http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/68/
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.

[1818 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #68


]]> en-us Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:28:45 +0000 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:51:17 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/68/
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EboxSpec]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:31:52 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:16:05 +0000
And how about also having a tab on aforementioned dialog/window that contains the actual configuration text for "Advanced" configuration?]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:18:19 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:20:25 +0000 But if you want one, you have the option to install webmin.]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:37:58 +0000
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.]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:41:55 +0000
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?]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:19:36 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:21:51 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:16:00 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:02:07 +0000 I'd love to see Ubuntu taking the Webmin model and making a real competitor to WHS for the home market.]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:25:56 +0000 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.

]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:41:24 +0000 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 :)]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:44:30 +0000
Bringing a like Ebox tools will reduce time to deploy a server in common used.]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:39:12 +0000 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)]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:00:49 +0000
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
]]> Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:04:44 +0000 Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:39:10 +0000 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:23:31 +0000 Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:19:10 +0000 ]]> Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:32:51 +0000
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 ]]> Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:38:52 +0000 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.)

]]> Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:23:56 +0000 "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. ]]> Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:14:26 +0000 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:20:48 +0000 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:16:24 +0000 An easy set up of the services can permit the expand of ubuntu server]]> Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:43:22 +0000
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.

]]> Fri, 02 May 2008 02:28:06 +0000
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.

]]> Mon, 05 May 2008 04:05:45 +0000 Mon, 12 May 2008 06:20:00 +0000
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.]]> Thu, 15 May 2008 16:49:15 +0000 Thu, 15 May 2008 20:54:17 +0000
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]]> Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:51:49 +0000
https://launchpad.net/rapache]]> Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:25:36 +0000 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.]]> Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:02:08 +0000
And note that Augeas seems to have the most momentum in this space:

http://augeas.net/faq.html

The server team has been looking at it along with eBox and ucsa (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCentralizedServiceAdministrator)
]]> Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:05:31 +0000 ]]> Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:35:13 +0000 I could be wrong on that.

Ebox could have more chance to come out properly, at least it's already done.]]> Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:56:41 +0000
Yes, I too use CLI when I have to. But I do appreciate the intuitiveness of a well laid out GUI that presents me with the different options grouped in a logical way.

If you have to set a lot of options, a GUI can often be more effective. Putting check marks in 20 yes/no boxes is done in a few seconds. Editing a config file and writing/changing yes and no on 20 lines takes a lot longer... At least with my typing speed :-)

A lot here has been said about using web interfaces. I actually prefer a desktop. Of course, if you are planning on putting this server on the internet, I would not recommend it, but my main concern are the small networks - home, small companies, schools, churches etc. that need a robust server that is easy to manage. Instead of introducing yet another web interface, why not get the admin used to either Gnome or KDE? After all, we would like them to start using this on the rest of the pc's, not only on the server? So to me it makes sense to have the possibility to use the same GUI on all boxes.

It also makes sense to me to make the config applications in a way that they will work native on both Gnome and KDE. Any idea what has to be used to program it for that to happen?]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:12:39 +0000 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:49:35 +0000