Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
- "Neal McBurnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > How well would this data fit into eBox? > > 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?) > Good point. I wonder if the specs for the protocol that landscape > client uses have been published anywhere? Or they could be > reverse-engineered from the open source code, I guess. AFAIK, they aren't, or I would be (pleasantly) surprised if they were. > Would it make sense to grow eBox into an enterprise management system > by linking it up with that client? > > Or what other building block could it be based on? To be honest, I don't know. As as system engineer, I'm reallylooking at this problem from a user perspective as I don't have any knowledge on a development level. 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 04, 2008 at 10:43:46PM +0200, Serge van Ginderachter wrote: > > 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 > 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. How well would this data fit into eBox? > 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?) Good point. I wonder if the specs for the protocol that landscape client uses have been published anywhere? Or they could be reverse-engineered from the open source code, I guess. Would it make sense to grow eBox into an enterprise management system by linking it up with that client? Or what other building block could it be based on? Cheers Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- 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 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
Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 15:31 -0700, Martin Hess wrote: > I find people who think in terms of a few servers will at times find a > desktop GUI compelling, but once you move to hundreds or thousands of > servers the idea of connecting into a desktop GUI on each machine to > administer is beyond ridiculous. > > > I think GUIs are fine but only if they can be used control whole > swaths of machines at once i.e. > > * upgrade some package on some set of machines > > * revert to prior package on some set of machines > > * compare machines for installed package differences > > * change netfilter policies on some set of machines to refuse or allow > a certain type of traffic > > * start/stop service on some set of machines > > * change config file on some set of machines > > * ect... Dear Martin, I think that's the reason behind Landscape - and alternatives such as the Red Hat Network and SUSE's Zenworks. (and I'm guessing Microsoft's SMS, but I've never tried that one.) I'm pretty sure all three allows automated remote actions as you suggest - on groups of machines at a time. But they're all primarily Web-based tools. While I remember working with some command line options for Zenworks a while back which accomplished some of what you suggest, I'm not aware of any such command line tools for RHN or Landscape, at least beyond registering individual systems. However, they do allow cron-style implementation of command line tools and scripts on single or groups of systems. Thanks, Mike -- 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?
It looks like Landscape (http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape) does some things, but it is missing an important requirement: * Open source It appears from the way that it is described that you need a support contract with Canonical to use it. I've never used Landscape but it appears that it covers the following areas: 1) Package management 2) User management 3) Security updates 4) Repository management 5) System monitoring 6) Integrates with Canonical support system Obvious major things missing: 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) ? On May 3, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva wrote: > Agreed with you. But... isn't that Canonical Landscape? > > Cheers, Leandro. > > Em Sáb, 2008-05-03 às 15:31 -0700, Martin Hess escreveu: >> I find people who think in terms of a few servers will at times >> find a >> desktop GUI compelling, but once you move to hundreds or thousands of >> servers the idea of connecting into a desktop GUI on each machine to >> administer is beyond ridiculous. >> >> >> I think GUIs are fine but only if they can be used control whole >> swaths of machines at once i.e. : >> >> >> * upgrade some package on some set of machines >> >> * revert to prior package on some set of machines >> >> * compare machines for installed package differences >> >> * change netfilter policies on some set of machines to refuse or >> allow >> a certain type of traffic >> >> * start/stop service on some set of machines >> >> * change config file on some set of machines >> >> * ect... >> >> >> The list of course is pretty much endless but you get the idea. When >> you have many machines it is pretty much out of the question to >> connect to each one and administer it individually by hand, either >> buy >> GUI or shell. >> >> >> I think any server GUI that is consider should be scalable. It should >> be able to move beyond the needs of one or 2 servers and be able to >> handle many servers. >> >> >> Proposal: >> >> >> I propose creating requirements for a server GUI and then see if we >> can find anything that meets it. So far I think I've seen the >> following: >> >> >> 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 (I know >> there is not necessarily any consensus on this one and people might >> reject it as a requirement) >> 4) ? >> >> >> Shameless plug for #3: >> >> >> * gets xwindows off the servers which is a know security risk and >> resource hog >> * potentially can require nothing more than sshd and preshared keys >> on >> all the servers >> >> >> >> On May 3, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva wrote: >> >>> I'm talking about virt-install, which will open a VNC connection to >>> the machine and only allow connections from localhost. >>> >>> Cheers, Leandro. >>> >>> 2008/5/3 Ante Karamatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300 >>>"Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva" >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines >>>following Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? >>> >>> >>>If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager >>>is a tool >>>you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on >>>a pool of >>>ubuntu 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- >>> 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 > > > -- > 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?
