Idea #5836: Minimal and Full blown server distro

-24

Written by Auzy the 27 Mar 08 at 13:53. Category: Server.
Related to: Nothing/Others. Status: New

Description

At work, I was not allowed to install ubuntu server. The reason? If something went wrong, it would be too hard for them to reinstall, reconfigure, or change things (its basically no X11 at all).

The current ubuntu server is like a cut down distro (no X11 as such). Its great for webserving, and for more secure servers. And, its easy to screw up a config file accidentally. GUI's constrain you.

Because it isn't graphical, it means Canonical has no real product to compete with Windows 2003, which is all gui based, and needs no console knowledge. So we need a second server distro (or 2 variations of the server installs on the same CD), that is X11 by default, has many X11 server admin tools, easily accessible via VNC type protocols, and can be installed with X11 like tools, and your current bash oriented one.

If Ubuntu had a server product which was more graphical oriented, I probably would have gotten away installing it at work.

PROS:
- You win over windows 2003 server users, which we currently dont have a competitive product for (remember, windows 2003 is totally gui based)
- Easier to administer server
- Many admins hate requiring to mess around on a console to get the server going. If terminal knowledge is heavily required, many users wont touch it. Terminal knowledge often requires more training.
- GUI's constrain the users better, so they don't make mistakes! Editing text files, is easy to trash a daemon's setup.
- I know from experience, this would have made a difference in 1 case at least.
- Users shouldn't need to be linux pro's to set up a server!

CONS:
- Some development resources need to be shared
- We need to work out our market. If you want to be a user friendly server, do it. If you only plan to be running on webservers and be managed by tech savvy people, don't.
- None other.

Tags: (none)

Attachments

No attachments.

Duplicates

[Report a duplicate and merge its votes to this idea]

Comments

Endperform wrote on the 27 Mar 08 at 14:58

Most Linux server deployments, at least in a business environment, are going to be done by those 'tech savvy' people you refer to. If you're going to roll out a server in a production environment, you'd better know what you're doing, and that includes knowing what to do in the event of a GUI failure.

I've experienced first-hand what having an inexperienced Linux sysadmin can cause. His GUI failed and he was left high and dry because he did not know what to do. I had to assist and get the server back up and running. What did he do? He modified the daemons and unchecked GDM to start at startup via a GUI tool. I don't think the server edition should rely on GUI configuration options. GUIs can just as easily cause system harm.

Some counter-points to your points:

- Linux will not 'win over' Windows Server 2003 users with just GUI tools. The main problem here is that MS Exchange and MS SQL do not run on Linux. A GUI will not magically change that.

- While some admins might hate mucking around a console, there are others who would rather do that. Additionally, GUIs, while 'restraining' users, will also cause the 'sysadmin' to heavily rely on the tool. All of the sudden, something happens and the X GUI is down. The admin is high and dry, and Ubuntu gets the blame for it. Admins, no matter what OS, need some basic knowledge of the underworkings of the OS they are installing.

- Users shouldn't be setting up servers, period. System administrators should be setting up servers. In a home network environment, most people could start with Ubuntu desktop edition and go from there. In a business environment, administrators need to know their way around a command line.

ThaSniz wrote on the 27 Mar 08 at 19:10

the gui is the problem?

install the gnome-desktop or the kde-desktop package.

and you have you gui

Eldmannen wrote on the 27 Mar 08 at 22:09

Anyone who uses a GUI to administer a server is obviously an idiot.

God damn Wintendo admins.
People who are scared of the console should not go into sysadmin.

dan.fernandez wrote on the 27 Mar 08 at 23:23

Eldmannen,
correct me if I'm wrong, but... wasnt freedom one of the points supporting open source software? Freedom of use, freedom of choice...

If s/he feels like it's her/his heart derire's, one of those "wintendo admins" should be able to click-click through an "apache virtual host creation wizard" (quich is something 90% of web administrators do daily, through tools like cpanel or plesk); and it should be exactly as easy as for one of those "im t3h chos3n on3" admins that wants to be able to type his way through a -serious quality- shell.

Of course it is a bad idea to relay on extra software, but if it's their choice, it's their choice.

Auzy wrote on the 28 Mar 08 at 02:08

Eldmannen. Not really.. Theres a good reason for a GUI, it can present a lot more information in realtime then console, and make configuration easier

And like I said, I've set up lots of servers for businesses, and they want to be able to manage things like add users by themself. With a gui installed by default, they can do that, in fact, they could even walk up to the server and see a popup which says "RAID FAILURE!!!"

And why should anyone need to frick around working out commands? GUI's are more efficient to work with in many cases

Honestly, I don't see the harm having 2 packages.

Endperform wrote on the 28 Mar 08 at 12:05

@Auzy:

Sure, two packages might be ok, but why not just drop Desktop edition on the machine then go from there? I'm still not convinced a second version of Server edition is needed, especially when Xorg is one command away from installation.

Why should people need to work out commands? See my scenario above. I've dealt with administrators who relied solely on their tools, and I've had to clean up after them. Heck, one problem I dealt with was due to someone mucking around in one of the GUI tools (This was on RHEL). GUIs are not the end-all solution. Would they help with initial configuration? Perhaps, but it can also be quite dangerous, especially in your situations where your sites want to do things themselves.

ToSsMaStR wrote on the 11 May 08 at 21:14

@Eldmannen:

Try be a little more professional with your post, calling people names is really immature... "Wintendo admins"

I honestly cant see what that is necessary ^^^^^

If you are looking to flame, I suggest you go else where.

Post your comment