Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
On Friday 26 March 2010 19:15:09 Etienne Goyer wrote: > 'Soren Hansen' wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:42:19AM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: > >> But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on > >> servers. > > > > That's simply not true. /You/ may not have asked for it, but it's > > certainly been asked for. I myself, for instance, don't mind a pretty > > boot sequence (brief as it may be). > > I have not seen anybody complaining on the look of the Server Edition > boot process either. Was that discussed at a UDS, or something? If so, > I must have missed the blueprint. > > Just because of the potential for regressions and unforeseen problems, I > think it is a terrible idea to introduce that feature in an LTS cycle. > I hope it get backed out before release. I haven't seen the Lucid boot process yet, and that is the sole reason for not having complained yet. Currently, we lack every form of boot logging. Some bugs on Launchpad have pictures of the boot process attached to them, taken by a digital camera. In Karmic, there were several bugs introduced by mountall/upstart/plymouth. See the latest comments of https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/470776 Error messages will be hidden by default. The specific error messages here can sometimes be correct, and sometimes be wrong. Most people will rather see the source of that problem fixed instead of covered up with a nice animation. As a server administrator, I'm not interested in fast boot times, nor in fancy graphics. I'm interested in reliable booting and knowing what is going on. I'd like to have upstart because it eliminates the need to set a specific order in the processes (no more rcX), but I'd never sacrifice reliability for that. -- 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: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
'Soren Hansen' wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:42:19AM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: >> But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on >> servers. > > That's simply not true. /You/ may not have asked for it, but it's > certainly been asked for. I myself, for instance, don't mind a pretty > boot sequence (brief as it may be). I have not seen anybody complaining on the look of the Server Edition boot process either. Was that discussed at a UDS, or something? If so, I must have missed the blueprint. Just because of the potential for regressions and unforeseen problems, I think it is a terrible idea to introduce that feature in an LTS cycle. I hope it get backed out before release. -- Etienne Goyer Technical Account Manager - Canonical Ltd Ubuntu Certified Instructor -LPIC-3 ~= Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings =~ -- 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: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:42:19AM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: > Because IF I need to attach a console I do that to catch each and > every information that could help me find any problems during boot. The boot process as it is (and has been for years) already doesn't give a whole lot of information. You usually have correlate its output with syslog and/or dmesg and/or deamon specific log files to really narrow down on a problem. That said, Plymouth is actually supposed to make this /better/. I'm not sure if that's going to happen for Lucid (it's not really my area), but the idea is that since there's something in charge of collecting output from boot scripts and presenting it to the user, that something can also put this information in a log file. This means that that anyhing you see during boot should end up in a log file which should alleviate the need for looking at the boot sequence. Yes, that's a lot of "should"'s, but I'm afraid that's all I have right now. Someone else may be able to weigh in with some more authoritative information or at least more detail. > But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on > servers. That's simply not true. /You/ may not have asked for it, but it's certainly been asked for. I myself, for instance, don't mind a pretty boot sequence (brief as it may be). > PS I switched from years and years of Mandriva usage to Ubuntu because > I got the impression that Ubuntu developers WERE paying attention to > what the community wants. I like to think that we do. However, please consider that the community is diverse as are its opinions on different matters. -- Soren Hansen Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- 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: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Le 26/03/2010 09:42, Egbert Jan wrote: > But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on > servers. If that is the new way of working, fine but just give us the > possibility to have a boot option to have all starting services scrolling > over the screen (and hopefully an 'OK' on the right). Please follow status on Launchpad bug 548954: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/548954 That bug doesn't need comments on how desirable it is, though patches and testers are always welcome. -- Thierry Carrez Technical lead, Ubuntu server team -- 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: openssh-server and cman with only 3y support??
Dustin Kirkland wrote: >On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:52 AM, carlopmart wrote: >> Sorry but there are things I can not understand. Why openssh-server >> package only >> has 3y support in lucid server edition?? IMHO openssh-server is a >> very very >> important tool to administrate a server. >> > Hrm, good question. I should think openssh-server would be support 5y > as well. > > Nick, can you check into this and confirm if this is accurate? Copying the reply I got from Michael Vogt on the subject: Thanks for raising that. The mainteance check that runs on launchpad is written by me and a extensive seeds review was done by Kees to make sure the stuff is in the right seeds. There is currently a bug (and a pending merge request) in LP that adds server-ship to the 5y support seed, this is currently not the case and most likely causing a lot of the problems you see. In the meantime you can check the updated script outout via: $ bzr get lp:~mvo/ubuntu-maintenance-check/python-apt and run "maintenance-check.py". Add --with-seeds if you are interessted in what seeds the packages are in. Cheers, Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Egbert Jan wrote:
> Hi again Soren,
>
> Because IF I need to attach a console I do that to catch each and every
> information that could help me find any problems during boot.
>
> I'm from a old era. VAXVMS on DEC mini's. There were only servers and
> character terminals. There were no VGA output devices. I want (and I think
> many with me) the simple all revealing line oriented logging during the boot
> process on a simple serial or console port. No bells, no wistles. If
> something goes wrong during the boot we want to know and have informative
> output at hand on (simple) output devices. Not hidden in high level messages
> in fancy screens.
>
> But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on
> servers. If that is the new way of working, fine but just give us the
> possibility to have a boot option to have all starting services scrolling
> over the screen (and hopefully an 'OK' on the right).
>
> No hard feelings, I also want this distro to be the best.
> Egbert Jan (NL)
>
> PS I switched from years and years of Mandriva usage to Ubuntu because I got
> the impression that Ubuntu developers WERE paying attention to what the
> community wants.
>
>
+1 and totally agree with Egbert.
If Ubuntu/Canonical would like to have a serious server ditro, usplash,
plymouth and
similiar technologies aren't need on server edition and they were disabled by
default.
Server edition needs to be stable, robust, administrable via command line. The
remaining surplus.
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} 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: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Hi again Soren, Because IF I need to attach a console I do that to catch each and every information that could help me find any problems during boot. I'm from a old era. VAXVMS on DEC mini's. There were only servers and character terminals. There were no VGA output devices. I want (and I think many with me) the simple all revealing line oriented logging during the boot process on a simple serial or console port. No bells, no wistles. If something goes wrong during the boot we want to know and have informative output at hand on (simple) output devices. Not hidden in high level messages in fancy screens. But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on servers. If that is the new way of working, fine but just give us the possibility to have a boot option to have all starting services scrolling over the screen (and hopefully an 'OK' on the right). No hard feelings, I also want this distro to be the best. Egbert Jan (NL) PS I switched from years and years of Mandriva usage to Ubuntu because I got the impression that Ubuntu developers WERE paying attention to what the community wants. > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: 'Soren Hansen' [mailto:so...@ubuntu.com] > Verzonden: donderdag 25 maart 2010 23:02 > Aan: Egbert Jan > Onderwerp: Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04 > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:20:20PM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: > > I just expressed my fear that the Good Old boot messages are being > > replaced by nothing-saying desktop output. IF > ubuntu/canonical really > > keeps this new booting as default with no easy install > option, I'm off > > to Debian, but with bleeding heart. > > I still don't understand your argument. Why do you care > what's on the VGA output (or not) if you don't have a monitor > attached to it? > > -- > Soren Hansen > 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
