Re: RFC: Centrilized managment console
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been working on the blueprint of a centralized managment console > [1] using some of the ideas that some people gave me at UDS, i'm a little > stuck (and still fighting with the timezone changes) on some technical > details (i.e. how need meta data be defined) i will really apreciate if you > can give a look at the specification and mail me with your opinions and > ideas. > > Nick: you talk me about some interesting ideas i'm missing, can you please > take a review on this. > > 1. > https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-centralized-services-administrator > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > Nicholas, I am very excited to see a project like this get started. I think we need to come up with a way of summarizng the different emails that have come through Ubuntu Server (see the GUI on a Server) plus the most recent thread as well. Let me know how I can help. Jonathan -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
RFC: Centrilized managment console
I have been working on the blueprint of a centralized managment console [1] using some of the ideas that some people gave me at UDS, i'm a little stuck (and still fighting with the timezone changes) on some technical details (i.e. how need meta data be defined) i will really apreciate if you can give a look at the specification and mail me with your opinions and ideas. Nick: you talk me about some interesting ideas i'm missing, can you please take a review on this. 1. https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-centralized-services-administrator -- 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: VMware Tools install on Ubuntu Server 8.04/2.6.24-18.32 Guest (ESX 3.5)
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Chris Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello list, > > I am attempting to install VMware tools 3.5.0 build 82663 on > Ubuntu-Server 8.04/2.6.24-18.32. I have successfully installed and > updated the required prerequisite packages (autoconf, automake, > binutils, make, cpp, gcc, linux-headers-`uname -r`, build-essentials) as > well as anything else that apt-get recommended. Unfortunately, running > 'vmware-install.pl' experiences issues once I invoke the > 'vmware-config-tools.pl' script. Here are my steps: > > - sudo ./vmware-install.pl >- Accept all defaults >- Installer asks the user if 'vmware-config-tools.pl' should be > run >- select 'yes' > > > Before running VMware Tools for the first time, you need to configure it > by > invoking the following command: "/usr/bin/vmware-config-tools.pl". Do > you want > this program to invoke the command for you now? [yes] > > Stopping VMware Tools services in the virtual machine: > Guest operating system daemon: > done > Trying to find a suitable vmmemctl module for your running kernel. > > None of the pre-built vmmemctl modules for VMware Tools is suitable for > your > running kernel. Do you want this program to try to build the vmmemctl > module > for your system (you need to have a C compiler installed on your > system)? > [yes] > > Using compiler "/usr/bin/gcc". Use environment variable CC to override. > > What is the location of the directory of C header files that match your > running > kernel? [/lib/modules/2.6.24-18-server/build/include] > > Extracting the sources of the vmmemctl module. > > Building the vmmemctl module. > > Using 2.6.x kernel build system. > make: Entering directory `/tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only' > make -C /lib/modules/2.6.24-18-server/build/include/.. SUBDIRS=$PWD > SRCROOT=$PWD/. modules > make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.24-18-server' > CC [M] /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/backdoorGcc32.o > CC [M] /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/os.o > In file included from /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/os.c:51: > /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/compat_wait.h:55:5: warning: > "VMW_HAVE_EPOLL" is not defined > /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/compat_wait.h:61:5: warning: > "VMW_HAVE_EPOLL" is not defined > In file included from /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/os.c:51: > /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/compat_wait.h:78: error: conflicting > types for 'poll_initwait' > include/linux/poll.h:65: error: previous declaration of 'poll_initwait' > was here > make[2]: *** [/tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/os.o] Error 1 > make[1]: *** [_module_/tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.24-18-server' > make: *** [vmmemctl.ko] Error 2 > make: Leaving directory `/tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only' > Unable to build the vmmemctl module. > > > At this point the 'vmware-config-tools.pl' script fails. > > What is the recommended (supported/secure/best practice) to install > VMware tools on Ubuntu Server 8.04 guest OS? It seems like there are > three options. > > 1) Scour forums, blogs and websites to piece together a solution. (I > have already spent 3+ hours reading and attempting other peoples steps) > > 2) Install 'Open-vm-tools' which is considered "alpha" quality? > (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/open-vm-tools/+bug/217254) > > 3) Don't install VMware Tools on the guest > > I would like to hear what the Ubuntu developers and other System > Administrators have to say about this. > > Thanks, > > Chris Morrow > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > I have a script that sets up and installs VMware server, including the VMware-any-any update and it seems to be working quite well for 32-bit and 64-bit users. I've posted it on ubuntuforums.org: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=788169 It doesn't install VMware Tools, but I hope it at least installs the required libraries and what not to get you up and running. Good luck! -- Brett Alton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you really need to print this email? Help preserve our environment! -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
VMware Tools install on Ubuntu Server 8.04/2.6.24-18.32 Guest (ESX 3.5)
