates with GUI implementations, why do you keep questioning other people needs based on your own habits ? It is not that we keep questioning other people needs but that we keep pointing out the fatality or falseness of one particular blanket statement that is usually the start of such ideas/requests. Being satisfied is not a good reason to question other people needs for satisfaction. Oh, we only question other people's needs when it is apparent that that need involves geting some more education and not an A.I that will get what they want done for them. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Ohh, we only question other people's needs when it is apparent that that need involves geting some more education and not an A.I that will get what they want done for them. After this last comment in which your statement implies that GUIs are driven by user's lack of education I don't think that anything positive would result from debating the subject with you. Best regards -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.getdeb.net -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Am 21.11.2009 um 14:22 schrieb Chan Chung Hang Christopher: In any case, please give an example of an interface that makes it more convenient/faster to find an option Sorry to interrupt your nagging again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:Leopard_Server_10.5.png http://gparted.sourceforge.net/screens/gparted_1_big.jpg Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over gparted as well. It's doable and much more flexible :-) Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: http://gparted.sourceforge.net/screens/gparted_1_big.jpg Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over gparted as well. It's doable and much more flexible :-) gparted is probably a good GUI (hadn't have to repartition my disk for a long time, so never used it till now). But does it help someone to partition his disk properly who doesn't know about primary/logical partitions, filesystem types, mount points, etc.? Letting someone use gparted to partition his disk who doesn't know anything about partitioning will probably end in a big data desaster. And whom will this user blame for it? Certainly not himself for doing tasks he doesn't understand but the GUI for letting it do him (even if it has big warnings). Michael -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 19:58, Michael Bienia mich...@bienia.de wrote: On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: http://gparted.sourceforge.net/screens/gparted_1_big.jpg Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over gparted as well. It's doable and much more flexible :-) gparted is probably a good GUI (hadn't have to repartition my disk for a long time, so never used it till now). But does it help someone to partition his disk properly who doesn't know about primary/logical partitions, filesystem types, mount points, etc.? It doesn't. But we don't care about those users. They should use the guided Ubuntu installer. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, we can't prevent that without losing a lot of useful tools. Letting someone use gparted to partition his disk who doesn't know anything about partitioning will probably end in a big data desaster. And whom will this user blame for it? Certainly not himself for doing tasks he doesn't understand but the GUI for letting it do him (even if it has big warnings). The user can blame anyone he wants. The rest of the world shouldn't care about that. I find this whole blaming angle very unproductive. Should Gparted not exist? Should Synaptic? Or the PolicyKit editor? Rapache? The LVM manager? All can be used to destroy data or create security leaks. But all are used to save time for those that understand how they work. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
It's been said before, and I will say it again. Stupid people will do stupid things, one way or another. I do know that often times, with repeatable tasks and with things that can be done step-by-step, a GUI can be useful in keeping the learning curve low. Can a low learning curve make some people think they know what they're doing, when they may not? Yes. Still, you are artificially setting the bar for time and energy spent HIGHER for those of us who could and/or do know the consequences of our actions. Yes, a GUI *can* be useful - I won't dispute that. My point is, if you don't RTFM, the GUI isn't easier than non-GUI. Learning curve isn't any lower if you don't read the instructions. And either way, GUI or non-GUI - you can set it up completely wrong if you don't read the instructions. With repeatable tasks I like scripts or just copying configuration text files. Does that make it better than a GUI? No, it doesn't. But it's all about preference for the person operating the machine. Telling everyone that they're stupid for not using a GUI disregards highly skilled and effective IT staff. Analogies can be made all day. Should we make people code every website from scratch, in pure HTML/CSS/SQL? No, because even though I have done that in the past and could do it again, MVC frameworks take a lot of the cruft out of building sites. How about Joomla? Should we say they shouldn't exist, because it makes it easy for end-users to make simple club websites? No, that's absurd. In many cases, it's just use the right tool for the right job. There are still reasons for coding websites from scratch on the right projects. Joomla isn't the tool for every project. Neither are MVC frameworks. So should we purposely shun the development of time-saving GUIs for some applications (e.g. Virtual Machine Manager) because some people will find it easier to use than learning 50 different command switches and having to visualize my work myself? NO. Turnabout is fair play. It's not my fault some people are too stupid to visualize their work. And I don't agree that everyone should be forced to use the command line. If you like the GUI, you use it. I'm going to continue doing my work by entering commands into an assembly interpreter because that's *my* preference. -Joseph -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Christopher Chan wrote: Luke L wrote: I read some comments on this thread, and I feel I must chime in, because I get furious at the anti-GUI people. Where? Where? I don't remember anybody being explicitly anti-GUI. No, it's been explicitly anti-anybody-who-can't-configure-a-server-without- a-GUI. Clearly a whole different issue. It's been said before, and I will say it again. Stupid people will do stupid things, one way or another. I do know that often times, with repeatable tasks and with things that can be done step-by-step, a GUI can be useful in keeping the learning curve low. Can a low learning curve make some people think they know what they're doing, when they may not? Yes. Still, you are artificially setting the bar for time and energy spent HIGHER for those of us who could and/or do know the consequences of our actions. Ah yes, you are one of those who advocate letting people who know all about putting their foot on the accelerator and nothing about traffic laws loose on streets with automatics because they are easier to drive than manuals. Good analogy. They still have to pass a driving test. If they can't drive a stick-shift, then I definitely want them driving an automatic, so there's one less thing to distract them. My mother never could get the hang of a standard transmission. As soon as we got an automatic, she passed her test and has always been a far better driver than me... So there is webmin, ..., ..., ..., oh you don't like them because they don't also steer for you or something? I don't think anybody in favour of the idea has even suggested that webmin might not be an appropriate tool, though I admit I've been out of the discussion for a couple of weeks. Unskilled users have no business running servers. This is where a lot of you and a fair few of us differ. No, really. Nobody is arguing that they _should_ run servers. Unfortunately, it's going to happen, and it's better for everybody if they can't shoot themselves - and the rest of us - in the foot while they're doing it. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
In this case, the GUI isn't well thought. For one, a GUI can have instructions in form of context sensitive messages. For two, with a GUI it's much easier to fit checks in which prevents users from shooting into their foot. I disagree. A sysadmin who doesn't understand the concepts of networking and the underlying technoligies at stake for the services that are being run won't be any better equipped with a GUI. There is no shortcut to education. For example, if a sysadmin wants to run a DNS server but doesn't understand the difference between a CNAME, A, and MX record - it won't matter if you have the most well thought out GUI imaginable. Until the sysadmin is educated, they won't know what to do. Now some GUI's do provide on-screen instructions and education. But I've also found most Linux configuration files to include a lot of documentation as comments, many times a lot more thorough than one could fit on a GUI for lack of screen real estate. Mac OS X Client Server is pretty good here. The flexibility is limited, but if you do things the predefined way you can be pretty sure not to open up a disaster. The start of this conversation was aimed at an overall GUI to administer everything to make things easier. If the flexibility is limited, then it is limited to its audience anyways. The right tool for the right job. Some people don't need much flexibility, but flexibility is critical for medium to large IT situations. Flexibility can still be gained from a GUI, but requires a much more complex GUI, more complex settings, and still sysadmin education. -Joseph -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
I have been reading the discussion so far, and would also like to say a few words about it. Because I feel that both sides here have some valid points. On the one hand of course it is true that stupid people will do stupid things. It doesnt matter if you work on console or on gui. To oversimplify it: running rm -rf / or clicking on format d: in the windows explorer and ignoring the warning that it will wipe your drive is basically equally stupid. Or to be a little more subtle: Whethere you change a config file on console of which you are not sure how it works, or if you tick a checkbox in gui that you dont fully understand. It doenst matter and eventually you will end up with a flawed system. You need hours to find that this checkbox you ticked last week (and thought is would be a harmless change) actually caused all the trouble or that the conifg file you edited before and almost forgot that you changed it at all is the your source of trouble. So eventually no matter if you use console or gui (windows), if you dont know your stuff you will do stupid things. Argumenting for this point that gui makes it easier for stupid people and is thus not desireable will just lead to the wrong conslusion, because people who use the console and dont know their thing will still just spend a bit more time but eventually dont end up with a safer system. On the otherhand however we see that a gui has one major advantage: It visually displays you all the options you have directly and thus, if you are looking for something, but are unsure what it is, you can just search through the submenus until you find the right checkbox/dropdown menu etc. This is not only important for stupid people, as we have seen we cant do anything about them anyways, but also for people who know their stuff. Why? Simply because no one can remember all the options even if they know what an option does. For example I might not exactly remember in which config file (with what syntax) I change ip address and subnet settings even if I know what Ip addresses are. But on a gui I can just click around until I find where to edit the ip address. Just my idea. Best Regards -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On the otherhand however we see that a gui has one major advantage: It visually displays you all the options you have directly and thus, if you are looking for something, but are unsure what it is, you can just search through the submenus until you find the right checkbox/dropdown menu etc. Please explain why this is more convenient/faster than reading the man page? You mean clicking around to see all the options is faster than doing 'man page' '/related term' or 'man page' 'Page Down' This is not only important for stupid people, as we have seen we cant do anything about them anyways, but also for people who know their stuff. Why? Simply because no one can remember all the options even if they know what an option does. For example I might not exactly remember in which config file (with what syntax) I change ip address and subnet settings even if I know what Ip addresses are. But on a gui I can just click around until I find where to edit the ip address. Okay, a super know everything gui similar to that on Mac OS X helps here. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Mac OS X Client Server is pretty good here. The flexibility is limited, but if you do things the predefined way you can be pretty sure not to open up a disaster. BTW., setting up ssh access, FTP or a simple web server is as easy as clicking a single button in Mac OS X. I've yet to hear one of those would open a computer for the botnets or similar ugly things. Accordingly, I have no idea why some Ubuntu friends stem so heftily against a smooth user experience. If you want things flexible and configurable (and complex), there are better distros than Ubuntu (e.g. *BSD, Gentoo). Nobody is against a smooth user experience. I advocated simple predefined settings and their gui for mom and pop. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
