Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Alan Bell 

On 27/09/11 12:02, Matthew Daubney wrote:

First you need to define what is "required" which was the original
question
Stuff that makes Ubuntu server a partner specifically to Ubuntu desktop. 
So random web apps across all platforms that might well be used in a 
small business isn't really the focus for this. It might well support 
other clients (imap/dns/ldap can be used from all sorts of things), but 
with more zeroconf type stuff happening if you use Ubuntu desktop.


Alan.

--
Libertus Solutions http://libertus.co.uk


--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Matthew Daubney 
On 27 September 2011 11:38, Dave Morley  wrote:


> Matt I still think a full blown desktop is a faff.  If you're not in the
> office and need to access the box forwarding x over a hotel network is
> not going to be fun in any shape or form.

Simple question: How many average users do you expect would do this?



> They have wordpress/drupal/wiki style web pages that they will care
> about the most which is ermm web based admin and it's this that will
> have the most changes applied to it.

None of these things have been raised as things that would be
installed on this box. I'd hesitate to do so simply because there are
web services that provide these things for free that would do the
security for them and not require any port forwarding setup on a
router. I see a SOHO server as providing the following (in various
fashions)

* LDAP auth stuff
* Maybe calendering
* Computer control options on a workgroup/per user scale (you laugh,
I'm asked for this regularly)
* Maybe some NAS functions (very limited in scope, NAS type things
should be dedicated boxes)
* DHCP/DNS (again in a limited scope)

Yes you could provide other things, but that is what I see as a base
set of functionality based on what people have asked me for in the
past. If you start saying "Yes but you could provide this, that and
the other too" you end up trying to do many things at once, and will
end up doing nothing particularly well.

> For the SOHO user this is a box that sits in the corner and does what is
> required of it with the minimum of fuss or admin.

First you need to define what is "required" which was the original
question, which has ended up in a debate about how best to let users
configure the box!

-Matt Daubney

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Dave Morley 
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 08:54 +0100, Matthew Daubney wrote:
> On 27 September 2011 08:47, Dan Attwood  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the
> >> > desktop GUI libraries on the server,
> >>
> >> >Yes, because HDD space is expensive these days!
> >
> >  My understanding is is not about space. Extra libraries means extra attack
> > vectors, extra things to update and to go wrong.
> > Even Microsoft seems to have grasped this with Windows server 8 having the
> > desktop as an optional extra.
> 
> Again, you seem to be thinking this would go into places where people
> have a clue. The kind of target market for these kind of things is a
> small office with maybe 4-10 people or a slightly technical person at
> home with a couple of machines. They'd probably have someone else plug
> it into their network behind their ADSL router, and have someone else
> come and quickly explain how to connect machines to it and look after
> it. It's already behind a firewall (at the router) and it's very
> unlikely you'd have something like this directly connected to the net
> doing router like tasks. It may be issuing DHCP/DNS whatever to the
> network, but it would not route network traffic.
> 
> If you where putting something in place where people where worried
> about that kind of thing you'd use the standard Ubuntu server, as
> they'd probably have an IT staff who could be trained. Not just the
> admin person who also gets the job of doing what the guy on the end of
> the phone says.
> 
> Again, we're back to people thinking of a server as "a big thing that
> runs lots and lots of services, has to be lightweight, fast and more
> secure than anything else ever" when really, they're not!
> 
> -Matt Daubney
> 
Matt I still think a full blown desktop is a faff.  If you're not in the
office and need to access the box forwarding x over a hotel network is
not going to be fun in any shape or form.

Hence my daft but functional ncursor suggestion.  I've used the like of
MC over a dodge network to swap around some files and that functions at
a similar speed to if you have direct access to the box.

I think in all honestly if you are running the box headless then the
concept of a desktop becomes less useful.  I do however agree the your
average SOHO user is going to panic the minute he/she sees the terminal
and nothing else.

I think a welcome screen, byobu for general info, and a page of ncursor
buttons that do the bulk of the essential duties would be more than
enough.  On the whole this is a box that the average SOHO user is going
to want to setup once and then not tinker with again after that.