Hello list, I am attempting to install VMware tools 3.5.0 build 82663 on Ubuntu-Server 8.04/2.6.24-18.32. I have successfully installed and updated the required prerequisite packages (autoconf, automake, binutils, make, cpp, gcc, linux-headers-`uname -r`, build-essentials) as well as anything else that apt-get recommended. Unfortunately, running 'vmware-install.pl' experiences issues once I invoke the 'vmware-config-tools.pl' script. Here are my steps: - sudo ./vmware-install.pl - Accept all defaults - Installer asks the user if 'vmware-config-tools.pl' should be run - select 'yes' Before running VMware Tools for the first time, you need to configure it by invoking the following command: "/usr/bin/vmware-config-tools.pl". Do you want this program to invoke the command for you now? [yes] Stopping VMware Tools services in the virtual machine: Guest operating system daemon: done Trying to find a suitable vmmemctl module for your running kernel. None of the pre-built vmmemctl modules for VMware Tools is suitable for your running kernel. Do you want this program to try to build the vmmemctl module for your system (you need to have a C compiler installed on your system)? [yes] Using compiler "/usr/bin/gcc". Use environment variable CC to override. What is the location of the directory of C header files that match your running kernel? [/lib/modules/2.6.24-18-server/build/include] Extracting the sources of the vmmemctl module. Building the vmmemctl module. Using 2.6.x kernel build system. make: Entering directory `/tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only' make -C /lib/modules/2.6.24-18-server/build/include/.. SUBDIRS=$PWD SRCROOT=$PWD/. modules make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.24-18-server' CC [M] /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/backdoorGcc32.o CC [M] /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/os.o In file included from /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/os.c:51: /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/compat_wait.h:55:5: warning: "VMW_HAVE_EPOLL" is not defined /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/compat_wait.h:61:5: warning: "VMW_HAVE_EPOLL" is not defined In file included from /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/os.c:51: /tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/compat_wait.h:78: error: conflicting types for 'poll_initwait' include/linux/poll.h:65: error: previous declaration of 'poll_initwait' was here make[2]: *** [/tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only/os.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [_module_/tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.24-18-server' make: *** [vmmemctl.ko] Error 2 make: Leaving directory `/tmp/vmware-config0/vmmemctl-only' Unable to build the vmmemctl module. At this point the 'vmware-config-tools.pl' script fails. What is the recommended (supported/secure/best practice) to install VMware tools on Ubuntu Server 8.04 guest OS? It seems like there are three options. 1) Scour forums, blogs and websites to piece together a solution. (I have already spent 3+ hours reading and attempting other peoples steps) 2) Install 'Open-vm-tools' which is considered "alpha" quality? (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/open-vm-tools/+bug/217254) 3) Don't install VMware Tools on the guest I would like to hear what the Ubuntu developers and other System Administrators have to say about this. Thanks, Chris Morrow -- 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-virt-* packages available in my PPA for testing
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Dustin Kirkland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=ubuntu-virt This package has been updated based on feedback from Soren. Hopefully, it's ready to go. Thanks, :-Dustin -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:03:45PM +0200, Mark Schouten wrote: > I think the power of linux is the openess and the use of open standards. > Trying to conform to non-standard solutions like the solutions from > Microsoft instead of building a platform based on open standards will > not be a solution. More and more governments request stuff to be built > on open standards. All this is good and true. As per previous (and I'm sorry if people get tired eyes before they get to the end!) we have to acknowledge where there are *no* effective formal standards from the IETF or anyone else, and go with the very good solutions we have in order to make it even better. The fundamental point is that mail and calendaring RFCs can't deliver what hundreds of millions of people expect from their groupware experience, especially if you include the non-mail non-calendaring components. I do know about Mozilla Lighening and so on, but that isn't even close to seamless groupware as all those hundreds of millions of people know it (and, I should say, use effectively.) Thankfully, and recently, the three protocols I highlighed in the last mail have become open. > Were will we be when we've built 'Exchange for Linux' based on the > Microsoft standards, instead of the open ones. There aren't any open ones that can help... but I already said that. I can't imagine what Exchange for Linux would look like, pretty horrible I think! But a Linux server that uses an SQL server, an LDAP server, a fast filesystem, a Samba server, a DNS server, an SMTP server and many more to be a backend for a new server that talks MAPI... that's where we will be and I think the view will be stunning :-) > (There is no solution like Exchange in Ubuntu, even if you use Linux > clients) Working on it, working on it. Intrepid timeframe will see the clients and some server components (try them out today!) Intrepid+1 timeframe should see most of the rest of the server components. -- Dan Shearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 06:00:49PM +0200, Mark Schouten wrote: Good comments. I'll answer at length, because I can use the text elsewhere :-) > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 07:37 -0500, Luke wrote: : > > (Ubuntu especially) should continue to push into better server > > management and technologies SIMILAR to MS, I think we should be > > careful about focusing too much on MS-swappable technologies. : > You should not focus on how to copy M$. You should focus on making the > opensource stuff work. Absolutely 100% the way I see it