Agreed with you. But... isn't that Canonical Landscape? Cheers, Leandro. Em Sáb, 2008-05-03 às 15:31 -0700, Martin Hess escreveu: > I find people who think in terms of a few servers will at times find a > desktop GUI compelling, but once you move to hundreds or thousands of > servers the idea of connecting into a desktop GUI on each machine to > administer is beyond ridiculous. > > > I think GUIs are fine but only if they can be used control whole > swaths of machines at once i.e. : > > > * upgrade some package on some set of machines > > * revert to prior package on some set of machines > > * compare machines for installed package differences > > * change netfilter policies on some set of machines to refuse or allow > a certain type of traffic > > * start/stop service on some set of machines > > * change config file on some set of machines > > * ect... > > > The list of course is pretty much endless but you get the idea. When > you have many machines it is pretty much out of the question to > connect to each one and administer it individually by hand, either buy > GUI or shell. > > > I think any server GUI that is consider should be scalable. It should > be able to move beyond the needs of one or 2 servers and be able to > handle many servers. > > > Proposal: > > > I propose creating requirements for a server GUI and then see if we > can find anything that meets it. So far I think I've seen the > following: > > > 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 (I know > there is not necessarily any consensus on this one and people might > reject it as a requirement) > 4) ? > > > Shameless plug for #3: > > > * gets xwindows off the servers which is a know security risk and > resource hog > * potentially can require nothing more than sshd and preshared keys on > all the servers > > > > On May 3, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva wrote: > > > I'm talking about virt-install, which will open a VNC connection to > > the machine and only allow connections from localhost. > > > > Cheers, Leandro. > > > > 2008/5/3 Ante Karamatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300 > > "Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines > > following > > > Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? > > > > > > If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager > > is a tool > > you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on > > a pool of > > ubuntu 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- > > 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 -- 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?
I find people who think in terms of a few servers will at times find a desktop GUI compelling, but once you move to hundreds or thousands of servers the idea of connecting into a desktop GUI on each machine to administer is beyond ridiculous. I think GUIs are fine but only if they can be used control whole swaths of machines at once i.e. : * upgrade some package on some set of machines * revert to prior package on some set of machines * compare machines for installed package differences * change netfilter policies on some set of machines to refuse or allow a certain type of traffic * start/stop service on some set of machines * change config file on some set of machines * ect... The list of course is pretty much endless but you get the idea. When you have many machines it is pretty much out of the question to connect to each one and administer it individually by hand, either buy GUI or shell. I think any server GUI that is consider should be scalable. It should be able to move beyond the needs of one or 2 servers and be able to handle many servers. Proposal: I propose creating requirements for a server GUI and then see if we can find anything that meets it. So far I think I've seen the following: 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 (I know there is not necessarily any consensus on this one and people might reject it as a requirement) 4) ? Shameless plug for #3: * gets xwindows off the servers which is a know security risk and resource hog * potentially can require nothing more than sshd and preshared keys on all the servers On May 3, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva wrote: I'm talking about virt-install, which will open a VNC connection to the machine and only allow connections from localhost. Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/3 Ante Karamatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300 "Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following > Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of ubuntu 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 -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- 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?