They have wordpress/drupal/wiki style web pages that they will care
about the most which is ermm web based admin and it's this that will
have the most changes applied to it.

For the SOHO user this is a box that sits in the corner and does what is
required of it with the minimum of fuss or admin.

  
-- 
Seek That Thy Might Know

http://www.davmor2.co.uk


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Avi Greenbury 
Juan J. wrote:
> Actually the fact Ubuntu has a good reputation as Desktop OS plays
> against the distribution in the server arena.
> 
> I've seen it a dozen of times, technical people discarding Ubuntu
> Server and using Debian instead without providing a good reason for
> that but "it's Ubuntu Server and I don't like it for servers".

I've seen an increase in people asking for a 'Ubuntu server' rather
than a 'Linux' one recently, though. And Ubuntu (now) has the advantage
over Debian of coming with all the non-free firmware to make it
actually work on hardware.

I'm, recently, generally leaning towards Debian on the desktop where I
don't get surprised every dist-upgrade and Ubuntu on the server where I
get a kernel from the last few months.

> We're obviously talking about different users here, but having
> desktop + GUI tools by default in Ubuntu Server would be a no-go for
> the technical userbase of Ubuntu.

As soon as you're using the phrase 'small business server' you're not
talking of the technical userbase of Ubuntu. 'small business servers'
are almost always in a position where the person administering them is
not in any way qualified to do so. Moreso home servers.

-- 
Avi

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Matthew Daubney 
2011/9/27 Juan J. :

> We're obviously talking about different users here, but having desktop +
> GUI tools by default in Ubuntu Server would be a no-go for the technical
> userbase of Ubuntu.
>

Good, again, we've just ignored the target audience and decided that
it's actually aimed at current technical users of Ubuntu.

Shall we start again?

-Matt Daubney

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Juan J. 
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 08:48 +0100, Matthew Daubney wrote:
> 2011/9/27 Juan J. :
> > On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 08:28 +0100, Matthew Daubney wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> I'd suspect the average person on the end of the phone wouldn't be too
> >> scared of being talked through fixing it rather than average bloke on
> >> the end of th phone where you say "First go to the server and go to
> >> the console and do this" <- Easiest way to destroy sales ever.
> >
> > Being able to connect over SSH and fix things is priceless :)
> 
> Yesterday I spent nearly an hour explaining how to do port forwards to
> the head of IT at a company I deal with now and again so I could do
> this. That is hassle that is best avoided in all honesty.

If the head of IT had problems to do a port forward, something's
broken... and it's not Linux hehehe

> 
> > I know people in a corporate environment that use RHEL basically because
> > the GUI tools. The have the feel of Linux power, but at the same time
> > it's just point & click in a dialog window.
> 
> This is more or less exactley my point really.

I couldn't stress enough the "optional" part in my previous message :) 

Actually the fact Ubuntu has a good reputation as Desktop OS plays
against the distribution in the server arena.

I've seen it a dozen of times, technical people discarding Ubuntu Server
and using Debian instead without providing a good reason for that but
"it's Ubuntu Server and I don't like it for servers".

We're obviously talking about different users here, but having desktop +
GUI tools by default in Ubuntu Server would be a no-go for the technical
userbase of Ubuntu.

Regards,

Juan



-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Matthew Daubney 
On 27 September 2011 08:47, Dan Attwood  wrote:
>>
>> > Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the
>> > desktop GUI libraries on the server,
>>
>> >Yes, because HDD space is expensive these days!
>
>  My understanding is is not about space. Extra libraries means extra attack
> vectors, extra things to update and to go wrong.
> Even Microsoft seems to have grasped this with Windows server 8 having the
> desktop as an optional extra.

Again, you seem to be thinking this would go into places where people
have a clue. The kind of target market for these kind of things is a
small office with maybe 4-10 people or a slightly technical person at
home with a couple of machines. They'd probably have someone else plug
it into their network behind their ADSL router, and have someone else
come and quickly explain how to connect machines to it and look after
it. It's already behind a firewall (at the router) and it's very
unlikely you'd have something like this directly connected to the net
doing router like tasks. It may be issuing DHCP/DNS whatever to the
network, but it would not route network traffic.

