Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Serge van Ginderachter < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The "GUI" should be web based. And the framework needs to store > > It should at least not be some X app. As fart as I'm concerned, it could > even be some curses console app. > Or such a curses app could be one of the front ends. > > > information in an open database, that is a databse that can be > > accessed, plugged into and added to > > It very much depends on which kind of data you are referring to. > A lot of the configuration data already is stored somewhere (/etc). > Some databases already are readily available (ldap?) > > My point, be carefull not tu build the n-th new database backend. > > At first sight, I would be inclined to have a look at what can be stored > in the Samba 4 ldap backend. > > Tools just would need to > - interface with that ldap backend, for easy maintenance > - services connect to that ldap backend to implement the settings (think > something like landscape client?) > > > > >Serge > > Serge van Ginderachter http://www.vanginderachter.be/ > > Kreeg u een "odt" bestand en kan u deze niet openen? Zie > http://ginsys.be/odf > > > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > If we are going to continue to build around Samaba v4, can we get the data out easily? That's the point of the database. Reporting across one or more computers/servers -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
> The "GUI" should be web based. And the framework needs to store It should at least not be some X app. As fart as I'm concerned, it could even be some curses console app. Or such a curses app could be one of the front ends. > information in an open database, that is a databse that can be > accessed, plugged into and added to It very much depends on which kind of data you are referring to. A lot of the configuration data already is stored somewhere (/etc). Some databases already are readily available (ldap?) My point, be carefull not tu build the n-th new database backend. At first sight, I would be inclined to have a look at what can be stored in the Samba 4 ldap backend. Tools just would need to - interface with that ldap backend, for easy maintenance - services connect to that ldap backend to implement the settings (think something like landscape client?) Serge Serge van Ginderachter http://www.vanginderachter.be/ Kreeg u een "odt" bestand en kan u deze niet openen? Zie http://ginsys.be/odf -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Serge van Ginderachter < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > My 2 cents along the line. > > > I'm picking into this discussion, and spit out some different thought on > the matter, to broaden the subject. > Some of these thought might be off-topic for this thread, but I'm pretty > confident they are very on topic on this list. > > I'm looking at this, as a former 100% MS shop engineer, having worked for > different small businesses, and with the needs to quickly setup an > environment for small workgroups. And with 'small' I mean lots of workgroups > strating from a coouple of users up to somewhere between 15 or 30 users. The > needs are comparable to what one needs for say 75 users, but the budget is > very different. That's where a product like Microsoft Small Business Server > rules most networks. Technically, it sucks, but for basic stuff, it hgets > the job done. > > > - "Martin Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Serge has pointed out what should probably be a 5th requirement. > > * Easy to use > > No point in having a GUI that is difficult to use. Windows is full of > > examples of such GUIs and gave GUIs a bad name. Additionally, if the > > tool makes it possible to manage a set of machines at the expense of > > managing 1 machine easily then it has failed the ease of use test. > > When I'm making an assessment of what is needed, I distinct two big > things: > > 1. some gui for *basic* day to day configuration, the kind of stuff a > power user @customer needs to manage himself > - first en foremost, user management, including central and single > authentication, and ideally linked to other things that are important to a > user: >* email address and mailbox management >* managing access to network resources, and managing the desktop > environment so the user easily connects to them (eg. shared network drives) > - managing updates > - managing ip addresses, dns, dhcp, ... > - managing shared printers > 2. easy setup and management for all hosts belonging to a network > I can't hold myself to compare to the Microsoft "domain" model, where > lots of basic stuff is easily centrally managed > > > Here is the requirements list so far: > > > > 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server > > 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known > > security architecture > > 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines > > 4) Open Source > > 5) Easy to use - for 1 or more machines > > > > Are there any packages that can meet such requirements? > > Not AFAIK. > > - ebox is a starter, but only manages a local pc, not a network domain > - landscape does some basic stuff, also, but is way to basic imho. and it > doesnt handle central authentication. and