I'm talking about virt-install, which will open a VNC connection to the machine and only allow connections from localhost. Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/3 Ante Karamatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:15:07 -0300 > "Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following > > Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? > > If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool > you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of > ubuntu 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 > -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- 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 12:15:07 -0300 "Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following > Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? If you are talking about virt-manager, then no. virt-manager is a tool you'll use on you workstation and manage virtual machines on a pool of ubuntu 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?
On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 06:34 -0700, MJang wrote: > On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: > > Ante Karamatic wrote: > > > On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 > > > "Dustin Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on > > > server? It's not like you have some point and click application for > > > setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. > > > > We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a > > full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I > > agree with, > > In many cases, I find that X over SSH works for that purpose (with the X > server and GUI on some remote client). In addition, fewer packages are > required on the server to run an X client over SSH - than even a minimal > GUI on the server - much less a full version of GNOME, KDE, or Xfce. And > as Paul suggests, a smaller footprint means a smaller attack vector. > > However, if an admin chooses to run a full GUI on Ubuntu Server, I'd > think he/she would want a - supported - system. While I like > alternatives like Fluxbox or even Fvwm, I don't think they're in the > main repository. I suspect at least a substantial minority of Ubuntu > Server users have some Canonical support subscription. > > > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present > > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also > > something outside of our control. > > Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. Let me clarify a bit - by Red Hat CLI installers, I'm referring to tools like printconf and setup - yes, they are not package installers, but CLI configuration tools nevertheless. printconf is no longer there, and I think setup is deprecated. But I'm also thinking of LVM configuration - at least through RHEL 5, a custom LVM setup requires the GUI version of Anaconda. Thanks, Mike -- 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?
I think that is necessary for creating virtual machines following Ubuntu Server guide, isn't it? https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/serverguide/C/libvirt.html Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/3 James Dinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 06:34:51AM -0700, MJang wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: > > > > > > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present > > > > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's > also > > > > something outside of our control. > > > > > > Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. > > I can not think of a single server application that can not be > installed with apt completely from the command line on Ubuntu/Devian. > Likewise, I can not think of a single server application that can not > be installed with yum completely from the command line on Redhat. > > I'm not saying they don't exist, but I would be really curious to hear > an example. > > James > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- 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, May 03, 2008 at 06:34:51AM -0700, MJang wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: > > > > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present > > > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also > > > something outside of our control. > > > > Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. I can not think of a single server application that can not be installed with apt completely from the command line on Ubuntu/Devian. Likewise, I can not think of a single server application that can not be installed with yum completely from the command line on Redhat. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I would be really curious to hear an example. James -- 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, May 03, 2008 at 06:34:51AM -0700, MJang wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: > > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present > > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also > > something outside of our control. > > Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. What a shame. Can you give some examples? Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- 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, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: > Ante Karamatic wrote: > > On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 > > "Dustin Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on > > server? It's not like you have some point and click application for > > setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. > > We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a > full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I > agree with, In many cases, I find that X over SSH works for that purpose (with the X server and GUI on some remote client). In addition, fewer packages are required on the server to run an X client over SSH - than even a minimal GUI on the server - much less a full version of GNOME, KDE, or Xfce. And as Paul suggests, a smaller footprint means a smaller attack vector. However, if an admin chooses to run a full GUI on Ubuntu Server, I'd think he/she would want a - supported - system. While I like alternatives like Fluxbox or even Fvwm, I don't think they're in the main repository. I suspect at least a substantial minority of Ubuntu Server users have some Canonical support subscription. > I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also > something outside of our control. Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. Thanks, Mike -- 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?
After our border gateway hard drive crashed yesterday, we installed Hardy Alternate CLI on an old spare server which served honorably on the work bench testing hardware. We installed openssh-server and ebox* (mostly) and moved to a workstation. After dealing with network interfaces and adding one firewall rule, we were back in business. An hour or so of tweaking, mostly with Ebox, we snatched an Ebox backup and settled into a night of Java which was the original goal for the day. It is hard to imagine the utility of a desktop on this server for any purpose. I wouldn't mind some specific examples where that might be true. Ebox has a few rough spots and the documentation is "general" and presupposes a general understanding of server maintenance. The IRC chatroom on freenode and the wiki pages at http://trac.ebox-platform.com/wiki are a help for the unfamiliar. There is an Apache modules in the works. We plan on doing a roll up of three servers this month which will check out the utility of most of the features. Jim On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Paul Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ante, > > > Ante Karamatic wrote: > > On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 > > "Dustin Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on > > server? It's not like you have some point and click application for > > setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. > > We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a > full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I > agree with, I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present > for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also > something outside of our control. > > > > Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server > > management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X > > window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or > > KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm. > > I would suggest the opposite. If a GUI is required on a server then it's > best to install the smallest possible environment to save resources and > crucially, to limit the attack vector. On average, less code = less > chance of a security hole. Coverity[1] research shows that a range of > Open Source software contained 0.434 bugs per 1000 lines of code. The > more code, the more bugs. We're only human after all. :-) > > [1] http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3589361 > > -- > Paul Elliott > UNIX Systems Administrator and Programmer > Computing Service, University of York > > > > -- > 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?
Hi Ante, Ante Karamatic wrote: > On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 > "Dustin Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on > server? It's not like you have some point and click application for > setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I agree with, I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also something outside of our control. > Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server > management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X > window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or > KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm. I would suggest the opposite. If a GUI is required on a server then it's best to install the smallest possible environment to save resources and crucially, to limit the attack vector. On average, less code = less chance of a security hole. Coverity[1] research shows that a range of Open Source software contained 0.434 bugs per 1000 lines of code. The more code, the more bugs. We're only human after all. :-) [1] http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3589361 -- Paul Elliott UNIX Systems Administrator and Programmer Computing Service, University of York -- 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 Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 "Dustin Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't seen anyone yet mention "fluxbox". It, too, is a very > minimal approach to a gui desktop. I was trying avoiding this discussion, but I can't anymore :) What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on server? It's not like you have some point and click application for setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables. Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm. Having some small footprint window manager and then open 10-15 xterm sessions with vim running is kind of dumb :) It's much better to just ssh to server. Or even, set up ssh GVFS/KIO inside (k)ubuntu desktop and edit files with gedit, if vim is to complicated :) -- 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 Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Sander van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. But > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > environment anyway. And since it's my task to server my customers in the > most optimal way, I'd like to have some advice here: is there any > recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is something > like Hi there, So disclaimer first... Ubuntu Server does not contain an X interface, for various reasons, mainly performance and security. That said, a number of people have suggested several alternatives, all of which are trivial to install. I haven't seen anyone yet mention "fluxbox". It, too, is a very minimal approach to a gui desktop. I've used it in several places where I have very tight space restrictions (ie, where the root disk = 512M flash card). It does, however, reside in Universe. 