If you where putting something in place where people where worried
about that kind of thing you'd use the standard Ubuntu server, as
they'd probably have an IT staff who could be trained. Not just the
admin person who also gets the job of doing what the guy on the end of
the phone says.

Again, we're back to people thinking of a server as "a big thing that
runs lots and lots of services, has to be lightweight, fast and more
secure than anything else ever" when really, they're not!

-Matt Daubney

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Matthew Daubney 
2011/9/27 Juan J. :
> On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 08:28 +0100, Matthew Daubney wrote:
>> [...]
>> I'd suspect the average person on the end of the phone wouldn't be too
>> scared of being talked through fixing it rather than average bloke on
>> the end of th phone where you say "First go to the server and go to
>> the console and do this" <- Easiest way to destroy sales ever.
>
> Being able to connect over SSH and fix things is priceless :)

Yesterday I spent nearly an hour explaining how to do port forwards to
the head of IT at a company I deal with now and again so I could do
this. That is hassle that is best avoided in all honesty.


> I know people in a corporate environment that use RHEL basically because
> the GUI tools. The have the feel of Linux power, but at the same time
> it's just point & click in a dialog window.

This is more or less exactley my point really.

-Matt Daubney

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Dan Attwood 
>
>
> > Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the
> > desktop GUI libraries on the server,
>
> >Yes, because HDD space is expensive these days!


 My understanding is is not about space. Extra libraries means extra attack
vectors, extra things to update and to go wrong.
Even Microsoft seems to have grasped this with Windows server 8 having the
desktop as an optional extra.


>
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Juan J. 
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 08:28 +0100, Matthew Daubney wrote:
> [...]
> I'd suspect the average person on the end of the phone wouldn't be too
> scared of being talked through fixing it rather than average bloke on
> the end of th phone where you say "First go to the server and go to
> the console and do this" <- Easiest way to destroy sales ever.

Being able to connect over SSH and fix things is priceless :)

I help my mom remotely (I'm in UK, she's in Spain), and every time I
need to fix any GUI thing... it's a real nightmare. It's not only a
bandwidth/latency issue, it's slower and less efficient.

That said, I agree with you that GUI tools to deal with servers it's a
good (optional) thing for people that want to get the power but they
don't care about the associated knowledge.

I think that's old news. Back in the day, Windows NT success vs the old
Unices was the GUI; although remote admin is a real pain even today.

I know people in a corporate environment that use RHEL basically because
the GUI tools. The have the feel of Linux power, but at the same time
it's just point & click in a dialog window.

Regards,

Juan



-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-27 Thread Matthew Daubney 
Sorry, this is turning into a big rant about web based admin and
having a gui on a small office/home server, but this is something that
really really pushes the "GAH" buttons for me.



On 26 September 2011 22:18, Bruno Girin  wrote:

>
> Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the
> desktop GUI libraries on the server,

Yes, because HDD space is expensive these days! Lets have a look shall
we, on the front page of ebuyer this,
http://www.ebuyer.com/251310-extra-value-desktop-7873-1036 a cheap
desktop with 1TB of disk space for less than £200.
http://www.ebuyer.com/264274-wd-2tb-3-5-sata-iii-6gb-s-caviar-green-hard-drive-64mb-cache-wd20earx
a 2TB HDD for less than £70. This really isn't an argument anymore.

> which means that the server stays a
> server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU to paint a
> desktop (important for a small office where running a powerful server 24x7
> can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy).

Ok, so to run XFCE the minimum spec is a 300MHz CPU and 192MB of RAM
(http://wiki.xfce.org/minimum_requirements), again I can see that this
adds a massive overhead on the currently underspecced bottom range
computers since my eeePC could do that standing on it's head and still
be coping ok. Since you could do that on this £60 quid motherboard
(http://www.mini-itx.com/store/?c=60 first one at the top entitled
"Intel D425KT Fanless Atom Mini-ITX Board") and still have processing
power left over, which is passivley cooled so has no need for "noisy"
fans, I fail to see this as an argument in the environments this is
aimed at. Most of the small offices I go to use Mac Minis for this
kind of thing, you seem to be assuming you'd need a 1U rackmount
server!