it's not free software >read up on > http://www.vanginderachter.be/2008/canonical-landscape-for-ubuntu/ for > more of my thoughts on this; > > Some other thoughts: > > * What we really need is a framework for this. Make a good framework, and > GUI stuff will follow. Making some GUIS to solve all problems without being > able to operate by CLI is not the way to go. > * one of the lead projects to take into acount, imho, is Samba 4, which > would be the Active Directory tool on open SOurce. Samba is becoming more > and more the de facto standard for a lot of stuff, and might be the project > to pick to further standardize on. > * eg. LDAP is a standard, but there is no standard address book scheme, > which all mail clients adhere to. > * there ain't something as a standard Samba implementation > > As Martin noted, it's about ease of use. All of this stuff already exists. > But there just isn't a standardized way to implement it. It's pretty stupid > for having to reinvent the wheel for each small customer. > > I'm looking forward on other people's thoughts on all of this and more. > > > >Serge > > Serge van Ginderachter http://www.vanginderachter.be/ > > Kreeg u een "odt" bestand en kan u deze niet openen? Zie > http://ginsys.be/odf > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > The "GUI" should be web based. And the framework needs to store information in an open database, that is a databse that can be accessed, plugged into and added to -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Serge, There is some discussion around a Ubuntu Small Business Server in Ubuntu brainstorm. I agree with the idea of building a framework to deal with these problems. I think it's the first step into simplifying stuff. Cheers, Leandro. Em Dom, 2008-05-04 às 21:44 +0200, Serge van Ginderachter escreveu: > Hi folks, > > > My 2 cents along the line. > > > I'm picking into this discussion, and spit out some different thought on the > matter, to broaden the subject. > Some of these thought might be off-topic for this thread, but I'm pretty > confident they are very on topic on this list. > > I'm looking at this, as a former 100% MS shop engineer, having worked for > different small businesses, and with the needs to quickly setup an > environment for small workgroups. And with 'small' I mean lots of workgroups > strating from a coouple of users up to somewhere between 15 or 30 users. The > needs are comparable to what one needs for say 75 users, but the budget is > very different. That's where a product like Microsoft Small Business Server > rules most networks. Technically, it sucks, but for basic stuff, it hgets the > job done. > > > - "Martin Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Serge has pointed out what should probably be a 5th requirement. > > * Easy to use > > No point in having a GUI that is difficult to use. Windows is full of > > examples of such GUIs and gave GUIs a bad name. Additionally, if the > > tool makes it possible to manage a set of machines at the expense of > > managing 1 machine easily then it has failed the ease of use test. > > When I'm making an assessment of what is needed, I distinct two big things: > > 1. some gui for *basic* day to day configuration, the kind of stuff a power > user @customer needs to manage himself > - first en foremost, user management, including central and single > authentication, and ideally linked to other things that are important to a > user: > * email address and mailbox management > * managing access to network resources, and managing the desktop > environment so the user easily connects to them (eg. shared network drives) > - managing updates > - managing ip addresses, dns, dhcp, ... > - managing shared printers > 2. easy setup and management for all hosts belonging to a network > I can't hold myself to compare to the Microsoft "domain" model, where lots > of basic stuff is easily centrally managed > > > Here is the requirements list so far: > > > > 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server > > 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known > > security architecture > > 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines > > 4) Open Source > > 5) Easy to use - for 1 or more machines > > > > Are there any packages that can meet such requirements? > > Not AFAIK. > > - ebox is a starter, but only manages a local pc, not a network domain > - landscape does some basic stuff, also, but is way to basic imho. and it > doesnt handle central authentication. and it's not free software > read up on > http://www.vanginderachter.be/2008/canonical-landscape-for-ubuntu/ for more > of my thoughts on this; > > Some other thoughts: > > * What we really need is a framework for this. Make a good framework, and GUI > stuff will follow. Making some GUIS to solve all problems without being able > to operate by CLI is not the way to go. > * one of the lead projects to take into acount, imho, is Samba 4, which would > be the Active Directory tool on open SOurce. Samba is becoming more and more > the de facto standard for a lot of stuff, and might be the project to pick to > further standardize on. > * eg. LDAP is a standard, but there is no standard address book scheme, which > all mail clients adhere to. > * there ain't something as a standard