too. So long as there's understanding about what the real protocols involved actually are, and where the opportunties are to do new and radically useful things. And about how long and how much effort it takes for a new communications mechanism to become suitable for large-scale use, and become acceptable for large-scale use (the answers are: a long time, and a lot of effort :-) To address a very common area of concern first, there are two important protocols Microsoft uses that free software doesn't have any better *or* pragmatically useful alternative to: * CIFS for file and resource-related tasks (not AD.) Comments: Linux doesn't have any networked filesystems that are even close to as functional as CIFS, nor are there any relevant standards, nor is there any chance of a from-scratch effort succeeding in finite time. There are some interesting experimental network filesystems in Linux, but they don't pass the 'pragmatically useful' test in that you can't put someone else's terrabytes on them right now nor does anyone seem interested in making that possible. The fact that the most functional Unix <-> Unix filesystem also happens to be the only fully-functional filesystem for Windows clients is helpful. But for practical purposes today on any ordinary network, you get more functionality for less work with CIFS. And, interestingly, free software is leading the charge in some areas as CIFS is developed; Microsoft is learning from Samba how to do clustered CIFS, for example, which turns out to be a lot better than clustered NFS. And SMB2 shows promise of being a collaborative effort, with a community ready to participate who have already gathered around Samba as Microsoft obeys the regulators and lets the engineers collaborate on taking SMB2 forward. Microsoft sent its most senior CIFS engineers to the SambaXP conference and they were actively participating. * MAPI over MSRPC for Exchange-type groupware. Comments: This is a Microsoft protocol, and it delivers unique benefits compared to anything in RFC space (if you don't count the Notes protocol, which you shouldn't.) The unique benefit comes from something that RFC standards in calendaring and email can't match by their very design: every object in a MAPI store is considered a groupware object, and is acted on by the same operations. RFC standards by contrast have no concept of groupware and nothing you can do in software will truly smooth that over. There are very different operations for mail and calendaring and the servers are very different. When you want another kind of MAPI object, you just create it, and all existing clients and servers can use it. There is also one special case of a truly bad protocol that nevertheless we have to implement well in free software, and that is Active Directory. No matter that AD is a corrupted melange of LDAP/Kerberos/DNS/MSRPC/more, its ubiquity means that it is a requirement for success on most of today's networks behind the firewall. That's another story and I won't go into it here, but AD is an essential. A bit like FAT filesystem support or Frontpage extensions in their day, this is something we just have to do in order to develop better and better solutions. And here I am on the Ubuntu Server list, which was the OS that first included likewise-open; take a bow, people. You truly get it :-) > Please do not try to copy M$, including their non-standard solutions. Relax, we're not :-) I wrote a paper in 1998 and presented it in Paris in 1999 on "How to Replace Windows NT with Linux" that started with using standard protocols for everything possible. The people in the Samba and OpenChange teams who deal with this stuff every day really do understand the value of open standards. So, with OpenChange, have a look at *how* we're implementing the very useful MAPI protocol. Oh yes, we're doing it compatibly. We talk to Exchange and Outlook natively. But look deeper: the MAPI layer is a thin disguise over well-known OSS components underneath. In the tradition of unix tools, we're assembling known-reliable bits and glueing them together. Bits that are the better for being used like this, but not tied to openchange in any way. With Samba, when the CIFS protocol needed extra Unix features, it got them. With MAPI, when we want to do better, we will. First we want
Re: Bug 0 review pls
> > > Were will we be when we've built 'Exchange for Linux' > based on the Microsoft standards, instead of the open ones Is supporting Outlook functionality and providing open standards mutually exclusive? Somehow, I doubt you will be very successful making that argument. > > Try to make a full Linux environment work first, or where else would you > want people to migrate to. :) If you don't meet some basic expectations, people will NEVER migrate. "You want clustered mail servers that offer shared calendaring to thousands of people? Let me introduce you to this instead . . ." Good luck with that. Identify what matters to enterprise users, provide the same or better facilities in Linux and then you are on your way. Migration of platforms should not involve compromising on features. -- 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: New meeting time proposal - Tuesday 15:00 UTC
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Dan Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ssh -o 'ProxyCommand=connect-proxy -H corporatefirewall:80 %h 443' \ > myinternethost.example.org > > where myinternethost is running an sshd on port 443. Nice! While we're sharing best practices, I run an IRC proxy on my home server (currently: bip, previous, dircproxy). And I use a similar command to Dan, also achieving tunneling and encryption via SSH: ssh -f -N -p 443 -L 7778:localhost:7778 myinternethost.example.org And then I point my IRC client of choice to localhost:7778 :-Dustin -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 12:19 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > You should not focus on how to copy M$. You should focus on making the > > opensource stuff work. (Start with a working calendar-solution, which > > still isn't there, afaik). Try to get Evolution below 150MB memory when > > using a calendar.. ;) > > > > People aren't tied to Outlook. They're tied to their schedule within > > Outlook, to their addressbook which is shared with others. > > > > Please do not try to copy M$, including their non-standard solutions. Go > > for the slower but safer approach.. > > > > But what this misses is that people aren't tied to Outlook, they are tied to > Outlook/Exchange. Trying to replace Outlook OR Exchange first is much easier > than trying to convince someone to replace the whole thing in one go. True. > Any transition strategy that starts out, turn off all your Exchange servers > and your Windows desktops with Outlook and turn on new Linux servers and > desktops is an obsolute non-starter. In areas where Microsoft is dominant > (and this is one) we need a co-existance/interoperability strategy to get > started so that later we can eat their lunch. I think the power of linux is the openess and the use of open standards. Trying to conform to non-standard solutions like the solutions from Microsoft instead of building a platform based on open standards will not be a solution. More and more governments request stuff to be built on open standards. Were will we be when we've built 'Exchange for Linux' based on the Microsoft standards, instead of the open ones. Try to make a full Linux environment work first, or where else would you want people to migrate to. :) (There is no solution like Exchange in Ubuntu, even if you use Linux clients) Mark -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
On Tuesday 03 June 2008 12:00, Mark Schouten wrote: > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 07:37 -0500, Luke wrote: > > (I hope this works, this is my first reply in a mailing list (Gmail). > > > > While Linux might be picked up by new businesses, existing large > > businesses will never migrate off MS unless we emulate (so to speak) > > MS. This very well might be a futile effort. While I believe Linux > > (Ubuntu especially) should continue to push into better server > > management and technologies SIMILAR to MS, I think we should be > > careful about focusing too much on MS-swappable technologies. > > > > Does that make sense? If we try to implement software in the same way > > as MS, then we'll just be a Windows clone. We need to focus not on > > penetrating existing large marketsby cloning Windoze, but by making > > our product more competitive and functional (via easier administration > > like web interface, for just one example) and by promoting the > > benefits of open software and standards. Make MICROSOFT think "Man, we > > need to write some linux-compatible software" like they're going to do > > with ODF. It's not clear to me that this will actually happen. If it does it's because there are substantial markets that demand it. MS won't support ODF because it's a good standard, they'll support it because they may get shut out of contracts if they don't. Helping to shape policies that encourage standards based acquisition is a really good thing for those who can. It's not what Ubuntu is or can do. It's a different piece of the puzzle. > I totally agree with this. > > You should not focus on how to copy M$. You should focus on making the > opensource stuff work. (Start with a working calendar-solution, which > still isn't there, afaik). Try to get Evolution below 150MB memory when > using a calendar.. ;) > > People aren't tied to Outlook. They're tied to their schedule within > Outlook, to their addressbook which is shared with others. > > Please do not try to copy M$, including their non-standard solutions. Go > for the slower but safer approach.. > But what this misses is that people aren't tied to Outlook, they are tied to Outlook/Exchange. Trying to replace Outlook OR Exchange first is much easier than trying to convince someone to replace the whole thing in one go. Any transition strategy that starts out, turn off all your Exchange servers and your Windows desktops with Outlook and turn on new Linux servers and desktops is an obsolute non-starter. In areas where Microsoft is dominant (and this is one) we need a co-existance/interoperability strategy to get started so that later we can eat their lunch. Scott K -- 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: New meeting time proposal - Tuesday 15:00 UTC
On Tuesday 03 June 2008 11:21, Mathias Gug wrote: > Hi, > > As discussed during last meeting, here is a proposal for a new meeting > schedule for the Ubuntu Server Team meeting: > > Every Tuesday at 15:00 UTC. > > Let me know what you think about it. That's generally better for me. Scott K -- 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: New meeting time proposal - Tuesday 15:00 UTC
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 10:27:52AM -0500, Rick Clark wrote: > I have no firm objections, but this will mean leave out everyone in North and > South America that has an employer that blocks IRC, which is most of them. Assuming you understand what is allowed by your network acceptable use policies, and assuming it is possible to run Linux (say via a LiveCD) and assuming you control a machine out on the Internet, I find 'apt-get install connect-proxy' works very well for most web proxies. You do things like: ssh -o 'ProxyCommand=connect-proxy -H corporatefirewall:80 %h 443' \ myinternethost.example.org where myinternethost is running an sshd on port 443. Or modify to taste to serve up irc. -- Dan Shearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 07:37 -0500, Luke wrote: > (I hope this works, this is my first reply in a mailing list (Gmail). > > While Linux might be picked up by new businesses, existing large > businesses will never migrate off MS unless we emulate (so to speak) > MS. This very well might be a futile effort. While I believe Linux > (Ubuntu especially) should continue to push into better server > management and technologies SIMILAR to MS, I think we should be > careful about focusing too much on MS-swappable technologies. > > Does that make sense? If we try to implement software in the same way > as MS, then we'll just be a Windows clone. We need to focus not on > penetrating existing large marketsby cloning Windoze, but by making > our product more competitive and functional (via easier administration > like web interface, for just one example) and by promoting the > benefits of open software and standards. Make MICROSOFT think "Man, we > need to write some linux-compatible software" like they're going to do > with ODF. I totally agree with this. You should not focus on how to copy M$. You should focus on making the opensource stuff work. (Start with a working calendar-solution, which still isn't there, afaik). Try to get Evolution below 150MB memory when using a calendar.. ;) People aren't tied to Outlook. They're tied to their schedule within Outlook, to their addressbook which is shared with others. Please do not try to copy M$, including their non-standard solutions. Go for the slower but safer approach.. Mark -- 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: New meeting time proposal - Tuesday 15:00 UTC