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: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 09:24:48AM -0400, Gary wrote: > Neal McBurnett wrote: > >As noted before, webmin is a bad idea since it doesn't follow the > >config file policy in Ubuntu and Debian. > > You've asserted this before. Can you document this? I've found nothing > in the archives like this. And Google does not turn up any confirming > results. Webmin has been a good solution for a great many years, though > there have been some security issues in the past that were fixed. Gary, I'm taking the liberty to post this back to the list. Thanks for inspiring me to further write up some answers I had previously found. I also found it hard to dig out the story there. Below are some links. I'm guessing that Debian policy on config files got tightened, and basic maintenance was already more of a challenge than the original maintainer could find time for, to say nothing of getting the config issues dealt with, so it got dropped. I think it would be very hard but guess that a champion could emerge who was willing to do that work in a way that would meet the Debian Policy Manual requirements on config files: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-config-files I've added some clarifications to the page which I just discovered on Webmin: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WebMin Note also: why was webmin dropped? https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/2873 The following give the reasons that webmin was removed from Debian. As Ubuntu is a Debian derived package, it's not surprising Ubuntu doesn't have it either. http://lists.debian.org/debian-edu/2006/01/msg00124.html http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=343897 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=271505 I welcome more info on specific config file issues that people have seen. Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- 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: Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
ubuntu jeOS + ebox = settle for most case On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:38 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: 2008/05/01 Thu PM 08:14:12 CDT > >To: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > >Subject: Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface? > > >The thing I don't like about giving minimalistic gui's to linux is that > if someone takes a look at Windows Server family, it will mostly look like > the same think that they have in their desktops. Based on that, if you show > something weird or hard to use, they will think that it's something like > "Linux Server" and assume that a desktop linux would be something as nerdy > as that. > > That perception might change, since the latest version of Windows Server > now includes "Core" versions, they are reduced functionality servers > intended to be managed via central GUI console and/or command line > interface. > > Ken Hansen > > -- > 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'm Soon Siang, Shio a Player of Linux Branded Toy [reply to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [call to:] +6012-488-3692 *please AVOID sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- 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: Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
>From: Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2008/05/01 Thu PM 08:14:12 CDT >To: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com >Subject: Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface? >The thing I don't like about giving minimalistic gui's to linux is that if >someone takes a look at Windows Server family, it will mostly look like the >same think that they have in their desktops. Based on that, if you show >something weird or hard to use, they will think that it's something like >"Linux Server" and assume that a desktop linux would be something as nerdy as >that. That perception might change, since the latest version of Windows Server now includes "Core" versions, they are reduced functionality servers intended to be managed via central GUI console and/or command line interface. Ken Hansen -- 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: Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:49:53AM +, Michael Hipp wrote: > Any chance you could clarify? Or is 'openbox' some kind of synonym for 'Webmin > or Ebox'. As noted before, webmin is a bad idea since it doesn't follow the config file policy in Ubuntu and Debian. eBox does: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/eBox Openbox is a very different thing, a lightweight X11-based GUI, with all the problems that that presents in a server environment. This is all explained at the link I gave before: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ServerGUI Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- 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: Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Michael, Webmin is a web interface used to manage servers. Ebox is another web interface designed to do the same. Both are widely used, but Ubuntu has a package for ebox and don't have one for webmin. OpenBox is a window manager. It won't give you some usability enhancements given you by a desktop environment like Gnome, KDE or XFCE, but will allow you to make basic use of windows in your gui. Take a look: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Openbox https://help.ubuntu.com/community/eBox http://www.webmin.com/ http://ebox-platform.com/ Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/1 Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Any chance you could clarify? Or is 'openbox' some kind of synonym for > 'Webmin or Ebox'. > > Thanks, > Michael > > May 1, 2008 07:36:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The best solution is Webmin or Ebox ... openbox is the best choice. > > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- 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 thing I don't like about giving minimalistic gui's to linux is that if someone takes a look at Windows Server family, it will mostly look like the same think that they have in their desktops. Based on that, if you show something weird or hard to use, they will think that it's something like "Linux Server" and assume that a desktop linux would be something as nerdy as that. Cheers, Leandro. 