OK, I've been using Linux for about 10 years. And at first, I did think it was hard. Now I've come a long way, but so has Linux. I do also work on Windows desktop systems (mostly XP) from time to time and manage a small Windows XP network. I am not what you would call an IT Professional, but I do the management/programming/etc/etc/etc as needed. Whoever decided that Windows point and click on servers was easy is fooling themself. I just installed a Windows Server 2008 for the first time. I have never used a Windows Server product in my life. My knowledge of Windows XP was completely useless. All I wanted was a terminal server so everyone can run Quickbooks and Mozilla Thunderbird from a terminal. Pointing and clicking (the so-called easy way) led to much frustration and error messages that I did not understand. I wanted to point and click to change my IE security level because I couldn't visit any websites. Nope, had to spend some time searching on Google for this special security mode. Installing terminal services told me I would have to reinstall any applications that I wanted to use on terminal services. After setting up terminal services and some users and adding them to the Remove Users Group I still couldn't get them to log on, and forums on the Internet had instructions from older versions of Windows Server that didn't even help me at all. Now I know that I know nothing about Windows Server. That's my point. If you don't already know it - it isn't *more* user-friendly. Eventually I got everything working (keeping fingers crossed.) But I had to go through cryptic error messages, hard to find configuration settings, strange default security settings, and the OS yelling at me the whole time that everything I was doing was wrong. And dependencies on IIS that disappointed me because who wants to run a web server if they don't absolutely have to (because of security concerns)? The thing is, doesn't matter if it's Linux or Windows or anything, you must know the specific operating system in detail or spend a lot of time learning each concept before you can set up a proper server. People who think one is easier is just because they are more familiar, have specific objectives, or just plain preference. If someone wants to make a tool that makes it easier for Windows admins to run Linux servers, I'm sure that would be useful to some. But to claim this as a cure-all for the perceived (but nonexistent) additional complexity is bogus. -Joseph -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
If someone wants to make a tool that makes it easier for Windows admins to run Linux servers, I'm sure that would be useful to some. But to claim this as a cure-all for the perceived (but nonexistent) additional complexity is bogus. I salute you, sir, for being humble enough to make this case with your own experience. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
I read some comments on this thread, and I feel I must chime in, because I get furious at the anti-GUI people. It's been said before, and I will say it again. Stupid people will do stupid things, one way or another. I do know that often times, with repeatable tasks and with things that can be done step-by-step, a GUI can be useful in keeping the learning curve low. Can a low learning curve make some people think they know what they're doing, when they may not? Yes. Still, you are artificially setting the bar for time and energy spent HIGHER for those of us who could and/or do know the consequences of our actions. Analogies can be made all day. Should we make people code every website from scratch, in pure HTML/CSS/SQL? No, because even though I have done that in the past and could do it again, MVC frameworks take a lot of the cruft out of building sites. How about Joomla? Should we say they shouldn't exist, because it makes it easy for end-users to make simple club websites? No, that's absurd. So should we purposely shun the development of time-saving GUIs for some applications (e.g. Virtual Machine Manager) because some people will find it easier to use than learning 50 different command switches and having to visualize my work myself? NO. Intuitive GUIs that simplify tasks and help users SEE and UNDERSTAND system statistics and procedures are USEFUL and should NOT be thrown away because it might allow unskilled users a false sense of confidence, or that you might be worried your consulting job will be on the line. Any business with concerns for their IT systems will still have experts to manage things. On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: If someone wants to make a tool that makes it easier for Windows admins to run Linux servers, I'm sure that would be useful to some. But to claim this as a cure-all for the perceived (but nonexistent) additional complexity is bogus. I salute you, sir, for being humble enough to make this case with your own experience. -- 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 -- Luke L. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Follow-up to this: I just logged into the VPN for the first time after upgrading to Karmic at home and it kept my default route, didn't replace the nameserver entries, and still added a local route for the VPN over ppp0! Whatever work has gone into NetworkManager between 9.04 and 9.10 I heartily approve! Thanks! -Original Message- From: ubuntu-devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com [mailto:ubuntu- devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Ethan Baldridge Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:59 AM To: Shentino; Morten Kjeldgaard Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com; Derek Broughton Subject: RE: Ubuntu Domain Server I just edit resolv.conf anyway and fix it the next time it “breaks” (every time I log into my company VPN, even though I have the PPPoE client set to not apply DNS settings from the DHCP server). For a personal computer, I can just keep editing; I have to fix the default route every time anyway. But it would be nice to know how to “fix” it – and the routing table – permanently. From: ubuntu-devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com [mailto:ubuntu- devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Shentino Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:33 AM To: Morten Kjeldgaard Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com; Derek Broughton Subject: Re: Ubuntu Domain Server On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: On 20/10/2009, at 15.35, Derek Broughton wrote: I will never understand why a server GUI would improve anything? I will never understand why elitists hate GUIs. A good UI should improve things by absolutely preventing misconfiguration. That's because the GUI often gets in the way of good sysadm practices and also automated configuration such as cfengine and the like. One example is the /etc/resolv.conf file, which used to be a simple 3 line file that in karmic has been replaced with a complex and intransparent resolvconf system, that is part of the network configuation gui and clobbers /etc/resolv.conf at every boot. IIRC, resolvconf leaves a big fat #AUTOGENERATED, DO NOT EDIT comment line in the file, so at least any potential conf-file monkeys looking to poke around are clued in, and presumably a short operation can tell resolvconf to go away or at least disable itself. There's a huge difference maintaining a single-user system on a laptop and hundreds of workstations. -- Morten -- 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 -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: sigh They _are_ they sysadmin. Like it or not. And yes, they'll enable an exploitable module - but they'll do that whether you make it hard for them or not. If you won't give them the tools, they'll just google for an answer, take the first one they find - safe or not - and throw it in. If it appears to work, that's _all_ they'll care about. If you give them the tools, they won't be able to enable modules that you don't bless. Of course, the modules shipped with Ubuntu may be exploitable too, and we can't force anybody to keep their system up-to-date, Exactly. You already know that these people will shoot themselves in the foot. So why do you want to help them? You know that that's neither what I said, nor what I want to do. As long as you insist on ignoring the fact that there's a problem, and attacking me personally for having an interest in solving it (if there isn't a problem, how can a solution make it worse?), there can be no discussion. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
2009/11/1 Derek Broughton de...@pointerstop.ca: Dotan Cohen wrote: sigh They _are_ they sysadmin. Like it or not. And yes, they'll enable an exploitable module - but they'll do that whether you make it hard for them or not. If you won't give them the tools, they'll just google for an answer, take the first one they find - safe or not - and throw it in. If it appears to work, that's _all_ they'll care about. If you give them the tools, they won't be able to enable modules that you don't bless. Of course, the modules shipped with Ubuntu may be exploitable too, and we can't force anybody to keep their system up-to-date, Exactly. You already know that these people will shoot themselves in the foot. So why do you want to help them? You know that that's neither what I said, nor what I want to do. This part looked like that is what you were saying: And yes, they'll enable an exploitable module - but they'll do that whether you make it hard for them or not. As long as you insist on ignoring the fact that there's a problem, Please state clearly what the problem is. This thread looks like a feature request, not a bug report. and attacking me personally I attacked you personally, Derek? If that's the way it sounded, then rest assured that was not my intention. Please point out what appeared to be a personal attack so that I can learn not to do it again. Maybe there was a bit of culture clash. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
and attacking me personally I attacked you personally, Derek? If that's the way it sounded, then rest assured that was not my intention. Please point out what appeared to be a personal attack so that I can learn not to do it again. Maybe there was a bit of culture clash. He is probably a bit touchy lately after Steve Lamb's post in the kubuntu list. Something about strawman arguments. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
sigh They _are_ they sysadmin. Like it or not. And yes, they'll enable an exploitable module - but they'll do that whether you make it hard for them or not. If you won't give them the tools, they'll just google for an answer, take the first one they find - safe or not - and throw it in. If it appears to work, that's _all_ they'll care about. If you give them the tools, they won't be able to enable modules that you don't bless. Of course, the modules shipped with Ubuntu may be exploitable too, and we can't force anybody to keep their system up-to-date, Exactly. You already know that these people will shoot themselves in the foot. So why do you want to help them? If they google and get in over their head, then it's XYZ website's fault. If Ubuntu says here, use this tool then it's Ubuntu's fault. As for whether they'll understand - that's what the tool is for, to make it _possible_ for them to understand. Why do you think that a different tool would make that possible? Why not a better guide or introduction to the subject and the current tools? Why do you suppose that the difficulty stems from the current tools' user interfaces and not from the inherent complexity of the task of administering a server? The people you would aim such a tool at certainly don't have a clue about virtual hosts, but they do know that they're running multiple domains and can't figure out how to make them both listen on port 80. So why not teach them what a virtual host is? Why do you suspect that calling a virtual host by a different name would make it easier? Python and bash. Currently it's just a collection of scripts without the GUI. If you wouldn't mind sharing the scripts (in private mail if you want) then maybe I could get a better idea of how you are solving a problem that I don't perceive. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On 20/10/2009, at 15.35, Derek Broughton wrote: I will never understand why a server GUI would improve anything? I will never understand why elitists hate GUIs. A good UI should improve things by absolutely preventing misconfiguration. That's because the GUI often gets in the way of good sysadm practices and also automated configuration such as cfengine and the like. One example is the /etc/resolv.conf file, which used to be a simple 3 line file that in karmic has been replaced with a complex and intransparent resolvconf system, that is part of the network configuation gui and clobbers /etc/resolv.conf at every boot. There's a huge difference maintaining a single-user system on a laptop and hundreds of workstations. -- Morten -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dkwrote: On 20/10/2009, at 15.35, Derek Broughton wrote: I will never understand why a server GUI would improve anything? I will never understand why elitists hate GUIs. A good UI should improve things by absolutely preventing misconfiguration. That's because the GUI often gets in the way of good sysadm practices and also automated configuration such as cfengine and the like. One example is the /etc/resolv.conf file, which used to be a simple 3 line file that in karmic has been replaced with a complex and intransparent resolvconf system, that is part of the network configuation gui and clobbers /etc/resolv.conf at every boot. IIRC, resolvconf leaves a big fat #AUTOGENERATED, DO NOT EDIT comment line in the file, so at least any potential conf-file monkeys looking to poke around are clued in, and presumably a short operation can tell resolvconf to go away or at least disable itself. There's a huge difference maintaining a single-user system on a laptop and hundreds of workstations. -- Morten -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