> And considering the size and
> complexity of GUI code these days, adding a GUI to a server is likely to
> increase the potential for bug several folds.

because that's less complicated to debug than a full stack of
Webserver/Interpreter (PHP/Python)/Database
(mysql/postgres/couch/whatever)/backend services to prevent webserver
requiring root privs/ and then the stack of other services you
actually want. Of course, if something breaks in a GUI environment,
I'd suspect the average person on the end of the phone wouldn't be too
scared of being talked through fixing it rather than average bloke on
the end of th phone where you say "First go to the server and go to
the console and do this" <- Easiest way to destroy sales ever.

> I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and cons, I
> would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server lightweight.
> This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client machines though.

On todays hardware I really wouldn't.

-Matt Daubney

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Liam Proven 
On 26 September 2011 22:34, Dave Morley  wrote:
> On 26/09/11 22:18, Bruno Girin wrote:
>>
>> On 26/09/11 21:35, Matthew Daubney wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope  wrote:
>>> 
>>>
 Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
>>>
>>> I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to become an
>>> itch :(
>>>
 I'll refer you to this spec:-

 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer
>>>
>>> Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
>>> "The interface will be web based"
>>> And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.
>>>
>>> BEWARE RANT AHOY!
>>>
>>> 
>>> Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
>>> prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
>>> VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
>>> either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
>>> report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
>>> found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
>>> work).
>>
>> Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the
>> desktop GUI libraries on the server, which means that the server stays a
>> server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU to paint a
>> desktop (important for a small office where running a powerful server 24x7
>> can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy). And considering the size and
>> complexity of GUI code these days, adding a GUI to a server is likely to
>> increase the potential for bug several folds.
>>
>> I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and cons,
>> I would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server lightweight.
>> This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client machines though.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> Daft suggest possibly.
>
> How about a simple ncursor based cli interface.  Light enough for ssh
> forwarding gui enough for a novice user to click on buttons.  I know it's
> not as pretty as some *cough* light *cough* desktops but should suffice.

A very simple one would be a good thing, yes - enough to:

* display a status monitor screen - including the server's IP address,
so you can find it from a client!
* shut the box down or restart it
* see who's logged on and what files are open
* (possibly) apply updates - basically, 'apt-get update && apt-get
dist-upgrade -y'
* schedule an fsck next boot
* kick off a backup to an attached device

Some basic admin tasks like that.

Maybe a text-mode web browser, such as Links, to access the main Web
interface in an emergency.


-- 
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpro...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Liam Proven 
On 26 September 2011 22:29, James Thomas  wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2011 10:18 PM, "Bruno Girin"  wrote:
>>
>> On 26/09/11 21:35, Matthew Daubney wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope  wrote:
>>> 
>>>
 Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
>>>
>>> I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to become an
>>> itch :(
>>>
 I'll refer you to this spec:-

 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer
>>>
>>> Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
>>> "The interface will be web based"
>>> And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.
>>>
>>> BEWARE RANT AHOY!
>>>
>>> 
>>> Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
>>> prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
>>> VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
>>> either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
>>> report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
>>> found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
>>> work).
>>
>> Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the
>> desktop GUI libraries on the server, which means that the server stays a
>> server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU to paint a
>> desktop (important for a small office where running a powerful server 24x7
>> can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy). And considering the size and
>> complexity of GUI code these days, adding a GUI to a server is likely to
>> increase the potential for bug several folds.
>>
>> I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and cons,
>> I would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server lightweight.
>> This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client machines though.
>>
>> Bruno
>
> Could you not administer a server with a client on a desktop elsewhere?
> That way you could keep the server lean and you could design it as such that
> it could be installed on any OS desktop opening a more comfortable route for
> windows / apple users?

Well, yes, but it means a fair bit more work, developing such a thing,
and ideally it would have to support Windows, Linux and Mac OS X, at
the least.

Whereas it's extremely likely that all modern client workstations will
have a decent web browser and between technologies like HTML5 and AJAX
said web-admin client could be very rich and usable.

-- 
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpro...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Liam Proven 
On 26 September 2011 22:18, Bruno Girin  wrote:
> On 26/09/11 21:35, Matthew Daubney wrote:
>>
>> On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope  wrote:
>> 
>>
>>> Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
>>
>> I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to become an
>> itch :(
>>
>>> I'll refer you to this spec:-
>>>
>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer
>>
>> Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
>> "The interface will be web based"
>> And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.
>>
>> BEWARE RANT AHOY!
>>
>> 
>> Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
>> prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
>> VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
>> either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
>> report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
>> found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
>> work).
>
> Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the
> desktop GUI libraries on the server, which means that the server stays a
> server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU to paint a
> desktop (important for a small office where running a powerful server 24x7
> can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy). And considering the size and
> complexity of GUI code these days, adding a GUI to a server is likely to
> increase the potential for bug several folds.
>
> I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and cons, I
> would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server lightweight.
> This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client machines though.

*Yes.* This. What he said, in spades.

Linux servers should be low-resource and efficient, so they can devote
their RAM to caching and so on - not X. Secondly, a GUI encourages
people to run apps on the server, browse the web or whatever - stuff
you don't want happening.

I have maintained many Windows Server boxes and you'd be amazed at all
the rubbish people install. Eval versions of things, trialware, whole
office suites, etc. One man's useless junk is another's "essential"
tool.

SME Server has a pretty decent web interface; so does Smoothwall. Both
merit a look for anyone designing such a thing.

If you'll forgive me paraphrasing the OP:

>>> I'll refer you to this spec:-
>>>
>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer
>>
>> Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
>> Firewall/Internet gateway

This is a core function of SME Server, ClearOS and Zentyal, and I feel
it shouldn't be.

A Linux box that is exposed directly to the Internet is a potential
weak point, a point of entry into the network - /especially/ if it's
not up to date or not configured correctly. E.g., by a non-expert who
chose a distro that does this for them because they are not sure what
they're doing.

This is doubly hazardous if said router is also a file/mail/web
server: if the crackers break into the firewall, they don't need to
get /through/ it - they are into the organization's main storage
device, full of user passwords, possibly-confidential files and so on.

It's quite difficult to find a low-end to mid-range ISP these days
that /doesn't/ provide a router for free with their connections. You
don't want a NAT firewall talking to another NAT firewall - there's no
real benefit, it saps performance and it can stop some apps working.

Firewalls are a solved problem now. There are lots of good routers,
even OpenWRT if you want to get in their and fiddle. The server should
be just a server; if it has multiple NICs, team them for resilience.
Assume that in most cases the router will also be a DHCP server and
the upstream DNS server. If possible, Universal PnP support might be
useful so that the server can interrogate the router for settings and
config.


-- 
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpro...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Bruno Girin 

On 26/09/11 22:34, Dave Morley wrote:

On 26/09/11 22:18, Bruno Girin wrote:

On 26/09/11 21:35, Matthew Daubney wrote:

On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope  wrote:



Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to become 
an itch :(



I'll refer you to this spec:-

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer

Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
"The interface will be web based"
And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.

BEWARE RANT AHOY!


Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
work).
Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all 
the desktop GUI libraries on the server, which means that the server 
stays a server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU 
to paint a desktop (important for a small office where running a 
powerful server 24x7 can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy). 
And considering the size and complexity of GUI code these days, 
adding a GUI to a server is likely to increase the potential for bug 
several folds.


I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and 
cons, I would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server 
lightweight. This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client 
machines though.


Bruno



Daft suggest possibly.

How about a simple ncursor based cli interface.  Light enough for ssh 
forwarding gui enough for a novice user to click on buttons.  I know 
it's not as pretty as some *cough* light *cough* desktops but should 
suffice.




That sounds like a good pragmatic solution, we can't have too many of 
those you know :-)


Bruno


--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Bruno Girin 

On 26/09/11 22:29, James Thomas wrote:



On Sep 26, 2011 10:18 PM, "Bruno Girin" > wrote:

>
> On 26/09/11 21:35, Matthew Daubney wrote:
>>
>> On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope>  wrote:

>> 
>>
>>> Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
>>
>> I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to 
become an itch :(

>>
>>> I'll refer you to this spec:-
>>>
>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer
>>
>> Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
>> "The interface will be web based"
>> And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.
>>
>> BEWARE RANT AHOY!
>>
>> 
>> Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
>> prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
>> VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
>> either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
>> report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
>> found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
>> work).
>
> Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all 
the desktop GUI libraries on the server, which means that the server 
stays a server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU 
to paint a desktop (important for a small office where running a 
powerful server 24x7 can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy). And 
considering the size and complexity of GUI code these days, adding a 
GUI to a server is likely to increase the potential for bug several folds.

>
> I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and 
cons, I would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server 
lightweight. This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client 
machines though.

>
> Bruno

Could you not administer a server with a client on a desktop elsewhere?
That way you could keep the server lean and you could design it as 
such that it could be installed on any OS desktop opening a more 
comfortable route for windows / apple users?


You could. But you then have to distribute the GUI to all clients so you 
might as well have a web front-end. One doesn't preclude the other though.


Bruno

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Dave Morley 

On 26/09/11 22:18, Bruno Girin wrote:

On 26/09/11 21:35, Matthew Daubney wrote:

On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope  wrote:



Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to become 
an itch :(



I'll refer you to this spec:-

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer

Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
"The interface will be web based"
And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.

BEWARE RANT AHOY!


Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
work).
Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the 
desktop GUI libraries on the server, which means that the server stays 
a server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU to 
paint a desktop (important for a small office where running a powerful 
server 24x7 can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy). And 
considering the size and complexity of GUI code these days, adding a 
GUI to a server is likely to increase the potential for bug several 
folds.


I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and 
cons, I would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server 
lightweight. This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client 
machines though.


Bruno



Daft suggest possibly.

How about a simple ncursor based cli interface.  Light enough for ssh 
forwarding gui enough for a novice user to click on buttons.  I know 
it's not as pretty as some *cough* light *cough* desktops but should 
suffice.




--
Seek that thy might know.


--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread James Thomas 
On Sep 26, 2011 10:18 PM, "Bruno Girin"  wrote:
>
> On 26/09/11 21:35, Matthew Daubney wrote:
>>
>> On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope  wrote:
>> 
>>
>>> Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
>>
>> I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to become an
itch :(
>>
>>> I'll refer you to this spec:-
>>>
>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer
>>
>> Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
>> "The interface will be web based"
>> And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.
>>
>> BEWARE RANT AHOY!
>>
>> 
>> Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
>> prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
>> VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
>> either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
>> report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
>> found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
>> work).
>
> Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the
desktop GUI libraries on the server, which means that the server stays a
server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU to paint a
desktop (important for a small office where running a powerful server 24x7
can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy). And considering the size and
complexity of GUI code these days, adding a GUI to a server is likely to
increase the potential for bug several folds.
>
> I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and cons,
I would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server lightweight.
This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client machines though.
>
> Bruno

Could you not administer a server with a client on a desktop elsewhere?
That way you could keep the server lean and you could design it as such that
it could be installed on any OS desktop opening a more comfortable route for
windows / apple users?

>
> --
> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Bruno Girin 

On 26/09/11 21:35, Matthew Daubney wrote:

On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope  wrote:



Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).

I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to become an itch :(


I'll refer you to this spec:-

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer

Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
"The interface will be web based"
And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.

BEWARE RANT AHOY!


Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
work).
Well the main benefit of a web based UI is that you don't need all the 
desktop GUI libraries on the server, which means that the server stays a 
server and can be a fairly lean machine that doesn't burn CPU to paint a 
desktop (important for a small office where running a powerful server 
24x7 can be prohibitively expensive and/or noisy). And considering the 
size and complexity of GUI code these days, adding a GUI to a server is 
likely to increase the potential for bug several folds.


I hear what you say about web front-ends but balancing the pros and 
cons, I would still go for a web front-end, mainly to keep the server 
lightweight. This doesn't preclude a standard GUI front-end on client 
machines though.


Bruno


--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Matthew Daubney 
On 26 September 2011 21:17, Alan Pope  wrote:


> Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).

I'm getting so annoyed by this being missing it's starting to become an itch :(

> I'll refer you to this spec:-
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer

Ah, lovely. I agreed with it largely until this
"The interface will be web based"
And then I wanted to curl up in the foetal position and cry.

BEWARE RANT AHOY!


Why do people always want these things web based? I'd much rather
prefer something that works simply in a nice easy gui that I could
VNC/whatever into. In order to make things like this web based, you
either have to lose some flexibility and/or can make it really hard to
report back to the user what actually is going on. I've never really
found a web based configuration gui I liked (and I write them for
work).

In complete honesty, you'd want a home/small office server to have a
"desktop" type gui anyway, as the target audience probably isn't going
to be particularly au fait with the console if things break, which is
the only place you can go to fix something if your webserver/database
provider conks out otherwise.




> Others have worked on similar
> projects like Zentyal (nee ebox) USM (https://launchpad.net/usm) and
> so on..

(see above rant on web based things)

To be honest, I'd slap a desktop on it and build it with a nice
desktop gui toolkit. Probably be easier on the user that way.

Otherwise, thanks for pointing me at that, I wasn't at all aware of
it, and like sponge cake, it makes a good base. :)

-Matt Daubney

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Bruno Girin 

On 26/09/11 21:17, Alan Pope wrote:

Hi Matt!

On 26 September 2011 21:09, Matthew Daubney  wrote:

Anything glaringly obvious I've missed that people would want?


Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
I'll refer you to this spec:-

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer

Which was drawn up back in the neolithic period of Ubuntu development
by Soren Hansen. I recall discussing it greatly at the Ubuntu
Developer Summit in Sevilla, Spain back in May 2007. Soren got hired
by Canonical, and unfortunately this spec got dropped as he was moved
to work on cloud stuff I believe. Others have worked on similar
projects like Zentyal (nee ebox) USM (https://launchpad.net/usm) and
so on..

Maybe it's time to revive this spec and see what we can do with it?

Bruno


--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Alan Pope 
Hi Matt!

On 26 September 2011 21:09, Matthew Daubney  wrote:
> Anything glaringly obvious I've missed that people would want?
>

Ahh, SoHo server... a perennial "want" of many (including myself).
I'll refer you to this spec:-

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEasyBusinessServer

Which was drawn up back in the neolithic period of Ubuntu development
by Soren Hansen. I recall discussing it greatly at the Ubuntu
Developer Summit in Sevilla, Spain back in May 2007. Soren got hired
by Canonical, and unfortunately this spec got dropped as he was moved
to work on cloud stuff I believe. Others have worked on similar
projects like Zentyal (nee ebox) USM (https://launchpad.net/usm) and
so on..

Cheers,
Al.

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

[ubuntu-uk] Home/Small Business Server

2011-09-26 Thread Matthew Daubney 
So... I've been tinkering with ldap for a few weeks now to get a feel
of how it works (and what it does) and keep considering trying to get
rid of the hodge podge of bodgy scripts that have cropped up to make
things work with it.

If such a system was designed, and taking ldap as the base, what
features would a people want? My list covers the following:

1) User/permissions management without dealing with blasted ldiffs
2) Automounting of remote storage based on ldap settings
3) Control of what turns up on the Unity dock, bar, whatever
4) Apt sources based on ldap info
5) Global settings that could be overidden on the local level
6) MQTT users dug out from the ldap database :)
7) Email/calender settings from same said database

Anything glaringly obvious I've missed that people would want?

-Matt Daubney

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/