2008/5/1 ahsiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > The best solution is Webmin or Ebox, it should cool enough for most users. > Just explain pros and cons to customers, and hopefully they will buy webmin > or ebox solution. (that is what i did for all my customer) > > if they insist, openbox is the best choice. > thanks > > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> If they want a GUI one or either way i will suggest to use Openbox, is >> much more light and you don't even need to use so many resource and to have >> a lot of packages installed on your system, so it will be much more secure, >> a little harder to configure and have it up, but more secure and light :D >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> If they want a GUI one or either way i will suggest to use Openbox, is >>> much more light and you don't even need to use so many resource and to have >>> a lot of packages installed on your system, so it will be much more secure, >>> a little harder to configure and have it up, but more secure and light :D >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> On Wednesday 30 April 2008 14:47, Serge van Ginderachter wrote: > Sander, > > - "Sander van Vugt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. > > But > > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > > environment anyway. > > Why does he want that? > To do extra things besides the normal server roles? Then that could be an > option. To manage the server? Then Webmin might be a better option. > Webmin was removed from both Debian and Ubuntu because the way it manages configuration files is not compatible with the Debian package management system. Ebox is a similar system and much of it is available from the official Ubuntu repositories in Hardy. 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 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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'm > Soon Siang, Shio > a Player of Linux Branded Toy > [reply to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [call to:] +6012-488-3692 > > > *please AVOID sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- 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: Re: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
Any chance you could clarify? Or is 'openbox' some kind of synonym for 'Webmin or Ebox'.Thanks,MichaelMay 1, 2008 07:36:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The best solution is Webmin or Ebox ... openbox is the best choice. -- 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, The best solution is Webmin or Ebox, it should cool enough for most users. Just explain pros and cons to customers, and hopefully they will buy webmin or ebox solution. (that is what i did for all my customer) if they insist, openbox is the best choice. thanks On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If they want a GUI one or either way i will suggest to use Openbox, is > much more light and you don't even need to use so many resource and to have > a lot of packages installed on your system, so it will be much more secure, > a little harder to configure and have it up, but more secure and light :D > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If they want a GUI one or either way i will suggest to use Openbox, is > > much more light and you don't even need to use so many resource and to have > > a lot of packages installed on your system, so it will be much more secure, > > a little harder to configure and have it up, but more secure and light :D > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 30 April 2008 14:47, Serge van Ginderachter wrote: > > > > Sander, > > > > > > > > - "Sander van Vugt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. > > > > > But > > > > > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > > > > > environment anyway. > > > > > > > > Why does he want that? > > > > To do extra things besides the normal server roles? Then that could > > > be an > > > > option. To manage the server? Then Webmin might be a better option. > > > > > > > Webmin was removed from both Debian and Ubuntu because the way it > > > manages > > > configuration files is not compatible with the Debian package > > > management > > > system. Ebox is a similar system and much of it is available from the > > > official Ubuntu repositories in Hardy. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > 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'm Soon Siang, Shio a Player of Linux Branded Toy [reply to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [call to:] +6012-488-3692 *please AVOID sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- 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?
If they want a GUI one or either way i will suggest to use Openbox, is much more light and you don't even need to use so many resource and to have a lot of packages installed on your system, so it will be much more secure, a little harder to configure and have it up, but more secure and light :D On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If they want a GUI one or either way i will suggest to use Openbox, is > much more light and you don't even need to use so many resource and to have > a lot of packages installed on your system, so it will be much more secure, > a little harder to configure and have it up, but more secure and light :D > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 30 April 2008 14:47, Serge van Ginderachter wrote: > > > Sander, > > > > > > - "Sander van Vugt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. > > > > But > > > > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > > > > environment anyway. > > > > > > Why does he want that? > > > To do extra things besides the normal server roles? Then that could be > > an > > > option. To manage the server? Then Webmin might be a better option. > > > > > Webmin was removed from both Debian and Ubuntu because the way it > > manages > > configuration files is not compatible with the Debian package management > > system. Ebox is a similar system and much of it is available from the > > official Ubuntu repositories in Hardy. > > > > 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 > > > > -- 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 Wednesday 30 April 2008 14:47, Serge van Ginderachter wrote: > Sander, > > - "Sander van Vugt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. > > But > > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > > environment anyway. > > Why does he want that? > To do extra things besides the normal server roles? Then that could be an > option. To manage the server? Then Webmin might be a better option. > Webmin was removed from both Debian and Ubuntu because the way it manages configuration files is not compatible with the Debian package management system. Ebox is a similar system and much of it is available from the official Ubuntu repositories in Hardy. 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: Ubuntu Server graphical interface?