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Luke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From CDT (5 hours back): > > That will put America between 8am-11am. IRC isn't a HUGE problem, I don't > think. I use Mibbit.com because I can't install local software on company > computers. Does mibbit run on port 80, or standard IRC ports? > > Basically, the current time works for me, but I don't THINK the new time > would hurt me. that said, I am not a formal Ubuntu member or developer. > > On 6/3/08, Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As discussed during last meeting, here is a proposal for a new meeting >> schedule for the Ubuntu Server Team meeting: >> >> Every Tuesday at 15:00 UTC. >> >> Let me know what you think about it. >> >> -- >> Mathias Gug >> Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com >> >> -- >> 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 > 15:00 UTC will 99% of the time exclude me... not a big deal as I haven't contributed much. Most of my clients do not allow me to bring my laptop on thier network -- 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: New meeting time proposal - Tuesday 15:00 UTC
>From CDT (5 hours back): That will put America between 8am-11am. IRC isn't a HUGE problem, I don't think. I use Mibbit.com because I can't install local software on company computers. Does mibbit run on port 80, or standard IRC ports? Basically, the current time works for me, but I don't THINK the new time would hurt me. that said, I am not a formal Ubuntu member or developer. On 6/3/08, Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > As discussed during last meeting, here is a proposal for a new meeting > schedule for the Ubuntu Server Team meeting: > > Every Tuesday at 15:00 UTC. > > Let me know what you think about it. > > -- > Mathias Gug > Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com > > -- > 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: New meeting time proposal - Tuesday 15:00 UTC
I have no firm objections, but this will mean leave out everyone in North and South America that has an employer that blocks IRC, which is most of them. That being said, it is worth trying it to see the attendance we get. Rick On Tuesday 03 June 2008 10:21:08 Mathias Gug wrote: > Hi, > > As discussed during last meeting, here is a proposal for a new meeting > schedule for the Ubuntu Server Team meeting: > > Every Tuesday at 15:00 UTC. > > Let me know what you think about it. > > -- > Mathias Gug > Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Upcoming Ubuntu Server Meeting - Wednesday, 4th of June - 21:00 UTC - #ubuntu-meeting
Hi, The next Ubuntu Server Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 4th, 21:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting. If there are any discussion points or items for decision that you would like to add to the agenda [1], add an item to it and begin preparations to present a short introduction to the topic on #ubuntu-meeting during the scheduled session. [1]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting If you have have been working hard on the project and want to let others know what you have been up to, try to summarize it on the ReportingPage [2]. [2]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReportingPage As usual, anyone interested in the development of Ubuntu Server is welcome to attend. -- Mathias Gug Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
New meeting time proposal - Tuesday 15:00 UTC
Hi, As discussed during last meeting, here is a proposal for a new meeting schedule for the Ubuntu Server Team meeting: Every Tuesday at 15:00 UTC. Let me know what you think about it. -- Mathias Gug Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
(I hope this works, this is my first reply in a mailing list (Gmail). While Linux might be picked up by new businesses, existing large businesses will never migrate off MS unless we emulate (so to speak) MS. This very well might be a futile effort. While I believe Linux (Ubuntu especially) should continue to push into better server management and technologies SIMILAR to MS, I think we should be careful about focusing too much on MS-swappable technologies. Does that make sense? If we try to implement software in the same way as MS, then we'll just be a Windows clone. We need to focus not on penetrating existing large marketsby cloning Windoze, but by making our product more competitive and functional (via easier administration like web interface, for just one example) and by promoting the benefits of open software and standards. Make MICROSOFT think "Man, we need to write some linux-compatible software" like they're going to do with ODF. As far as the release schedule goes, I had a Brainstorm idea related to this topic. http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/8831/ It's a little lengthy, I know, but the summary is this: Cut Ubuntu's non-LTS support time to 6 months. This means a non-LTS release is only actively monitored while it is the current release. This would give more focus to development of "testing" and keeping the LTS stable AND up-to-date. Read the link for more details, and vote if you have an account. On 5/30/08, Dan Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have put some text for Bug 0 up at > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0#preview . I didn't get into the > solutions we worked on at UDS, thinking this is what bug report followup > comments are for and the body was already too long. > > Edit away people, but please don't try to turn it into a classic bug > report. This bug has a different purpose :-) > > Regards, > > -- > Dan Shearer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > 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: Bug 0 review pls
The connector has an MSI package, so you can push it out and configure it without any hands on with the client. Drop-in solution would be a better phrase. Part of that solution is some reconfiguration and installation albeit automated. On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Dan Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:48:03PM -0400, Aaron Kincer wrote: > > > By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "modify their client Windows > > machines", but with Zimbra, you don't have to modify. Reconfigure, maybe. > > But you don't even have to touch a machine. You can create Outlook > profiles > > and push those out with login scripts or via GPO (I believe). > > I keep hearing "Zimbra is a drop-in replacement for Exchange that > requires no modification on the client side." Read zimbra.com to see > how this is false: > http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop_compatibility.html > http://www.zimbra.com/products/collaboration.html > http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop.html > > Those three links between them list all the possible ways that a client > can communicate with a Zimbra server: via web, RFC protocols or their > special, proprietary Outlook connector installed on every Windows client > machine. And the only way Outlook gets calendar sharing etc from Zimbra > is with that connector. Other such connectors exist, quite a few > actually. The thing they all have in common is that their existence is > required because the server can't talk MAPI over MSRPC. > > Your assertion "you don't have to modify" is not one Zimbra can or do > make, although I'm sure they would dearly love to be able to. > > That story could potentially change if Zimbra start to incorporate > openchange code, which unlike anything from Zimbra or its equivalents, > can indeed speak native MAPI. However Zimbra so far has shown they don't > want to be a drop-in replacement, being wedded instead to the idea that > they can replace Outlook with a webapp. I wish them luck but I don't > think they'll get the success they are hoping for that way. > > Some Zimbra customers are happy to install a protocol convertor on all > Windows machines in order to move away from Exchange servers. That's > nice for them. > > That's also the problem that openchange.org addresses. Some of that will > be shippable with Intrepid, the rest should be shippable with > Intrepid+1. > > > I'm not pimping Zimbra, I just don't think your assertion of complex > > barriers is accurate. > > Here is my assertion: > > Zimbra has no technological distinction over many other groupware > solutions aimed at Exchange: it can't speak MAPI over MSRPC and that > means it can never interoperate natively with Outlook or Exchange > to deliver the groupware features .75 billion people rely on for > their businesses (big number courtesy of Dodgy Bros Gartnerquest :-) > > Zimbra has put a lot of effort into polish and making it easy to deploy. > I give them all credit for that. > > > To put it simply, there is a clear and manageable migration path from > > Exchange to Zimbra if one is willing. > > The level of willingness required is not one that most companies wish to > be a coalition of, in my experience. If you know how to persuade > companies to switch en masse, please tell us! Getting companies to move > away from Zimbra will be a lot easier than getting them to switch away > from Exchange :-) > > -- > Dan Shearer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
Dustin Kirkland wrote: > > >> As it happens there's a new set of opportunties and we aren't limited to >> just aping wherever Microsoft has gone... but refusing to acknowledge >> clear failings does not bode well for the bold new wave. >> > > True--tons of new opportunities. Personally, I'm more interested in > new frontiers than replacing Microsoft infrastructure as such Active > Directory and Exchange servers. I think it would be great if Ubuntu > were the default choice for Web 2.0 servers, such as wiki's, gobby's, > pastebin's, streaming media, etc. > > >> As to numbers... I think even if this is Bug #7346492, if people take >> the content seriously it's going to be turning up in the mainstream >> press and maybe even in Microsoft PR. >> > > 2^2,079,460,347 perhaps? ... Strangely, this is also the telephone > number of an Islington flat where Arthur Dent went to a fancy dress > party, and met a very nice young woman whom he totally blew it with. > ;-) > > >> [chopped advice on going through the lp process. I'll study it and >> probably just follow it as given. So far I have worked out that >> Blueprint == MRD in enterprise speak.] >> > > Right, "Blueprints" are equivalent to "Line Items" in IBM-speak. It's > a loose suggestion of work that could be done. Note that the > "Drafter", "Assignee", and "Approver" can all be different people. > You can write a blueprint, approved by someone, and implemented by a > third person (or team). Perhaps someone from Canonical will work on > the item, or perhaps you or someone else in the community will run > with it. > > >> I get the feeling that if people just create content in launchpad it >> gets ignored unless there was buyin in the first place... is that fair? >> > > True. It sounds like the UDS->Blueprint->Spec process has been > changed recently. Based on the sessions, discussions, and lessons > learned at UDS Prague, we're rapidly writing Blueprints and Specs for > the functionality we'd like to see make it into Intrepid. > > See the Intrepid schedule, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IntrepidReleaseSchedule > > Specification (Blueprints) are due by June 5th (that's Thursday). The > powers that be will go through the submitted Blueprints and explicitly > bless some of them for Intrepid. > > >> Can you point me to anything online about these discussions, or should I >> start blueprinting? >> > ... > >> I'll need some help working through the process. Thanks for your advice. >> > > If I understand the process correctly, Blueprinting (and the > corresponding Specs) should represent the results of discussions and > sessions at UDS. At least that's the intention. I'd say you can > start Blueprinting anything we discussed at UDS and you felt like you > got some support behind. Understand that not ever Blueprint can be > "approved" for the current release. Keep in touch with people in > #ubuntu-server and #ubuntu-devel to make sure you're on the right > track and not spinning your wheels. > > :-Dustin > > It does seem that while a bug report may have spured this discussion ( a good one may I add ) it would be a better idea to try to split the points made here into seperate discussion/projects/blueprints. Launchpad has the ability to create sub projects so I'd like to see at least some of these issues put in a place where people can contribute and bring them forward, there are certainly dicussion points on this thread that have been in my head for a while as well as pointing focus at alternatives and additional sub issues. Matt. -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