Samba implementation > > As Martin noted, it's about ease of use. All of this stuff already exists. > But there just isn't a standardized way to implement it. It's pretty stupid > for having to reinvent the wheel for each small customer. > > I'm looking forward on other people's thoughts on all of this and more. > > > > Serge > > Serge van Ginderachter http://www.vanginderachter.be/ > > Kreeg u een "odt" bestand en kan u deze niet openen? Zie > http://ginsys.be/odf > -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Hi folks, My 2 cents along the line. I'm picking into this discussion, and spit out some different thought on the matter, to broaden the subject. Some of these thought might be off-topic for this thread, but I'm pretty confident they are very on topic on this list. I'm looking at this, as a former 100% MS shop engineer, having worked for different small businesses, and with the needs to quickly setup an environment for small workgroups. And with 'small' I mean lots of workgroups strating from a coouple of users up to somewhere between 15 or 30 users. The needs are comparable to what one needs for say 75 users, but the budget is very different. That's where a product like Microsoft Small Business Server rules most networks. Technically, it sucks, but for basic stuff, it hgets the job done. - "Martin Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Serge has pointed out what should probably be a 5th requirement. > * Easy to use > No point in having a GUI that is difficult to use. Windows is full of > examples of such GUIs and gave GUIs a bad name. Additionally, if the > tool makes it possible to manage a set of machines at the expense of > managing 1 machine easily then it has failed the ease of use test. When I'm making an assessment of what is needed, I distinct two big things: 1. some gui for *basic* day to day configuration, the kind of stuff a power user @customer needs to manage himself - first en foremost, user management, including central and single authentication, and ideally linked to other things that are important to a user: * email address and mailbox management * managing access to network resources, and managing the desktop environment so the user easily connects to them (eg. shared network drives) - managing updates - managing ip addresses, dns, dhcp, ... - managing shared printers 2. easy setup and management for all hosts belonging to a network I can't hold myself to compare to the Microsoft "domain" model, where lots of basic stuff is easily centrally managed > Here is the requirements list so far: > > 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server > 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known > security architecture > 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines > 4) Open Source > 5) Easy to use - for 1 or more machines > > Are there any packages that can meet such requirements? Not AFAIK. - ebox is a starter, but only manages a local pc, not a network domain - landscape does some basic stuff, also, but is way to basic imho. and it doesnt handle central authentication. and it's not free software read up on http://www.vanginderachter.be/2008/canonical-landscape-for-ubuntu/ for more of my thoughts on this; Some other thoughts: * What we really need is a framework for this. Make a good framework, and GUI stuff will follow. Making some GUIS to solve all problems without being able to operate by CLI is not the way to go. * one of the lead projects to take into acount, imho, is Samba 4, which would be the Active Directory tool on open SOurce. Samba is becoming more and more the de facto standard for a lot of stuff, and might be the project to pick to further standardize on. * eg. LDAP is a standard, but there is no standard address book scheme, which all mail clients adhere to. * there ain't something as a standard Samba implementation As Martin noted, it's about ease of use. All of this stuff already exists. But there just isn't a standardized way to implement it. It's pretty stupid for having to reinvent the wheel for each small customer. I'm looking forward on other people's thoughts on all of this and more. Serge Serge van Ginderachter http://www.vanginderachter.be/ Kreeg u een "odt" bestand en kan u deze niet openen? Zie http://ginsys.be/odf -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Those with thousands of servers can justify the cost of commercial services. Those of us at the margins have more modest aspirations. Now that Ebox has displaced Webmin in the Debian world, I am more interested in working in that sphere. Once Ebox is competent at the most common tasks, perhaps I will be more interested in grander schemes. Management of Apache virtual servers and modules is high on my list. Jim On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Ante Karamatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:09:26 -0700 > Martin Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It looks like Landscape > > (http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape) does some things, but > > it is missing an important requirement: > > > > * Open source > > IIRC, program you install on your server is open source. Landscape web > site... Well, can web site be open source? :) This is 'software as > service' and as such is a grey area of open source. > > > > It appears from the way that it is described that you need a support > > contract with Canonical to use it. > > That's true. > > -- > > > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:09:26 -0700 Martin Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It looks like Landscape > (http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape) does some things, but > it is missing an important requirement: > > * Open source IIRC, program you install on your server is open source. Landscape web site... Well, can web site be open source? :) This is 'software as service' and as such is a grey area of open source. > It appears from the way that it is described that you need a support > contract with Canonical to use it. That's true. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Jonathan points out that it needs good configuration reporting capabilities: The other requirement that needs to be there is reporting ablity. One of things that Landscape is currently lacking from what I have heard. The ability to manage a large group of computers, report back on the inventory of the machine (hardware, software, users) and create custom reports for the entire enterprise. An example: Give me all of my servers that have X amount of RAM, plus available slots to put more memory in. Also once this tool is created, expand it more importanlty to my clients. So now I can have one piece of management software that I can manage my entire infrastructre across and deploy patches, install software, setup, create and deploy confirautions and report across the entire enterprise. You get that piece of software that is open source and you will find on of the critical holes. Jonathan So here are the general requirements so far: 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known security architecture 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines 4) Open Source 5) Easy to use (and setup*) - for 1 or more machines * I just added the the "setup" part. It seems like that is pretty important for a single machine use case. If people have to spend a lot of time just getting it working for a single machine then it isn't going to get much acceptance. And these are the major feature categories: 1) Package management 2) User management 3) Security updates 4) Repository management 5) System monitoring 7) Service management (starting/stopping/monitoring) 8) Service configuring - router - dhcp - web - dns - firewall - ids - snort - ect... 9) Change management - track changes - control changes - rollback changes 10) Configuration reporting - HW - SW - Users - Global custom reports -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Wouldn't it be great if there was a standard protocol for that? Cheers, Leandro. Em Dom, 2008-05-04 às 07:14 -0700, Martin Hess escreveu: > Serge has pointed out what should probably be a 5th requirement. > > * Easy to use > > No point in having a GUI that is difficult to use. Windows is full of > examples of such GUIs and gave GUIs a bad name. Additionally, if the > tool makes it possible to manage a set of machines at the expense of > managing 1 machine easily then it has failed the ease of use test. > > > Yes. But haveing some enterprise management tool installed, to > > manage just a bunch of servers might also be if not rificulous, a > > little overkill. > > > > Lots of businesses are small companies who need to only manage a > > small number of servers. Small companies on low budget where one has > > to put up stuff in a short time frame, as one server won't serve a > > workgroup 200 users, but maybe 15. > > > > A per server management tool is what often is needed there. > > > > > > Serge > > Here is the requirements list so far: > > 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server > 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known > security architecture > 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines > 4) Open Source > 5) Easy to use - for 1 or more machines > > Are there any packages that can meet such requirements? > -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Serge has pointed out what should probably be a 5th requirement. * Easy to use No point in having a GUI that is difficult to use. Windows is full of examples of such GUIs and gave GUIs a bad name. Additionally, if the tool makes it possible to manage a set of machines at the expense of managing 1 machine easily then it has failed the ease of use test. > Yes. But haveing some enterprise management tool installed, to > manage just a bunch of servers might also be if not rificulous, a > little overkill. > > Lots of businesses are small companies who need to only manage a > small number of servers. Small companies on low budget where one has > to put up stuff in a short time frame, as one server won't serve a > workgroup 200 users, but maybe 15. > > A per server management tool is what often is needed there. > > > Serge Here is the requirements list so far: 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known security architecture 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines 4) Open Source 5) Easy to use - for 1 or more machines Are there any packages that can meet such requirements? -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