I just edit resolv.conf anyway and fix it the next time it “breaks” (every time I log into my company VPN, even though I have the PPPoE client set to not apply DNS settings from the DHCP server). For a personal computer, I can just keep editing; I have to fix the default route every time anyway. But it would be nice to know how to “fix” it – and the routing table – permanently. From: ubuntu-devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com [mailto:ubuntu-devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Shentino Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:33 AM To: Morten Kjeldgaard Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com; Derek Broughton Subject: Re: Ubuntu Domain Server On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: On 20/10/2009, at 15.35, Derek Broughton wrote: I will never understand why a server GUI would improve anything? I will never understand why elitists hate GUIs. A good UI should improve things by absolutely preventing misconfiguration. That's because the GUI often gets in the way of good sysadm practices and also automated configuration such as cfengine and the like. One example is the /etc/resolv.conf file, which used to be a simple 3 line file that in karmic has been replaced with a complex and intransparent resolvconf system, that is part of the network configuation gui and clobbers /etc/resolv.conf at every boot. IIRC, resolvconf leaves a big fat #AUTOGENERATED, DO NOT EDIT comment line in the file, so at least any potential conf-file monkeys looking to poke around are clued in, and presumably a short operation can tell resolvconf to go away or at least disable itself. There's a huge difference maintaining a single-user system on a laptop and hundreds of workstations. -- Morten -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Ethan Baldridge wrote: I just edit resolv.conf anyway and fix it the next time it “breaks” (every time I log into my company VPN, even though I have the PPPoE client set to not apply DNS settings from the DHCP server). For a personal computer, I can just keep editing; I have to fix the default route every time anyway. But it would be nice to know how to “fix” it – and the routing table – permanently. Hence the need for a consensus on predetermined fixed configurations for a/b/c/d UDS distro if you really want it. What you have all described is a case of too many cooks spoil the broth. Which is why I tell those who ask why I keep saying we cannot do x, y, z instead of just plain a to feel free to try. The simpler the design is, the more likely you can do a good job. For those who feel I was being elitist or plain just want to keep my iron rice bowl, they are free to prove that it is viable to do x, y, z instead of just a. You mess up, I get more work :-P. You pull it off, I might get to see the end of the Microsoft monopoly. :-D Either way, I think I will still have an iron rice bowl. :-P -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Remco wrote: On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 19:28, Derek Broughton de...@pointerstop.ca wrote: As for whether they'll understand - that's what the tool is for, to make it _possible_ for them to understand. The people you would aim such a tool at certainly don't have a clue about virtual hosts, but they do know that they're running multiple domains and can't figure out how to make them both listen on port 80. This is something I ran into. I didn't care to figure out how to configure virtual hosts, so I just created a small PHP script that redirects a visitor to the correct subdirectory depending on the host name. Ugly, but it works. If I'd have to set it up now, I'd use rapache. You, however, knew that you wanted to do but not necessarily how to enable it in apache. Writing a php script probably means you know how to keep it secure too. That is way different from the uninitiated being given a powertool and left to their devices although not every GUI will prove to be a 'powertool'. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: In the first place, nothing they can do in the world of server configuration is going to be that hazardous, and in the second, it's not and never has been about whether it's wise to let them do that: THEY WILL DO IT. So it's in _everybody's_ best interest to give them the tools that will prevent them shooting themselves in the foot and making the innertubes worse for everybody. Here I agree with you 100%, Derek. It is in everyone's best interest to provide those who want to run a server with tools that will prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot. Slapping a GUI on apache config files is _not_ the tool to give them. Why not? Though the thread was originally about Domain servers, not Web servers (really, I can't get worried about what Mom and Pop can do with their web server), I'm fine with config tools for Apache too. And they don't strictly have to be gui - I just figure any config tool you can make can be GUI-ized (sorry for that abuse of the language), and most of the people it would be aimed at would be more comfortable there. If you could suggest what such a tool would actually do, I'd love to hear it. Not the general make it easy, make it safe but details. First - since I've spent way too much time in the last couple of weeks trying to explain the concept on Experts Exchange - a designer for VirtualHosts. You would need to: - know the domain name(s) used to reach the vhost - and test that their DNS is correct. - select filesystem paths and URLs to be exposed to the server, and the Option settings for those paths (with decent help about what those options are) - set log files (and log rotations) for the vhosts. - set the email address for the vhost's admin and test that the email address works. Another thing that would be hugely useful would be a mod_rewrite rule tester. Enablers for the various modules (with, at least, links to the apache documentation for those modules). And of course, syntax check the whole thing before committing it. I'm actually doing this, in a non-generic way, for a site I administer, specifically because I don't consider it worth my time to do it repetitively. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Dotan Cohen wrote: In the first place, nothing they can do in the world of server configuration is going to be that hazardous, and in the second, it's not and never has been about whether it's wise to let them do that: THEY WILL DO IT. So it's in _everybody's_ best interest to give them the tools that will prevent them shooting themselves in the foot and making the innertubes worse for everybody. Here I agree with you 100%, Derek. It is in everyone's best interest to provide those who want to run a server with tools that will prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot. Slapping a GUI on apache config files is _not_ the tool to give them. Why not? Though the thread was originally about Domain servers, not Web servers (really, I can't get worried about what Mom and Pop can do with their web server), I'm fine with config tools for Apache too. And they don't strictly have to be gui - I just figure any config tool you can make can be GUI-ized (sorry for that abuse of the language), and most of the people it would be aimed at would be more comfortable there. /me wonders if mom and pop in general will understand the stuff below...and not enable an exploitable php module/formmail.cgi/remember to update to security fixed packages. Best make this for zee sysadmin. If you could suggest what such a tool would actually do, I'd love to hear it. Not the general make it easy, make it safe but details. First - since I've spent way too much time in the last couple of weeks trying to explain the concept on Experts Exchange - a designer for VirtualHosts. You would need to: - know the domain name(s) used to reach the vhost - and test that their DNS is correct. - select filesystem paths and URLs to be exposed to the server, and the Option settings for those paths (with decent help about what those options are) - set log files (and log rotations) for the vhosts. - set the email address for the vhost's admin and test that the email address works. Another thing that would be hugely useful would be a mod_rewrite rule tester. Enablers for the various modules (with, at least, links to the apache documentation for those modules). And of course, syntax check the whole thing before committing it. I'm actually doing this, in a non-generic way, for a site I administer, specifically because I don't consider it worth my time to do it repetitively. in python-gtk/qt4? :-D -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: /me wonders if mom and pop in general will understand the stuff below...and not enable an exploitable php module/formmail.cgi/remember to update to security fixed packages. Best make this for zee sysadmin. sigh They _are_ they sysadmin. Like it or not. And yes, they'll enable an exploitable module - but they'll do that whether you make it hard for them or not. If you won't give them the tools, they'll just google for an answer, take the first one they find - safe or not - and throw it in. If it appears to work, that's _all_ they'll care about. If you give them the tools, they won't be able to enable modules that you don't bless. Of course, the modules shipped with Ubuntu may be exploitable too, and we can't force anybody to keep their system up-to-date, As for whether they'll understand - that's what the tool is for, to make it _possible_ for them to understand. The people you would aim such a tool at certainly don't have a clue about virtual hosts, but they do know that they're running multiple domains and can't figure out how to make them both listen on port 80. I'm actually doing this, in a non-generic way, for a site I administer, specifically because I don't consider it worth my time to do it repetitively. in python-gtk/qt4? :-D Python and bash. Currently it's just a collection of scripts without the GUI. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Just because one circle of money-greedy idiots is willing to sacrifice their customer's security, reputation, and business does not mean that Ubuntu has to do the same. That's what we're suggesting - that Ubuntu don't do the same. I gathered that the OP wants to make an Ubuntu Domain Server that is managed with tools designed for ease of use by untrained users. If that is not what the OP was suggesting, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. Really, it's insulting to tell someone with an idea that he can't do it because it can't be done. I was telling him that it shouldn't be done, not that it couldn't. The problem is that most business will use the tool to _replace_ proper IT professionals, not to supplement them. Duh. That's what I've been saying all along. So we desperately need tools that can limit the hazards. Limiting the hazards is not enough. There must be someone in the loop who can handle the hazards that do occur. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
This has brought my focus back on the subject line for what we're all replying to. I think it's been stated quite widely now that using a GUI to configure Apache, SMTP, etc is probably unwise (RHEL seems to disagree, but whatever), I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing to have a gui for domain server administration, or essentially what landscape is already doing, at least in part: controlling users, pushing updates, monitoring systems; it may be worth looking at. RHEL has a tool for SMTP/Apache? We have one for Apache. Give rapache a look. Their is no problem with GUI tools, so long as it is clear that they are intended for professional use only. Giving the impression that 'regular folks' can administer a server with XYZ Hack Tool is irresponsible. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Christopher Chan wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: All the RFCs are defined as finite-state engines. There really is NO reason that a tool capable of making all the correct configurations need to be predefined and fixed. It's 30 years since I did FSEs in university, but I'm pretty sure we learned that they could _all_ be automated, even then. Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and shared via NIS+. My whole point has been that it could be done, while you've been saying it couldn't. Having apparently accepted that was wrong you raise spurious issues about implementation. What does where they want their user accounts have to do with anything? Pick a reasonable default and use it. Ask them if they already have a user source, and use that. If mom pop are setting up an initial system, they'll happily use whatever you give them. My recollection is that the disk images came after the initial proposal, Maybe you need to reread the first post then. Not really. So I missed it on first read, but as I said... but even so: yeah. What makes a _second_ disk image any more significant than the first? If the first is correct, then the second, with specific mods to make it reflect a unique machine, is not that difficult. Are still talking about mom and pop here? I imagined that they would get computers that come with UDS preinstalled? They are supposed to know what mods to make? Do I hear experienced professional required? No, they aren't. I just don't see the difficulty in having an automated system make the deltas. You provide identical disk images of the fixed data, and each system gets its own image of the unique data. Simple rocket science. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and shared via NIS+. My whole point has been that it could be done, while you've been saying it couldn't. Having apparently accepted that was wrong you raise spurious issues about implementation. What does where they want their user accounts have to do with anything? Pick a reasonable default and use it. Ask them if they already have a user source, and use that. If mom pop are setting up an initial system, they'll happily use whatever you give them. There was never a question of if. The question is how wise is it to give a TIG welder to an eight year old and to tell him that he can build a hotrod. Or to give a scalpel to a six year old and to tell him that if his tummy hurts he can take out the hurting part. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Or give complex video recording and playback devices to consumers, or provide tools for publishing your own content, or advanced 3d modelling tools to amateurs. All these things where at one time considered to be the realm of the professional only, but are now commonplace commodity items. I think its called progress. On 28 Oct 2009, at 22:43, Dotan Cohen wrote: Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and shared via NIS+. My whole point has been that it could be done, while you've been saying it couldn't. Having apparently accepted that was wrong you raise spurious issues about implementation. What does where they want their user accounts have to do with anything? Pick a reasonable default and use it. Ask them if they already have a user source, and use that. If mom pop are setting up an initial system, they'll happily use whatever you give them. There was never a question of if. The question is how wise is it to give a TIG welder to an eight year old and to tell him that he can build a hotrod. Or to give a scalpel to a six year old and to tell him that if his tummy hurts he can take out the hurting part. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Tim Hawkins wrote: Or give complex video recording and playback devices to consumers, or provide tools for publishing your own content, or advanced 3d modelling tools to amateurs. All these things where at one time considered to be the realm of the professional only, but are now commonplace commodity items. Some of those tools are pretty much 'dumbed down' or limited function ones and they do not pose any danger to anyone if used improperly which is not the case with a server connected to the Internet. We have enough problems with desktops connected to the Internet. I think its called progress. People dream about the completely automatic car where man will no longer need to learn how to drive and avoid all those accidents we see today. Until then, if a person has not passed a driving test yet he can have a pedal car/bicycle which is still enough to get one killed. On 28 Oct 2009, at 22:43, Dotan Cohen wrote: Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and shared via NIS+. My whole point has been that it could be done, while you've been saying it couldn't. Having apparently accepted that was wrong you raise spurious issues about implementation. What does where they want their user accounts have to do with anything? Pick a reasonable default and use it. Ask them if they already have a user source, and use that. If mom pop are setting up an initial system, they'll happily use whatever you give them. There was never a question of if. The question is how wise is it to give a TIG welder to an eight year old and to tell him that he can build a hotrod. Or to give a scalpel to a six year old and to tell him that if his tummy hurts he can take out the hurting part. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and shared via NIS+. My whole point has been that it could be done, while you've been saying it couldn't. Having apparently accepted that was wrong you raise spurious issues about implementation. What does where they want their user accounts have to do with anything? Pick a reasonable default and use it. Ask them if they already have a user source, and use that. If mom pop are setting up an initial system, they'll happily use whatever you give them. There was never a question of if. The question is how wise is it to give a TIG welder to an eight year old and to tell him that he can build a hotrod. Or to give a scalpel to a six year old and to tell him that if his tummy hurts he can take out the hurting part. In the first place, nothing they can do in the world of server configuration is going to be that hazardous, and in the second, it's not and never has been about whether it's wise to let them do that: THEY WILL DO IT. So it's in _everybody's_ best interest to give them the tools that will prevent them shooting themselves in the foot and making the innertubes worse for everybody. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Or give complex video recording and playback devices to consumers, or provide tools for publishing your own content, or advanced 3d modelling tools to amateurs. All these things where at one time considered to be the realm of the professional only, but are now commonplace commodity items. Exactly. None of those things are dangerous. I think its called progress. If con is the opposite of pro, then what is the opposite of progress? -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
In the first place, nothing they can do in the world of server configuration is going to be that hazardous, and in the second, it's not and never has been about whether it's wise to let them do that: THEY WILL DO IT. So it's in _everybody's_ best interest to give them the tools that will prevent them shooting themselves in the foot and making the innertubes worse for everybody. Here I agree with you 100%, Derek. It is in everyone's best interest to provide those who want to run a server with tools that will prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot. Slapping a GUI on apache config files is _not_ the tool to give them. If you could suggest what such a tool would actually do, I'd love to hear it. Not the general make it easy, make it safe but details. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Jan Claeys wrote: Op woensdag 28-10-2009 om 07:36 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef Christopher Chan: Remotely administer a UDS server with a non-web-based, X-based GUI and therefore you need an Xserver on Windows. xrdp is probably better given that rdp is way faster than X or if we are going to install something on a Windows workstation to remotely administer a UDS server, just use freenx. Think mom and pop shop. Eh, why not use LDAP (and maybe other standard protocols) to talk to the UDS? That's way more economical than RDP or FreeNX even. And Gtk or Qt apps work just fine on Windows without X (with a little bit of work sometimes). (Always over a secure tunnel, of course.) Sure, whatever. GOSA gtk/qt frontend to a ldap directory. I was just explaining why some people would want Xming on WIndows plus putty or whatever. Nice suggestion there. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
I completely disagree. There's no theoretical reason why a computer program couldn't do any of the above. We are discussing practice, not theory. In theory, there isn't any difference between the two. But in practice... Professionals are primarily required to protect professionals' jobs. In practice, computers can't actually do any of those jobs _yet_, though it probably wouldn't be beyond current capability to have them rebuild engines or provide good legal advice (at least in any precedent-based legal system). I certainly believe that UIs can be built that can do a better job of system and network administration than the average person currently doing those jobs, and it really doesn't matter how much you, or anybody else, thinks that those jobs _should_ be done by professionals - it isn't going to happen. The problem with your examples is that they assume routine work. I agree that for 90% of what professionals do, a computer could do better and cheaper. One has only to look at the autobuilding industry for a classic example. However, a professional must be present for the 10% of cases where something goes wrong. In most (I admit not all) cases that means having a professional available 100% of the time, so that he will be there when things fail. Right or wrong, companies don't believe in paying professional rates for administrative work. This is a valid viewpoint for them, as their interest is in saving money. That does not mean that Ubuntu or any other entity needs to give the impression that their GUI tools (which we have already established covers 90% of use cases) cover 100% of their use cases and no experienced professional is needed. Just for the record, my field is mechanical engineering, not software or server administration. I have no vested interest in keeping server administration a closed profession. Quite the opposite, I would only benefit from it. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
You keep missing the main point. which is not whether or not people without knowledge _should_ be running servers, but that they _are_, will continue to be whether or not we support them, and can't be prevented from doing so. All of your arguments against providing the tools to support them are arguments in favour of allowing them to continue to use bad tools, to create badly configured servers, from Microsoft. My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the masses. Assessible in this context meaning seemingly designed for. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Here is a great example of people administering things that they shouldn't: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/PHP-has-an-eval-function-like-perl.aspx -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Christopher Chan wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. Easy. Remote desktop for remote administration. Of course, I do not necessarily agree with using Xming on a Windows box. Maybe xrdp is the answer to that one or freenx For remote admin of what, though? If you're going to remote admin both Windows and 'nix boxen, why wouldn't you be using your Linux desktop? If you're remote administering Windows boxes, then RDP is the way to go. I administer a heterogeneous environment, and I've never felt the need to add X to Windows. Well, you see, they have this great idea of creating a server administration GUI tool for Linux and given that one of the first things the OP was hoping for (a replacement for Windows ADS servers) it would appear that the workstations will primarily be Windows. Then there's no need for X on Windows. I'm still not getting something... -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: Here is a great example of people administering things that they shouldn't: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/PHP-has-an-eval-function-like-perl.aspx Very funny. Now, wouldn't it have been better to give Jim some useful tools? -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it commercially. On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Derek Broughton de...@pointerstop.cawrote: Dotan Cohen wrote: Here is a great example of people administering things that they shouldn't: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/PHP-has-an-eval-function-like-perl.aspx Very funny. Now, wouldn't it have been better to give Jim some useful tools? -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the masses. Assessible in this context meaning seemingly designed for. I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already accessible to the masses. They can set up completely bollixed servers with MS tools. So arguing that Ubuntu shouldn't even consider creating a better, more secure, solution isn't going to help. Just because one circle of money-greedy idiots is willing to sacrifice their customer's security, reputation, and business does not mean that Ubuntu has to do the same. I think all of the professions have made it pretty clear that really, you don't have to be a member of the profession to do most of the job. Paramedics, paralegals, paragliders ... However, a professional must be present for the 10% of cases where something goes wrong. In most (I admit not all) cases that means having a professional available 100% of the time, so that he will be there when things fail. Professionals need to be on-call. In fact, for most medical treatment, the doctor _is_ on-call. If we could make the day-to-day administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner might be far more happy to consider keeping an expert on-call. The problem is that most business will use the tool to _replace_ proper IT professionals, not to supplement them. Any solution that relies on the end-user to be responsible is dangerous. End-users are not responsible. http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/PHP-has-an-eval-function-like-perl.aspx Very funny. Now, wouldn't it have been better to give Jim some useful tools? No. It would have been better to train him. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the masses. Assessible in this context meaning seemingly designed for. I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already accessible to the masses. They can set up completely bollixed servers with MS tools. So arguing that Ubuntu shouldn't even consider creating a better, more secure, solution isn't going to help. Just because one circle of money-greedy idiots is willing to sacrifice their customer's security, reputation, and business does not mean that Ubuntu has to do the same. That's what we're suggesting - that Ubuntu don't do the same. Really, it's insulting to tell someone with an idea that he can't do it because it can't be done. The problem is that most business will use the tool to _replace_ proper IT professionals, not to supplement them. Duh. That's what I've been saying all along. So we desperately need tools that can limit the hazards. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Shentino wrote: Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it commercially. This has brought my focus back on the subject line for what we're all replying to. I think it's been stated quite widely now that using a GUI to configure Apache, SMTP, etc is probably unwise (RHEL seems to disagree, but whatever), I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing to have a gui for domain server administration, or essentially what landscape is already doing, at least in part: controlling users, pushing updates, monitoring systems; it may be worth looking at. The Landscape client itself is GPL and could probably be used to reverse engineer a server to control it, if one wanted to do so. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. Easy. Remote desktop for remote administration. Of course, I do not necessarily agree with using Xming on a Windows box. Maybe xrdp is the answer to that one or freenx For remote admin of what, though? If you're going to remote admin both Windows and 'nix boxen, why wouldn't you be using your Linux desktop? If you're remote administering Windows boxes, then RDP is the way to go. I administer a heterogeneous environment, and I've never felt the need to add X to Windows. Well, you see, they have this great idea of creating a server administration GUI tool for Linux and given that one of the first things the OP was hoping for (a replacement for Windows ADS servers) it would appear that the workstations will primarily be Windows. Then there's no need for X on Windows. I'm still not getting something... Remotely administer a UDS server with a non-web-based, X-based GUI and therefore you need an Xserver on Windows. xrdp is probably better given that rdp is way faster than X or if we are going to install something on a Windows workstation to remotely administer a UDS server, just use freenx. Think mom and pop shop. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Dotan Cohen wrote: My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the masses. Assessible in this context meaning seemingly designed for. I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already accessible to the masses. They can set up completely bollixed servers with MS tools. So arguing that Ubuntu shouldn't even consider creating a better, more secure, solution isn't going to help. Just because one circle of money-greedy idiots is willing to sacrifice their customer's security, reputation, and business does not mean that Ubuntu has to do the same. That's what we're suggesting - that Ubuntu don't do the same. Really, it's insulting to tell someone with an idea that he can't do it because it can't be done. No, that is not what we are suggesting. Not with that uber list of capabilities outlined in the beginning. The problem is that most business will use the tool to _replace_ proper IT professionals, not to supplement them. Duh. That's what I've been saying all along. So we desperately need tools that can limit the hazards. Which translates to limited functionality tools that enable a 'share folder' with share level security only or simple predefined configurations. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Dotan Cohen wrote: I completely disagree. There's no theoretical reason why a computer program couldn't do any of the above. We are discussing practice, not theory. In theory, there isn't any difference between the two. But in practice... Professionals are primarily required to protect professionals' jobs. In practice, computers can't actually do any of those jobs _yet_, though it probably wouldn't be beyond current capability to have them rebuild engines or provide good legal advice (at least in any precedent-based legal system). I certainly believe that UIs can be built that can do a better job of system and network administration than the average person currently doing those jobs, and it really doesn't matter how much you, or anybody else, thinks that those jobs _should_ be done by professionals - it isn't going to happen. The problem with your examples is that they assume routine work. I agree that for 90% of what professionals do, a computer could do better and cheaper. One has only to look at the autobuilding industry for a classic example. I think all of the professions have made it pretty clear that really, you don't have to be a member of the profession to do most of the job. Paramedics, paralegals, paragliders ... Er, yeah, but you at least got some training before they let you loose to do what you have been taught to do. So in the end, it is not recommended that the masses get do stuff like that. However, a professional must be present for the 10% of cases where something goes wrong. In most (I admit not all) cases that means having a professional available 100% of the time, so that he will be there when things fail. Professionals need to be on-call. In fact, for most medical treatment, the doctor _is_ on-call. If we could make the day-to-day administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner might be far more happy to consider keeping an expert on-call. Sure, which is only possible with predefined fixed configurations that meet the needs of a mom and pop shop and that would be all the tools does; setup things according to the specification. Right or wrong, companies don't believe in paying professional rates for administrative work. This is a valid viewpoint for them, as their interest is in saving money. That does not mean that Ubuntu or any other entity needs to give the impression that their GUI tools (which we have already established covers 90% of use cases) cover 100% of their use cases and no experienced professional is needed. Why would we ever say that? It's way beyond the scope of the proposal. You are saying that a system that creates disk images for installation and a software auditing tool does not require an experienced professional. Give me a break. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Steven Susbauer wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Shentino wrote: Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it commercially. This has brought my focus back on the subject line for what we're all replying to. I think it's been stated quite widely now that using a GUI to configure Apache, SMTP, etc is probably unwise (RHEL seems to disagree, but whatever), I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing to have a gui for domain server administration, or essentially what landscape is already doing, at least in part: controlling users, pushing updates, monitoring systems; it may be worth looking at. RHEL has a tool for SMTP/Apache? Hands up those who know end users that understand tcp/ip enough to decide on a static ip for the UDS server that will host the user account database, the update repository and the monitoring software. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Hands up those who know end users that understand tcp/ip enough to decide on a static ip for the UDS server that will host the user account database, the update repository and the monitoring software. So now you're what, bashing landscape too? Canonical supposedly makes some money off it, probably from at least a few competent administrators who find it makes their job easier. An alternative might at least solve a few of the wants of the original post without going too far overboard. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:53:08 +0800 Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Steven Susbauer wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Shentino wrote: Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it commercially. This has brought my focus back on the subject line for what we're all replying to. I think it's been stated quite widely now that using a GUI to configure Apache, SMTP, etc is probably unwise (RHEL seems to disagree, but whatever), I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing to have a gui for domain server administration, or essentially what landscape is already doing, at least in part: controlling users, pushing updates, monitoring systems; it may be worth looking at. RHEL has a tool for SMTP/Apache? We have one for Apache. Give rapache a look. 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Christopher Chan wrote: Professionals need to be on-call. In fact, for most medical treatment, the doctor _is_ on-call. If we could make the day-to-day administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner might be far more happy to consider keeping an expert on-call. Sure, which is only possible with predefined fixed configurations that meet the needs of a mom and pop shop and that would be all the tools does; setup things according to the specification. All the RFCs are defined as finite-state engines. There really is NO reason that a tool capable of making all the correct configurations need to be predefined and fixed. It's 30 years since I did FSEs in university, but I'm pretty sure we learned that they could _all_ be automated, even then. Why would we ever say that? It's way beyond the scope of the proposal. You are saying that a system that creates disk images for installation and a software auditing tool does not require an experienced professional. Give me a break. My recollection is that the disk images came after the initial proposal, but even so: yeah. What makes a _second_ disk image any more significant than the first? If the first is correct, then the second, with specific mods to make it reflect a unique machine, is not that difficult. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Steven Susbauer wrote: On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Hands up those who know end users that understand tcp/ip enough to decide on a static ip for the UDS server that will host the user account database, the update repository and the monitoring software. So now you're what, bashing landscape too? Canonical supposedly makes some money off it, probably from at least a few competent administrators who find it makes their job easier. An alternative might at least solve a few of the wants of the original post without going too far overboard. No I am not bashing landscape, I was bashing some of the ideas such as any Dick, Tom and Harry could administer a server. I think the proposal needs to be separated into two different things since you all want to gun for it. One fully automatic distro that only offers a tool to share a directory with share level access and printers for mom and pop shops. As for landspace, when you work out what 'domain server' stands for then we can say whether it fits the bill for the OP's idea. His idea of 'domain' is not just a central user account database for all machines. He differentiates between 'domain accounts' and 'local accounts' and what is available in UNIX/Linux land is at most shared 'local accounts'. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: Professionals need to be on-call. In fact, for most medical treatment, the doctor _is_ on-call. If we could make the day-to-day administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner might be far more happy to consider keeping an expert on-call. Sure, which is only possible with predefined fixed configurations that meet the needs of a mom and pop shop and that would be all the tools does; setup things according to the specification. All the RFCs are defined as finite-state engines. There really is NO reason that a tool capable of making all the correct configurations need to be predefined and fixed. It's 30 years since I did FSEs in university, but I'm pretty sure we learned that they could _all_ be automated, even then. Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and shared via NIS+. Why would we ever say that? It's way beyond the scope of the proposal. You are saying that a system that creates disk images for installation and a software auditing tool does not require an experienced professional. Give me a break. My recollection is that the disk images came after the initial proposal, Maybe you need to reread the first post then. but even so: yeah. What makes a _second_ disk image any more significant than the first? If the first is correct, then the second, with specific mods to make it reflect a unique machine, is not that difficult. Are still talking about mom and pop here? I imagined that they would get computers that come with UDS preinstalled? They are supposed to know what mods to make? Do I hear experienced professional required? -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Remco wrote: Once upon a time, Linux was very hard to use on the desktop. If you wanted to do anything, you had to read manuals and get flamed on mailinglists. In recent years this has all been turned around. There were some detractors that would argue that Linux would become as insecure as Windows because any fool could now use it, but that didn't quite happen. I don't see why this would be different for server administration. An Apache server is very easy to set up, even now. Just install apache and you're done. Still, we're not getting complaints that Ubuntu blew up the Internet. Way back when I was still learning and had a Redhat Linux 7.0 natbox, it got rooted and I only found out by chance when I saw a glibc 3.0 package listed as installed and just happened to be aware that glibc latest version was 2.2. For present desktops, you get this lovely software update reminders/alerts and of course apt/yum already preconfigured. You suppose a mom and pop outfit will be constantly monitoring their server and will therefore remember to update the thing before it gets rooted? Regardless of all these arguments, wouldn't it be great if Ubuntu made it easier for system administrators? A tool that makes it difficult to make mistakes would be a win for any user, whether they are a skilled system administrator or not. A system administrator can still make mistakes, and would benefit from a system that complains when this happens. Sorry, that is just not possible. At best you can have certain simple set configurations and a gui that will put those in place. Anything else will require a competent administrator. As a computer science student, I know about Internet security. You need a firewall, updated software, strong passwords, a secure connection, limited permissions. Yet, I would have a hard time setting up a mail server. That should not be hard to do for me. I should just be able to install a package, run a nice configuration tool from the administration menu, make sure it is sane (and be told if it isn't), and fire it up. It's not that complicated. Yet, whenever I have to do something that involves server software, suddenly it's like I travel back 10 years in time, with endless console sessions, reading man pages, searching the Internet, and a lot of trial and error. Why you get people to agree on a set configuration as a standard, then you can make a gui for just that. Anything else is way too complicated to be worth the effort to enable a clueless admin to setup. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Steven Susbauer wrote: On Oct 25, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: Dotan Cohen wrote: For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to... Linux-savvy companies are not the issue here. GUI server tools will attract mom 'n pop small businesses as well. Mom and pop small businesses do not need a server. They just need a file/print sharing tool like what you have on Mac OS X, an account with a local isp and a router from that isp. There are plenty of small enterprises dotted around Hong Kong that have ZERO it personnel and the last thing they need is to try to run a server themselves. It is impossible to make the server foolproof for such outfits. That tool is generally called a server. That Mac OS X tool is called Samba, with a nice interface to configure it. I see no reason why they should be forced to run Mac OS X to do this. Please learn to read properly before making replies. I never said they should be forced to run Mac OS X. Just because samba is a daemon does not necessarily mean that its used function is that of a server that requires administration. Sharing a folder/directory is available from Windows 95 onwards using share level access that required ZERO user/password administration. I would differentiate that as file sharing and not setting up a 'file server' which was what Ryan/the OP had in mind in the beginning along with a host of other goodies.. People should have the choice to do what they want, even if you disagree with it. Advocating for licenses to run a server is preposterous, and goes completely against the Ubuntu philosophy in general [1], which is not limited to just Ubuntu Desktop. Who are you to control what a mom 'n pop small business does or does not do? Should they be forced to hire a full time IT staff to run oldtownrootbeer.com because you don't think they should have access to a powerful yet easy to use system, because they might do bad things? They are free to do what they want and I am free to firewall them anytime their server gets rooted. Given the astronomical cost that botnets bring upon the world economy, I am surprised that nobody has decided to regulate the system administrator trade. Ubuntu Domain Server, run by clueless moms and pops, the perfect control centre for botnets. You bet they should be forced to get competent IT support if they intend to connect anything to the Internet. It is not whether they might do bad things, it is to prevent their server from being used for criminal activity because they will have no clue what is going when the FBI bursts in to seize their server for evidence/investigation/whatever in their attempts to track down Internet public enemy no. 1. In all of this you have also forgotten that Ubuntu is used worldwide, including places without much IT infrastructure, let alone IT training in order to be an uber sysadmin. I do not see what desktop deployments have to do with this thread. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Steven Susbauer wrote: On Oct 25, 2009, at 2:12 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote: Thank you for proving my point. Or proving the point that easy to use GUI configuration tools can actually help make the situation better, for example suggesting the user set a password for their SMTP server. _requiring_. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: That tool is generally called a server. That Mac OS X tool is called Samba, with a nice interface to configure it. I see no reason why they should be forced to run Mac OS X to do this. I think that Chan was giving an example. People should have the choice to do what they want, even if you disagree with it. Advocating for licenses to run a server is preposterous, and goes completely against the Ubuntu philosophy in general [1], which is not limited to just Ubuntu Desktop. So I suppose that lawyers should not be licensed? Doctors? Real estate agents? Everyone should have a choice to do whatever they want, complete anarchy? You keep missing the main point. which is not whether or not people without knowledge _should_ be running servers, but that they _are_, will continue to be whether or not we support them, and can't be prevented from doing so. All of your arguments against providing the tools to support them are arguments in favour of allowing them to continue to use bad tools, to create badly configured servers, from Microsoft. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: And you thing that simple file sharing server based on SMB are comparable to Mustang GT? No. But I think that running a public HTTP server is. No way - everybody _and_ their monkey runs a public HTTP server today. You can't expect that that will ever be done by professionals. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
John Moser wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Dwyer ryandwy...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GUI or CLI is better. Shouldn't we focus on what the typical business wants and what they're prepared to use? This is an easy question. First off, we need a Windows and Linux tool like Putty for easy X11 forwarding over SSH. The Windows version needs to bring an X server of its own (or at least have a fully proper MSI package that you can publish with it, to give a viable X server). It could integrate with Cygwin/X as well or something. I say like putty because the actual application interface is going to be different. What you're going to want is a tool that connects across; discovers a specific set of applications; and gives one-click access to run them over a compressed X11 session. I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: I agree that all networks should be managed by an experienced administrator, but unfortunately a lot of them aren't. We can't change that. Many businesses just want something that works and is easy to manage, even if there are issues such as no backups. The target audience is the general public, and the general public isn't going to know how to configure servers using a CLI. They want something simple that gets the job done, and they're who we need to cater for. Then when these inexperienced admins screw up, who will be to blame? Ubuntu, naturally, fo not making ABC or XYZ intuitive, obvious, or easy. Why not have a GUI program that performs brain surgery? That rebuilds Ford smallblocks? That gives legal advice? Some jobs require a professional, and making them accessible does nobody any good. I completely disagree. There's no theoretical reason why a computer program couldn't do any of the above. Professionals are primarily required to protect professionals' jobs. In practice, computers can't actually do any of those jobs _yet_, though it probably wouldn't be beyond current capability to have them rebuild engines or provide good legal advice (at least in any precedent-based legal system). I certainly believe that UIs can be built that can do a better job of system and network administration than the average person currently doing those jobs, and it really doesn't matter how much you, or anybody else, thinks that those jobs _should_ be done by professionals - it isn't going to happen. Right or wrong, companies don't believe in paying professional rates for administrative work. -- derek -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dotan Cohen wrote on 24/10/09 13:25: ... Why not have a GUI program that performs brain surgery? That rebuilds Ford smallblocks? That gives legal advice? Some jobs require a professional, and making them accessible does nobody any good. The software that brain surgeons use is highly graphical. http://www.5min.com/Video/114223642 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpGGL2pb2nc If it was text-only, it would be much less effective, and brain surgeons would therefore be less trustworthy, not more. It is not the difficulty of the software they use that leads you to trust brain surgeons, mechanics, or lawyers; it is their training, experience, and support staff. You are trying to make server administrators trustworthy by making server software artificially difficult to use. This strategy would work only if the server software market was uncompetitive, because it is a strategy that severely retards the usefulness of the software. A graphical interface could do a much better job of presenting and manipulating things like directory information trees, network topology, and resource use over time, than a text-only presentation ever will. - -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkrlqDwACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecr1zwCgpe4JXXW/5bS7ZsiGOYb2GUj1 LqwAoIrad1nP6TQsNeHZydJzvLnuaDxx =HjaF -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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: John Moser wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Dwyer ryandwy...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GUI or CLI is better. Shouldn't we focus on what the typical business wants and what they're prepared to use? This is an easy question. First off, we need a Windows and Linux tool like Putty for easy X11 forwarding over SSH. The Windows version needs to bring an X server of its own (or at least have a fully proper MSI package that you can publish with it, to give a viable X server). It could integrate with Cygwin/X as well or something. I say like putty because the actual application interface is going to be different. What you're going to want is a tool that connects across; discovers a specific set of applications; and gives one-click access to run them over a compressed X11 session. I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. Easy. Remote desktop for remote administration. Of course, I do not necessarily agree with using Xming on a Windows box. Maybe xrdp is the answer to that one or freenx -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Caroline Ford wrote: On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: Or puts them out of a job? Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might get him sued, and thus out of a business. If it is a sole proprietorship, it might put him out of a house too. I meant the sysadmins complaining about making system administration easier, and possibly deskilled. If you feed yourself through Linux system administration you have an interest in it being inaccessible. Caroline Hey, you know what. I think I like this idea. This will guarantee a fixed, non-flexible solution that will require the services of real system administrators to do whatever or troubleshoot in the event of a problem. In the end, the GUI will make some things inaccessible and I could setup a company and actually charge per incident instead of trying to convince mom and pop outfits to pay some monthly/yearly service charge and try to justify it when nothing seems to go wrong. Please make sure you do not say anything about raid1/mirrored disks, backup and whatever during the installation process. As for the initial ambitions of creating disk images, replacing Windows ADS servers and audit software, please remember not to mention that although there are no viruses for Linux, there is no guarantee of the Windows clients being protected, we do not currently have ADS support and you can forget about all the random software currently installed may or may not work with Wine if you intend to convert the workstations to Ubuntu. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Can you explain how the system becomes inflexible by adding a GUI tool? Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:05:37 To: Caroline Fordcaroline.ford.w...@googlemail.com Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.comubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Ubuntu Domain Server Caroline Ford wrote: On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: Or puts them out of a job? Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might get him sued, and thus out of a business. If it is a sole proprietorship, it might put him out of a house too. I meant the sysadmins complaining about making system administration easier, and possibly deskilled. If you feed yourself through Linux system administration you have an interest in it being inaccessible. Caroline Hey, you know what. I think I like this idea. This will guarantee a fixed, non-flexible solution that will require the services of real system administrators to do whatever or troubleshoot in the event of a problem. In the end, the GUI will make some things inaccessible and I could setup a company and actually charge per incident instead of trying to convince mom and pop outfits to pay some monthly/yearly service charge and try to justify it when nothing seems to go wrong. Please make sure you do not say anything about raid1/mirrored disks, backup and whatever during the installation process. As for the initial ambitions of creating disk images, replacing Windows ADS servers and audit software, please remember not to mention that although there are no viruses for Linux, there is no guarantee of the Windows clients being protected, we do not currently have ADS support and you can forget about all the random software currently installed may or may not work with Wine if you intend to convert the workstations to Ubuntu. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Derek Broughton wrote: Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: John Moser wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Dwyer ryandwy...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GUI or CLI is better. Shouldn't we focus on what the typical business wants and what they're prepared to use? This is an easy question. First off, we need a Windows and Linux tool like Putty for easy X11 forwarding over SSH. The Windows version needs to bring an X server of its own (or at least have a fully proper MSI package that you can publish with it, to give a viable X server). It could integrate with Cygwin/X as well or something. I say like putty because the actual application interface is going to be different. What you're going to want is a tool that connects across; discovers a specific set of applications; and gives one-click access to run them over a compressed X11 session. I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. Easy. Remote desktop for remote administration. Of course, I do not necessarily agree with using Xming on a Windows box. Maybe xrdp is the answer to that one or freenx For remote admin of what, though? If you're going to remote admin both Windows and 'nix boxen, why wouldn't you be using your Linux desktop? If you're remote administering Windows boxes, then RDP is the way to go. I administer a heterogeneous environment, and I've never felt the need to add X to Windows. Well, you see, they have this great idea of creating a server administration GUI tool for Linux and given that one of the first things the OP was hoping for (a replacement for Windows ADS servers) it would appear that the workstations will primarily be Windows. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Op vrijdag 23-10-2009 om 13:03 uur [tijdzone +1030], schreef Ryan Dwyer: BTW: GUI tools shouldn't run on a server, but on the admin's (or pseudo-admin's) desktop. Using a secure connection to the server, of course. I take it no one has any issues with web based GUI tools? That's one obvious way to do it, although real GUI tools (if designed well) can offer better usability than WebUI tools. -- Jan Claeys -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Op vrijdag 23-10-2009 om 11:57 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Kevin Fries: I mentioned this the other day, and other than a few people making off line comments indicating that they had never heard of the product, my suggestion of GOsa got completely ignored. Maybe it needs better documentation (howtos etc.) promotion? ;-) And I mean howtos that also explain how to integrate it with all the other stuff. Or maybe those exist, but nobody knows them? Then it needs better marketing... ;) -- Jan Claeys -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Jan Claeys wrote: Op vrijdag 23-10-2009 om 11:57 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Kevin Fries: I mentioned this the other day, and other than a few people making off line comments indicating that they had never heard of the product, my suggestion of GOsa got completely ignored. Maybe it needs better documentation (howtos etc.) promotion? ;-) And I mean howtos that also explain how to integrate it with all the other stuff. Or maybe those exist, but nobody knows them? Then it needs better marketing... ;) What it really needs is people agreeing to use that as a standard. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
schultz.patr...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain how the system becomes inflexible by adding a GUI tool? Well, the whole premise for the tool was apparently to enable non-admins to administer a server. Are you going to give a whole list of options that they know nothing about? As for those in the know, feel free to create a tool for the myriad possible configurations out there. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:05:37 To: Caroline Fordcaroline.ford.w...@googlemail.com Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.comubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Ubuntu Domain Server Caroline Ford wrote: On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: Or puts them out of a job? Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might get him sued, and thus out of a business. If it is a sole proprietorship, it might put him out of a house too. I meant the sysadmins complaining about making system administration easier, and possibly deskilled. If you feed yourself through Linux system administration you have an interest in it being inaccessible. Caroline Hey, you know what. I think I like this idea. This will guarantee a fixed, non-flexible solution that will require the services of real system administrators to do whatever or troubleshoot in the event of a problem. In the end, the GUI will make some things inaccessible and I could setup a company and actually charge per incident instead of trying to convince mom and pop outfits to pay some monthly/yearly service charge and try to justify it when nothing seems to go wrong. Please make sure you do not say anything about raid1/mirrored disks, backup and whatever during the installation process. As for the initial ambitions of creating disk images, replacing Windows ADS servers and audit software, please remember not to mention that although there are no viruses for Linux, there is no guarantee of the Windows clients being protected, we do not currently have ADS support and you can forget about all the random software currently installed may or may not work with Wine if you intend to convert the workstations to Ubuntu. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
And you thing that simple file sharing server based on SMB are comparable to Mustang GT? No. But I think that running a public HTTP server is. Any user can run a public HTTP server without knowing what the hell they are doing. They just follow a howto from the-perfect-server-setup.tk. Of course, that howto also recommends setting up a mail server, but inadvertently doesn't set a password for the SMTP server. Thank you for proving my point. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Oct 25, 2009, at 2:12 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote: And you thing that simple file sharing server based on SMB are comparable to Mustang GT? No. But I think that running a public HTTP server is. Any user can run a public HTTP server without knowing what the hell they are doing. They just follow a howto from the-perfect-server-setup.tk. Of course, that howto also recommends setting up a mail server, but inadvertently doesn't set a password for the SMTP server. Thank you for proving my point. Or proving the point that easy to use GUI configuration tools can actually help make the situation better, for example suggesting the user set a password for their SMTP server. The lack of tools will not prevent untrained users from doing things they don't know how to do, but having them can make them at least do it a little better. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
The lack of tools will not prevent untrained users from doing things they don't know how to do, but having them can make them at least do it a little better. There is no lack of tools for administrating a server. However, the present tools demand a minimum understanding of networks, including security. Developing tools which do not demand any prerequisite knowledge will lead to unknowledgable people performing dangerous activities with their servers. They may be putting their data, or their customers' and associates' data at risk. How would you feel if you discovered that the mom 'n pop auto parts store that you order online from and delivers directly to your garage, was storing your email address in a publically-accessible page, indexed by google? Now, imagine that it is you credit card information in addition to your email address. Why wouldn't they do that, it makes it easier for the different workers to find the info, even from their cellphones while on the road, right? -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:22, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: The lack of tools will not prevent untrained users from doing things they don't know how to do, but having them can make them at least do it a little better. There is no lack of tools for administrating a server. However, the present tools demand a minimum understanding of networks, including security. No they don't. They require a howto. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Remco wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:22, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: The lack of tools will not prevent untrained users from doing things they don't know how to do, but having them can make them at least do it a little better. There is no lack of tools for administrating a server. However, the present tools demand a minimum understanding of networks, including security. No they don't. They require a howto. Which comes back to the 'blame Ubuntu' part again. If they mess up following a howto, it is the howtos fault. If for any reason the 'make it easy to do' tool messes up, it is that tool's fault. If you come up with a piece of rubbish for a GUI, it is YOU who put that rootable, botable box on the Net. You can bet on what real admins feel about any distro that facilitates the work of criminals such as spammers and virus writers. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On 25 Oct 2009, at 13:03, Chan Chung Hang Christopher christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Remco wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:22, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: The lack of tools will not prevent untrained users from doing things they don't know how to do, but having them can make them at least do it a little better. There is no lack of tools for administrating a server. However, the present tools demand a minimum understanding of networks, including security. No they don't. They require a howto. Which comes back to the 'blame Ubuntu' part again. If they mess up following a howto, it is the howtos fault. If for any reason the 'make it easy to do' tool messes up, it is that tool's fault. If you come up with a piece of rubbish for a GUI, it is YOU who put that rootable, botable box on the Net. You can bet on what real admins feel about any distro that facilitates the work of criminals such as spammers and virus writers. Or puts them out of a job? Caroline -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Which comes back to the 'blame Ubuntu' part again. If they mess up following a howto, it is the howtos fault. If for any reason the 'make it easy to do' tool messes up, it is that tool's fault. If you come up with a piece of rubbish for a GUI, it is YOU who put that rootable, botable box on the Net. You can bet on what real admins feel about any distro that facilitates the work of criminals such as spammers and virus writers. It will be Ubuntu to blame when the line of though goes something like this: Wow, this new Ubuntu thing can get us on the 'net for free. Lets try it. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Or puts them out of a job? Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might get him sued, and thus out of a business. If it is a sole proprietorship, it might put him out of a house too. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: Or puts them out of a job? Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might get him sued, and thus out of a business. If it is a sole proprietorship, it might put him out of a house too. I meant the sysadmins complaining about making system administration easier, and possibly deskilled. If you feed yourself through Linux system administration you have an interest in it being inaccessible. Caroline -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might get him sued, and thus out of a business. If it is a sole proprietorship, it might put him out of a house too. I meant the sysadmins complaining about making system administration easier, and possibly deskilled. I see. If you feed yourself through Linux system administration you have an interest in it being inaccessible. Someone may feed himself by selling used books. He has no interest in learning sister admiration whatever that may be. He just wants that new Unbuto thing that will let his customers see what books he has. And of course he will make sure that he can access the customer's data (name, phone number, email address, credit card info) from a little hidden link in the corner that nobody would ever notice. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Oct 25, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote: If you feed yourself through Linux system administration you have an interest in it being inaccessible. Someone may feed himself by selling used books. He has no interest in learning sister admiration whatever that may be. He just wants that new Unbuto thing that will let his customers see what books he has. And of course he will make sure that he can access the customer's data (name, phone number, email address, credit card info) from a little hidden link in the corner that nobody would ever notice. This could be accomplished just as easily on any webhost and is certainly not going to be triggered by a system administration utility, though by this logical thread Ubuntu had better get on with removing Quanta and anything that makes a complex and possibly dangerous process easier. Not including these things is of course not going to hurt anything of course. Some people will use a howto to set it up, some people will manage to get it working good enough. People that have no interest in either will use another distribution which does include them. Of the three I would rather they use the other distro; they're probably safer, but it doesn't do much for Ubuntu advocacy. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Someone may feed himself by selling used books. He has no interest in learning sister admiration whatever that may be. He just wants that new Unbuto thing that will let his customers see what books he has. And of course he will make sure that he can access the customer's data (name, phone number, email address, credit card info) from a little hidden link in the corner that nobody would ever notice. This could be accomplished just as easily on any webhost and is certainly not going to be triggered by a system administration utility, though by this logical thread Ubuntu had better get on with removing Quanta and anything that makes a complex and possibly dangerous process easier. This is true. I should have used malware and spam server as the example. Not including these things is of course not going to hurt anything of course. Some people will use a howto to set it up, some people will manage to get it working good enough. People that have no interest in either will use another distribution which does include them. Of the three I would rather they use the other distro; they're probably safer, but it doesn't do much for Ubuntu advocacy. I think that Ubuntu doesn't need to give people another gun to shoot themselves in the foot. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Caroline Ford wrote: On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: Or puts them out of a job? Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might get him sued, and thus out of a business. If it is a sole proprietorship, it might put him out of a house too. I meant the sysadmins complaining about making system administration easier, and possibly deskilled. If you feed yourself through Linux system administration you have an interest in it being inaccessible. Hahhaha. I am hired for my skills and knowledge, not for creating a system that nobody knows how to work. You have heard of outsourcing right? Well, they are welcome to replace me with any company since that leaves them with far more support than they would get if I get run over by a bus. I wonder why they do not do that though. BTW, I have Turk friend who has been using Linux and also been writing an inhouse system for the company he works for. Some young chap joined the senior management with his head full of theories and got the entire first generation of managers that built the company to leave whether by firing or harassing them. He is also gunning for my Turk friend. Ever since this chap got in, the IT budget has ballooned with the introduction of Microsoft software (for which you can pick any random person of the street to administer) it appears that soon he will be able to tell my friend to leave with an outsourcing arrangement. The implementators of Microsoft Dynamics took one look at my friend's inhouse system and asked whether he was selling it. Oh, btw, that uber expensive Microsoft Dynamics system crashes on a regular basis whereas the inhouse system had no problems at all. I have recently been given an extra hand. Do you know what I will be doing with him. Once the current list of big jobs are done and things have settled down, I will doing skills transfer because that is what I love doing as I used to be a Linux instructor at an adult computer training centre. If the school can find some random person better than me at my job, they can very well hire him or her. When I joined the school, the previous predecessor had already been gone for a month. I had to get in there and work out all the rubbish that was setup by him and his predecessors and get things ship shape. BTW, the school is a Microsoft shop. I introduced Linux and OpenSolaris to get things ship shape. You can guess what kind of system administrators they previously had. I'd call them paper MCSEs (of which I was one, I almost got my MCSE (later NT 4.0 track) certificate a month after justing attending a two week crash course for MCSE certification by successfully passing 4 required exams and an elective soon after and I had never had an IT job prior to that crash course) but hey, I would have been just like them if I had actually got a Windows related job and not a string of Linux related jobs for the next decade or so. For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to have IT heads who know their stuff. You cannot make the systems inaccessible to them. You also do not have to worry about them looking for and hiring some random idiot off the street. As for companies like the ones my Turk friend works for, they are more than welcome to put us out of a job and pay through the nose for Microsoft rubbish. If they do not appreciate just how much we are saving them and how much productivity we give them, we do not want to work for them. But you bet that there is no way I am going to support the stupid idea of empowering those who are not qualified. Why do we have driver's/plumber's/electrician's permits/licenses? They should likewise be system administrator's permits/licenses. (Now I am really showing a vested interest in making system administration inaccessible - to those who should not be system administrators in the first place) -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to... Linux-savvy companies are not the issue here. GUI server tools will attract mom 'n pop small businesses as well. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Dotan Cohen wrote: For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to... Linux-savvy companies are not the issue here. GUI server tools will attract mom 'n pop small businesses as well. Mom and pop small businesses do not need a server. They just need a file/print sharing tool like what you have on Mac OS X, an account with a local isp and a router from that isp. There are plenty of small enterprises dotted around Hong Kong that have ZERO it personnel and the last thing they need is to try to run a server themselves. It is impossible to make the server foolproof for such outfits. If they need a Windows server or a Linux server, they need IT personnel and they need real system administrators and not random idiots who know how to point and click. -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Oct 25, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: Dotan Cohen wrote: For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to... Linux-savvy companies are not the issue here. GUI server tools will attract mom 'n pop small businesses as well. Mom and pop small businesses do not need a server. They just need a file/print sharing tool like what you have on Mac OS X, an account with a local isp and a router from that isp. There are plenty of small enterprises dotted around Hong Kong that have ZERO it personnel and the last thing they need is to try to run a server themselves. It is impossible to make the server foolproof for such outfits. That tool is generally called a server. That Mac OS X tool is called Samba, with a nice interface to configure it. I see no reason why they should be forced to run Mac OS X to do this. People should have the choice to do what they want, even if you disagree with it. Advocating for licenses to run a server is preposterous, and goes completely against the Ubuntu philosophy in general [1], which is not limited to just Ubuntu Desktop. Who are you to control what a mom 'n pop small business does or does not do? Should they be forced to hire a full time IT staff to run oldtownrootbeer.com because you don't think they should have access to a powerful yet easy to use system, because they might do bad things? In all of this you have also forgotten that Ubuntu is used worldwide, including places without much IT infrastructure, let alone IT training in order to be an uber sysadmin. [1]: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
You are free to create such a GUI tool, or hire someone to create it, and (if it has sufficient quality and is secure) get it into Ubuntu. 2009/10/25 Steven Susbauer stupendousst...@me.com: Should they be forced to hire a full time IT staff to run oldtownrootbeer.com Why would someone get a server just to host a website (with the associated expenses in equipment, power and bandwith)? Aren't there web hosting companies in your world? Cheers, -- Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT) Free Software Developer 363DEAE3 -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
Mom and pop small businesses do not need a server. They just need a file/print sharing tool like what you have on Mac OS X, an account with a local isp and a router from that isp. These shops think that with a server they can access their work from home or on the road, run a website, and other goodies. The have all heard of the intercords and how much money they can make on it. There are plenty of small enterprises dotted around Hong Kong that have ZERO it personnel and the last thing they need is to try to run a server themselves. It is impossible to make the server foolproof for such outfits. That is exactly my point. If they need a Windows server or a Linux server, they need IT personnel and they need real system administrators and not random idiots who know how to point and click. Thank you! -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
That tool is generally called a server. That Mac OS X tool is called Samba, with a nice interface to configure it. I see no reason why they should be forced to run Mac OS X to do this. I think that Chan was giving an example. People should have the choice to do what they want, even if you disagree with it. Advocating for licenses to run a server is preposterous, and goes completely against the Ubuntu philosophy in general [1], which is not limited to just Ubuntu Desktop. So I suppose that lawyers should not be licensed? Doctors? Real estate agents? Everyone should have a choice to do whatever they want, complete anarchy? Who are you to control what a mom 'n pop small business does or does not do? An unwitting customer who may have an account with them. Or might receive spam from their compromised box. Should they be forced to hire a full time IT staff to run oldtownrootbeer.com because you don't think they should have access to a powerful yet easy to use system, because they might do bad things? Yes, they should have a competent IT professional on call. Not because they might do bad things, but because they may do irresponsible things. In all of this you have also forgotten that Ubuntu is used worldwide, including places without much IT infrastructure, let alone IT training in order to be an uber sysadmin. What has this strawman have to do with the argument that servers should be run by competent IT professionals? -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
As a computer science student, I know about Internet security. As a mechanical engineering student, I don't know anything about internet security. You don't want to give me powerful tools and let me loose on the wild wild web. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- 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: Ubuntu Domain Server
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 23:42, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: As a computer science student, I know about Internet security. As a mechanical engineering student, I don't know anything about internet security. You don't want to give me powerful tools and let me loose on the wild wild web. Actually, I kind of want to let you loose and see what happens. If you turn out to cause trouble, an abuse mail to your provider is two clicks away. You may also have noticed that all the things I listed as important for security can be checked for by the system. I would like to see a list of problem areas that can't be checked for sanity like that. And then find solutions for that, obviously. -- 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