Brett Alton wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Monday 02 June 2008 19:20, Brett Alton wrote: >> >> >>> I also got frustrated last summer when I had to rollout my new Dell >>> PowerEdge 2950 with a release (Feisty) that was only supported for 18 >>> months because Dapper couldn't install properly on it. If 6.06.1 added >>> support for my new hardware then I would have been able to enjoy five >>> years of support, just like an IT manager would expect from their >>> server OS. >>> >> Did 6.06.2 solve the problem for you? >> >> Scott K >> >> -- >> ubuntu-server mailing list >> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server >> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam >> >> > > Sorry, I couldn't tell you. I'm now (happily) using 8.04 :). > > I'll take a look sometime soon and report back. > > Scott, 6.06.2 solved some of the issues with some of the dell servers, not all, and I don't believe (not fact) it resolved the issues with the HP or Sun servers. Thats not quotable but my belief. Matt. -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 02 June 2008 19:20, Brett Alton wrote: > >> I also got frustrated last summer when I had to rollout my new Dell >> PowerEdge 2950 with a release (Feisty) that was only supported for 18 >> months because Dapper couldn't install properly on it. If 6.06.1 added >> support for my new hardware then I would have been able to enjoy five >> years of support, just like an IT manager would expect from their >> server OS. > > Did 6.06.2 solve the problem for you? > > Scott K > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > Sorry, I couldn't tell you. I'm now (happily) using 8.04 :). I'll take a look sometime soon and report back. -- Brett Alton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you really need to print this email? Help preserve our environment! -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 10:13:04AM +0200, Serge van Ginderachter wrote: > Choices will only be viable when everybody speaks the same (MAPI) > langue. The problem with standards is that there are too many to > choose from. The langue spoken by Outlook can be downloaded and compiled today in a GUI client: http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/evolution/branches/EXCHANGE_MAPI_BRANCH/ http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/evolution-data-server/branches/EXCHANGE_MAPI_BRANCH/ This is built on libmapi from openchange.org. Openchange provides a commandline client around the same library so you can access mailboxes, back them up, send email (eg from a webapp), create a public folder etc. Try it out for yourself. All using native protocols. On the server side, and available for shipping with Intrepid if the server team decide to do so, is mapiproxy.openchange.org. As you can imagine, an effective proxy indicates a full understanding of the server-side protocols so it is just a matter of engineering completion to produce a full serverside solution. Openchange can be viewed as a thin wrapper around existing FOSS. -- Dan Shearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:48:03PM -0400, Aaron Kincer wrote: > By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "modify their client Windows > machines", but with Zimbra, you don't have to modify. Reconfigure, maybe. > But you don't even have to touch a machine. You can create Outlook profiles > and push those out with login scripts or via GPO (I believe). I keep hearing "Zimbra is a drop-in replacement for Exchange that requires no modification on the client side." Read zimbra.com to see how this is false: http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop_compatibility.html http://www.zimbra.com/products/collaboration.html http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop.html Those three links between them list all the possible ways that a client can communicate with a Zimbra server: via web, RFC protocols or their special, proprietary Outlook connector installed on every Windows client machine. And the only way Outlook gets calendar sharing etc from Zimbra is with that connector. Other such connectors exist, quite a few actually. The thing they all have in common is that their existence is required because the server can't talk MAPI over MSRPC. Your assertion "you don't have to modify" is not one Zimbra can or do make, although I'm sure they would dearly love to be able to. That story could potentially change if Zimbra start to incorporate openchange code, which unlike anything from Zimbra or its equivalents, can indeed speak native MAPI. However Zimbra so far has shown they don't want to be a drop-in replacement, being wedded instead to the idea that they can replace Outlook with a webapp. I wish them luck but I don't think they'll get the success they are hoping for that way. Some Zimbra customers are happy to install a protocol convertor on all Windows machines in order to move away from Exchange servers. That's nice for them. That's also the problem that openchange.org addresses. Some of that will be shippable with Intrepid, the rest should be shippable with Intrepid+1. > I'm not pimping Zimbra, I just don't think your assertion of complex > barriers is accurate. Here is my assertion: Zimbra has no technological distinction over many other groupware solutions aimed at Exchange: it can't speak MAPI over MSRPC and that means it can never interoperate natively with Outlook or Exchange to deliver the groupware features .75 billion people rely on for their businesses (big number courtesy of Dodgy Bros Gartnerquest :-) Zimbra has put a lot of effort into polish and making it easy to deploy. I give them all credit for that. > To put it simply, there is a clear and manageable migration path from > Exchange to Zimbra if one is willing. The level of willingness required is not one that most companies wish to be a coalition of, in my experience. If you know how to persuade companies to switch en masse, please tell us! Getting companies to move away from Zimbra will be a lot easier than getting them to switch away from Exchange :-) -- Dan Shearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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: Bug 0 review pls
