On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:00 -0600, Loye Young wrote: > > The problem might be that using the Ubuntu Server edition > > is too difficult for these users. Does that sound about right? If > so, > > please let's work on solving that, rather than worrying about > whether > > our desktop edition does something you disagree with. > > For those "in the know," the server edition is fine as it is. However, > many (perhaps most?) users will need or want a gui desktop to
some users? one problem is the lack of a 'standard user' to easily target. > administer the server. At first blush, one of the already existing > desktops seem to work and have the added advantage of familiarity, so > users have a strong desire to install one. However, the existing > desktops aren't ideal because they include applications that are > either unnecessary or affirmatively dangerous in the server context. agree. > I've used the MS Server desktop tools in the past. They are intuitive > and a big part of the reason people keep paying Microsoft exorbitant > fees for an otherwise shoddy product. Our ideas of intuitive seem to differ :) (i hardly use MS servers at all) > > > Again: Wrong question. Wrong problem. Actual problem: Getting from > a > > plain server install to one with eBox ready to go is too difficult. > See? > > No, installing eBox isn't the "actual problem." The actual installing > of eBox and apache isn't difficult, thanks to our beloved APT system > and related tools. The actual problem is that the users still need a > comfortable interface to administer the server, including the http > server, whether or not the http server is running or even installed. i require ssh to admin my servers. i have to install it specially. i also dont act supprised when i can no longer ssh in after the sshd stops running :) whatever you use to admin the server, if it will be done remotely, you will risk having the service die on you. > > Besides, even if everyone in this conversation agreed that eBox is the > "best" administrative solution, users still want a desktop > environment, because that's what they know how to use. If we don't This isnt a desktop. it doesnt need to operate like one. > give them one tuned for server administration, they'll install one on > their own and applications like avahi will shoot them in the foot. > They won't know otherwise. Of course, the IT guy will report to the > boss "All I know is that I installed Ubuntu and it left me > vulnerable." > > > Right tool for the right job. > > Can't disagree with you in principle, and you have put your finger on > the central question: What's the right tool? The vast majority of > server administrators in small businesses would answer that a desktop > gui is what a modern OS should provide. It's what they're accustomed > to now, it's what they are willing to pay for, and there's no reason > not to give it to them, at least as an option. Then get ahead of the curve and write them some horrible ajax thing ;) > > I've tested many of the available open-source desktop GUI server > administration tools. While they could use some polish, they are > extremely helpful and have the added advantage of being already > built. > > That said, there's no reason that web-based and desktop tools couldn't > be independent choices for the administration of the server. Perhaps a > check-the-box approach would provide the flexibility needed. i was thinking about this, and it occured to me if something like lighttp was used for the web ui, then even a breaking of apache (the "real" web server) wouldnt be the end of the world. kk > > > Loye Young > Isaac & Young Computer Company > Laredo, Texas > (956) 857-1172 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian / Ubuntu / gNewSense -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam