Idea
#68: GUI configuration front end for common services
|
|
This idea is marked as being in development.
|
|
| |
1244
|
|
|
Written by silux the 28 Feb 08 at 16:28.
Category: Server.
Related to:
Nothing/Others.
Status: In development
|
|
|
Description
It would make ubuntu much less intimidating for windows server admins if there was a gui which allowed configuation of common network services such as:
web
ssh
mail
database
vpn
dhcp
ldap
dns
Some of these are easier than others but I have seen very little work on this front and I think it will help win over windows admins.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
Duplicates
Comments
|
physicsnick wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:16
| |
Um, no. You shouldn't really be setting up SSH or a webserver if you're afraid of the command line.
|
|
ninjaRakun wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:18
|
It should be easy and modular to simply add a "Properties" button in services-admin. Clicking it should bring up a dialog/window through which the selected service's configuration can be modified.
And how about also having a tab on aforementioned dialog/window that contains the actual configuration text for "Advanced" configuration?
|
|
anselme wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 00:20
| |
As for VPN, I think it is a must have option!
|
|
Dr Small wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:37
|
SSH and webservers need no GUI.
But if you want one, you have the option to install webmin.
|
|
cmr wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 04:41
|
a system administrator needs to express herself to the machine in a more detailed way than an end user. services such as these are often best suited to file-based configuration -- a configuration backend that only infrequently accommodates a graphical configuration approach.
red hat and microsoft have been down the road you suggest. in the case of the former, we got limited, frustrating tools and doing anything nontrivial still requires editing text files. in the case of the latter, we got an incomprehensible labyrinth of tabs and modal dialogs that rarely does what it says on the tin and is next to impossible to automate.
ubuntu already includes an extensible, powerful framework for managing system configuration: DEBCONF. future work on centralized configuration management in ubuntu should focus on 1) improving the quality and depth of debconf configuration directives and 2) providing reliable, predictable front-end interaction with debconf.
|
|
stomfi wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 05:19
|
Is YAST available for Ubuntu? This supplies both console and GUI based administration. Maybe Ubuntu could build Yet Another YAST for us.
In the Unbuntu Services, it doesn't list them all, so I have to use Webmin to switch off the ones I don't need, and set up any new ones that don't appear in the list.
Why don't all the ones in /etc/init.d appear in the GUI list?
|
|
peanutb wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 05:21
| |
ebox is quite useful for this, and should be ready with unofficial packages by somewhere around the 8.04 release. Overall, its pretty slick, and I suggest it to anyone who needs such a thing. Currently, it runs on debian, but they are moving to ubuntu for the base. As far as i am concerned, all that this needs is time. And the schedule shouldent be that much longer.
|
|
hackel wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 06:16
| |
Windows Admins are generally hacks, and we do NOT want to make it easier for these people to setup a potentially vulnerable server without understanding exactly what they have done. If someone wants to waste time on this, no one can stop them, but the Ubuntu team certainly should not. Debian provides sensible, functional defaults for all of these services out of the box. For anything other than that, the admin really needs to learn how to configure these services themselves and not rely on a GUI.
|
|
rocsak wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 09:02
| |
A, the GUI-command line war. Well, there's always webmin which is great. (best thing I discovered in Linux)
|
|
dmt195 wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 11:25
|
I used Webmin to set my home server up and would otherwise be using Windows Home Server. I'd rather not have been but there is something to be said for ease of setup, even if afterwards holes can be filled. Now I exclusively use SSH and a bit of drag and drop through folder sharing.
I'd love to see Ubuntu taking the Webmin model and making a real competitor to WHS for the home market.
|
|
leadman wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 14:41
|
silux,
if you have such ideas like GUI for configuring those services than stick to windows, until you are mature enough to use command line. Other case is that IMHO debian would be much better for hosting those services. Ubuntu should be used as desktop, not as a server.
|
|
rince wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 21:44
|
@leadman
true, real server work should be kept for debian.
But at home i use ssh for home-networking services. sshfs for remote folder mounting (in lan), etc...
just because of the ease of use of ssh...
a graphical interface can be useful for new users ...
but perhaps i should check out webmin for a change :)
|
|
nuscly wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 09:39
|
We need a tool better integrated and simplier to configurate like Ebox. The problem with webmin is the lack of integration between service.
Bringing a like Ebox tools will reduce time to deploy a server in common used.
|
|
loogaroo wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 21:00
|
There is an alternative for ebox: MDS
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/2301/
Unlike ebox MDS:
- overwrites not your whole config file, you can maintain your system normally from commandline, if you want, e.g. if you want add a new share-option for samba in smb.conf. Just fire up you text-editor and add the option, MDS will not have a problem with it. Try this with ebox.
- needs only a small python daemon on the server to manage.
- is written in Python (core) and PHP (webinterface)
|
|
timos wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 09:04
|
Imho, none of these is really a huge pain in the neck if you are running a single server.
GUI is not a stairway to heaven, especially if there is no text-based configuration file below to check what is actually going on.
But many of these issues become trickier if you are running a group of servers in a mixed (client) environment. Therefore, this links to idea #1107. I would still not be calling a GUI for help.
Below, a bit outdated comment (maybe more to #1107) from a linux user much more capable than me
---clip---
A year ago, I was in the same boat as you..... I now have all my Linux machines authenticating to OpenLDAP database, and all my Windows machines authenticating to a Samba domain, which is using the same LDAP db as it's backend. It took a lot of work and a lot of how-to reading (several months) , but I finally made it ;)
I started small, just getting the LDAP database working. I then went on to figure out how to use PAM, nsswitch, et al, to auth my linux workstations to ldap.
Finally I got my Samba server working as a Windows domain, and using LDAP. ...
---clip---
http://www.webservertalk.com/archive99-2006-1-1357009.html
|
|
Lee wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 22:39
| |
Agreed. BUT, the configuration system for this should have a command line interface, and should support both default and virtual domains. Otherwise, it all becomes useless once you need to setup multiple sites.
|
|
siddhant wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 21:23
| |
Webmin is a tool designed to do precisely this... And it works pretty well...
|
 zulcss (Ubuntu Developer) wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 12:19
| |
This is already available for hardy.
|
|
solid_liq wrote on the 14 Mar 08 at 12:32
|
If you can't use a command-line to do this, then don't call yourself an admin, because you aren't one. Just use the stupid misnomer of a title, "systems engineer," (similar to "sanitary engineer") which Microsoft invented for yourself instead. After all, if you can't be bothered to memorize the details of what you do for a living, you really don't deserve much (if any) respect.
|
|
shovelhead wrote on the 21 Mar 08 at 21:38
|
Sometimes you have to ask yourself, how stupid an answer can get.
If somebody can setup and run a server easyer using a GUI - I think he should get one. Servers are for data management and networking; THAT'S the important part about it.
Pissing contests and "real men use CLI" rubbish lets me think that there is a very lonely person out there, who has lost all his social contacts when he learned Unix and GNU terminology and is now really afraid that people who still have a life, might eventually do the same thing he does. It won't be "magic" anymore.
I do handle debian servers, but I fully see the point of makeing it more easy and more accessible
voted up
|
|
Lex wrote on the 26 Mar 08 at 08:23
|
Administrator -> Services setting is quite bad. Minimum thing to do is put there some feedback once you will click on checkbox. It will also improve usability by adding some icons for services (now it is mostly using generic icon for everything).
Power user will be grateful for possibility to see which command is invoked. (This could be initially hidden so beginner users will stay in game.)
|
|
arbulus wrote on the 28 Mar 08 at 16:14
|
leadman wrote:
"if you have such ideas like GUI for configuring those services than stick to windows, until you are mature enough to use command line. Other case is that IMHO debian would be much better for hosting those services. Ubuntu should be used as desktop, not as a server. "
This is an awful thing to say. Who are you to judge another based on their preference between GUI/CLI? Who are you to say when someone is "mature"? It's not anyone's place to judge others based on how they want to administer their systems. If someone wants a GUI, why should that be a problem? If you want to use CLI only, that's your business, and it's not yours to force your preferences on others.
I'm not going to get dragged into the CLI/GUI war. What I'm saying here is that our community is about freedom, freedom to do what you want with what is yours. If some want to administer their systems with nothing but CLI, then they should be free to do so. But if someone wants to administer their systems with a GUI, they should also be free to do so without fear that people are going to trash them for their choices.
|
|
arbulus wrote on the 28 Mar 08 at 16:20
| |
Regarding ebox: this looks like a incredible start for a drop-in replacement of Microsoft Active Directory which is something that the Linux community desperately needs.
|
|
Ape wrote on the 11 Apr 08 at 19:16
| |
Linuxists usually like to do things like that with shell, but if you want an easy admin panel for linux server install Webmin. It's a browser based control panel and it supports configuring and monitoring servers like you just listed.
|
|
nicolas2b wrote on the 15 Apr 08 at 19:43
|
It's a good idea.
An easy set up of the services can permit the expand of ubuntu server
|
|
leandropls wrote on the 2 May 08 at 02:28
|
I can only agree with people that defends usability.
One of the reasons I like systems like Linux and Mac OS X is that I know that if there is something that I can't fix using the GUI I can always open up a terminal and fix thru there.
Personally, I believe that every server administrator should be skilled with the CLI, but if we can make it easier for someone to setup and manage the server, we should do it.
Once it can be done without knowing how to use the CLI, the administrator has the freedom to determine if he should or not learn it.
|
|
Lukehasnoname wrote on the 5 May 08 at 04:05
|
Perhaps *nix nuts that insist on NOT developing easy-to-use tools are simply ensuring they have a job? If everyone could do it, they wouldn't be special.
That said, I'm going to be doing exactly this sort of thing for a living. If a GUI helps some and can actually accomplish tasks (which is not impossible), then I see no reason why it can't be developed. Those that prefer term can stick with that just the same. Isn't Linux about choice? It increasingly seems that many people in the Linux community aren't true supporters of choice.
|
|
Endolith wrote on the 12 May 08 at 06:20
| |
Yes please. Telling newcomers to copy and paste cryptic commands into a terminal or text editor just encourages them into irresponsible behavior. We need a GUI that guides them and doesn't provide dangerous options.
|
|
brettalton wrote on the 15 May 08 at 16:49
|
eBox (in the Ubuntu repos) doesn't support mail, so no, this is not available for Hardy.
Working at a school board, I've had some exposure to Windows Server 2003 and working as a Linux consultant, all I hear is that when I leave the office, the users want a GUI so they can work with the Linux server.
Here is a check list that Windows Server 2003 gives you under the title "Manage Your Server":
File server (yes/no)
Print server (yes/no)
Application server (IIS, ASP.NET) (yes/no)
Mail server (POP3, SMTP) (yes/no)
Terminal server (yes/no)
Remote access / VPN server (yes/no)
Domain controller (Active Directory) (yes/no)
DNS server (yes/no)
Streaming media server (yes/no)
WINS server (yes/no)
Most of these are available to install and configure under Ubuntu Linux, but instead of a GUI, it looks more like:
sudo aptitude install apache2 php5 mysql-server openvpn postfix courier-imap # etc.
Then to configure it, every program has its own log files.
Can anyone realistically give a system administrator the task of setting up Postfix with hooks into a MySQL database? No, because they need to spend time on supporting the server, not setting it up.
A server GUI is critical whether you'd like to admit it or not.
|
|
Lukehasnoname wrote on the 15 May 08 at 20:54
| |
How hard would it be to implement a Webmin install option at Ubuntu-install time? I'm not an expert on Webmin, but I'm looking at its modules apage and it has an impressive list of supported features.
|
|
Liam McDermott wrote on the 2 Jun 08 at 05:51
|
I'm a grumpy admin, I use the command line for everything and will gladly grump -- although not seriously -- at any admin whom doesn't. However, I fully support this as a great idea for two reasons:
1. I'd rather the admin be using GNU/Linux, not Windows, even if they need a GUI to make the switch;
2. At the end of the day, GNU/Linux is all about choice, keep the posturing on Slashdot!
Can't wait until all those MCSE's have switched over to Ubuntu Server (because they can configure it with a GUI) and I'm swaggering around, being smug about rolling with Debian and SSH, from the terminal. :D
|
|
Nxx wrote on the 19 Aug 08 at 23:02
|
Hi! I dont agree my idea
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/9895/
is a duplicate of tghis idea: there is already GUI tool for VPN, but it is not included in default install, which makes pkunzip.zip trouble for many people. Please unmark my idea as duplicate of this one.
|
Post your comment
|
|
|
Blueprint ebox:
