- "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
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 a
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
> 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
> acce
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
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 e
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
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 w
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
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 th
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 o
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
mana
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 ridicu
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 t
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
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 us
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 thin
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
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...) o
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, 2
> 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 ou
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.
>
>
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
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
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 p
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, enlig
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
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.
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
> >
>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
&
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.co
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 deskto
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
"Li
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://list
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,
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
O
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 anywa
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
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
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 rol
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 a
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 w
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
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
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 sh
45 matches
Mail list logo