- "Dan Shearer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually when I re-read it, I wasn't lost, just confused about the > implied goals :-) There's a very big difference between the use cases > that involve keeping the MS desktop untouched and moving away from MS > servers, and keeping the MS servers and moving the clients to > Linux+Crossover/Wine. What would the goals be where one is a > substitute > approach for the other? Sticking to the same protocols to leverage choice of applications? 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: Bug 0 review pls
- "Dan Shearer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For Exchange, the non-free version of Zimbra works great for > Outlook > > connectivity. > > Zimbra is fine for people who are able to modify their client Windows > machines. And that is something many, many large corporates refuse to > do, often for very good configuration management reasons. Until > recently > this has been an impasse, because nothing else is a native Exchange > server except for Exchange. OpenChange is addressing that impasse. > > > The problem is that creating fully open source software to fill > enterprise > > niches is non-trivial and the best model of it so far I've seen is > Samba. > > The Samba team deserves some serious credit for the work they've > done. > > With SAmba the barriers have been first and foremost non-technical. > Thanks to legal work in the EU the non-technical barriers have gone > away, and now Samba development has changed nature dramatically. For > Intrepid, there won't be a full Active Directory server. But there > can > potentially be two kinds of proxies in Intrepid (CIFS and AD) that > will > help stop companies making their internal borg bigger. > > > On the off chance that anybody is good friends with Warren Buffett, > see if > > you can convince him to make significant investment into Yahoo with > strings > > attached so that they will open source all of Zimbra. That would > really > > turbo charge this idea. Hey, it could happen. > > Zimbra can only help in the rip-and-replace scenario, which is pretty > rare in large corporates. Zimbra can't be dropped in to a group of > Exchange servers, it can't natively interoperate with MAPI clients > and > existing MAPI infrastructure including backup tols, it can't be a > MAPI > client itself. In an Exchange infrastructure with thousands of > mailboxes > you have to commit to replacing all of the servers *and* all of the > surrounding infrastructure. > > I'm not against Zimbra, but I don't think it addresses the most > common > use cases involving Exchange in corporates. I couldn't agree more with this. Whether we like ot or not, A lot of Microsoft technologies have become the (de facto) standard for long. Every solution who tries to replace them with yet another solution, won't cut it far enoug. Whether that new soluion is proprietary or not, doesn't make any difference. Application compatibility is what it's all about, and Outlook is one of those killer apps people want to stick to. Zimbra's Outlook connector is good technology, but it remains an extra step. Choices will only be viable when everybody speaks the same (MAPI) langue. The problem with standards is that there are too many to choose from. 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: Bug 0 review pls
- "Brett Alton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am an Ubuntu user (both desktop and server platforms) and I want > to > > give my point of view. When I install a server with LTS I want to be > > able to update bugs found in the software for the whole LTS-period. > If > > I install a new server (with fresh hardware) in the middle of an > > LTS-period I want to be able to use the last released LTS-release > and > > upgrade drivers to support my new hardware that was not supported > when > > the LTS-release was first released. I do not want to install a > normal > > release just because the LTS-resease didn't support my hardware at > the > > release time (when for example my hardware was not manufactured > yet). > That makes a lot of sense. Almost all server users want to use the LTS > version as their needs for the absolute latest and greatest is not as > pressing as a desktop user's but the need for support is much higher. > > Only releasing LTSes might be a bit of a stretch (6.06 -> 8.04 -> > 10.04) but if the point releases had more meaning behind them, like > Anders said, supporting newer hardware, then releasing only LTSes > might make more sense. > > This becomes more apparent when you realize that developers are > supporting up to four (!) releases at the same time. Currently > (Dapper, Feisty, Gutsy, Hardy). By the next LTS it will be five (!!) > releases (Dapper, Hardy, Intrepid+1, Intrepid+2, Intrepid+3 LTS) [see > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ubuntu-release-cycle.png > and then remember that Dapper is supported until > 2011-06]. If they only released LTSes with major point upgrades then > they would have to handle three releases at maximum. > > That sounds easy to me. Let me throw in some post of a CentOS guy (Dag Wieers) which (rightfully, I think) points out some of the difficulties about supporting releases during a lot of years. http://dag.wieers.com/blog/ubuntus-need-to-catch-a-wave Now, I'm not sure what the point of this article exactly was, so I can't say I agree with the general tence of it, but let me repeat I just mention this article as extra info in this thread. He does put his finger on what is needed when one wants to support servers for enterprise environments. 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