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:40:23AM -0700, MJang wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:13 +0200, Sander van Vugt wrote: > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. But > > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > > environment anyway. And since it's my task to server my customers in the > > most optimal way, I'd like to have some advice here: is there any > > recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is something > > like > > > > sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg xfonts* gnome > > Similar to what Leandro suggests, there's the kubuntu-desktop and > xubuntu-desktop meta packages. There is also eBox - a web-based gui that lets you use any machine to remotely adminster the server. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/eBox For more on this topic see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ServerGUI Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- 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?
if you need the full desktop gui... sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop ... this should install all the packaged needed. Eric On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:13 +0200, Sander van Vugt wrote: > Hi, > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. But > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > environment anyway. And since it's my task to server my customers in the > most optimal way, I'd like to have some advice here: is there any > recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is something > like > > sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg xfonts* gnome > > just the best way of doing it? > > Thanks for your advice, > > Sander > > -- 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?
Sander, - "Sander van Vugt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. > But > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > environment anyway. Why does he want that? To do extra things besides the normal server roles? Then that could be an option. To manage the server? Then Webmin might be a better option. > recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is > something > like > > sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg xfonts* gnome > > just the best way of doing it? sudo aptitude install ubuntu-desktop does the trick. Already did that in a classroom environment. 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?
Installing gnome+gdm should pull in all the dependancies, a much lighter weight solution would be xfce+xdm. Good Luck. On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:13 +0200, Sander van Vugt wrote: > Hi, > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. But > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > environment anyway. And since it's my task to server my customers in the > most optimal way, I'd like to have some advice here: is there any > recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is something > like > > sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg xfonts* gnome > > just the best way of doing it? > > Thanks for your advice, > > Sander > > -- 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 Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:13 +0200, Sander van Vugt wrote: > Hi, > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. But > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > environment anyway. And since it's my task to server my customers in the > most optimal way, I'd like to have some advice here: is there any > recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is something > like > > sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg xfonts* gnome Similar to what Leandro suggests, there's the kubuntu-desktop and xubuntu-desktop meta packages. Thanks, mike -- 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?
If you are a consultant, I would argue your job is to provide the best advice and steer customers away from making bad decisions. Regardless, you might as well install the desktop version and make it a server since the GUI packages won't be supported for the full server support term. Either that or compile source packages for a lightweight GUI yourself. You might want to include in your contracts provisions to pay for your time to apply any security and stability updates manually for the GUI that you will almost certainly have to do. Just my $0.02 worth. Aaron Kincer On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Sander van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. But > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > environment anyway. And since it's my task to server my customers in the > most optimal way, I'd like to have some advice here: is there any > recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is something > like > > sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg xfonts* gnome > > just the best way of doing it? > > Thanks for your advice, > > Sander > > > -- > 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 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:31:03 -0300 "Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that with the amount of resources that the machines of today > have, having graphical interfaces in servers isn't really something > bad. Resources were never the problem. It's about security and stability. It's about too many moving parts that aren't necessary. -- 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?
You should try installing the meta-package ubuntu-desktop. I think that with the amount of resources that the machines of today have, having graphical interfaces in servers isn't really something bad. Cheers, Leandro. 2008/4/30 Sander van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. But > some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical > environment anyway. And since it's my task to server my customers in the > most optimal way, I'd like to have some advice here: is there any > recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is something > like > > sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg xfonts* gnome > > just the best way of doing it? > > Thanks for your advice, > > Sander > > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva -- 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 graphical interface?
Hi, Sure, I know, you shouldn't run a graphical interface on a server. But some of my customers just want to be able to start up a graphical environment anyway. And since it's my task to server my customers in the most optimal way, I'd like to have some advice here: is there any recommended procedure of setting up X on Ubuntu Server, or is something like sudo apt-get install xserver-xorg xfonts* gnome just the best way of doing it? Thanks for your advice, Sander -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
