Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Ryan Dwyer wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Chan > > wrote: > > > > > > Deciding that those defaults actually would be is another kettle of > > fish entirely and I surmise that a democratic process of some sort, >

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Christopher Chan < christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk> wrote: > > > > > Deciding that those defaults actually would be is another kettle of > > fish entirely and I surmise that a democratic process of some sort, > > perhaps brainstorm, would be a good way to settle

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> > Deciding that those defaults actually would be is another kettle of > fish entirely and I surmise that a democratic process of some sort, > perhaps brainstorm, would be a good way to settle this inherently > political section. > That can of worms has to be opened and emptied. The one singl

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Am 22.11.2009 um 20:44 schrieb Remco: > We want to cater to administrators with varying degrees of > experience, making them more > productive and less error prone. At least, that's why *I* want GUI > tools. Well said. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubun

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 20:18, Markus Hitter wrote: > > Am 21.11.2009 um 22:38 schrieb Remco: > >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 19:58, Michael Bienia wrote: >>> >>> On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: Oh, perhaps

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher < christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk> wrote: > > >> Letting someone use gparted to partition his disk who doesn't know > >> anything about partitioning will probably end in a big data desaster. > >> And whom will this user blame for it? C

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Am 21.11.2009 um 22:38 schrieb Remco: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 19:58, Michael Bienia > wrote: >> On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: >>> >>> Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over >>> gparted as >>

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

>> Letting someone use gparted to partition his disk who doesn't know >> anything about partitioning will probably end in a big data desaster. >> And whom will this user blame for it? Certainly not himself for doing >> tasks he doesn't understand but the GUI for letting it do him (even if >> it ha

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 19:58, Michael Bienia wrote: > On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: >> >> Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over gparted as >> well. It's doable and much more flexible :-) > > gpart

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On 2009-11-21 17:37:46 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote: > > Oh, perhaps you prefer command line disk partitioning over gparted as > well. It's doable and much more flexible :-) gparted is probably a good GUI (hadn't have to repartition my dis

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Am 21.11.2009 um 14:22 schrieb Chan Chung Hang Christopher: > In any case, please give an example of an interface that makes it > more convenient/faster to find an option Sorry to interrupt your nagging again:

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> > Ohh, we only question other people's needs when it is apparent that that > need involves geting some more education and not an A.I that will get > what they want done for them. > After this last comment in which your statement implies that GUIs are driven by user's lack of education I don't th

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Joao Pinto wrote: > Hello, > > Please explain why this is more convenient/faster than reading the man > >> page? You mean clicking around to see all the options is faster than >> doing 'man page' '/related term' or 'man page' 'Page Down' >> >> > > I hope you are not comparing application in

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Hello, Please explain why this is more convenient/faster than reading the man > page? You mean clicking around to see all the options is faster than > doing 'man page' '/related term' or 'man page' 'Page Down' > I hope you are not comparing application interfaces to application manuals and tellin

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> Mac OS X Client & Server is pretty good here. The flexibility is > limited, but if you do things the predefined way you can be pretty > sure not to open up a disaster. > > BTW., setting up ssh access, FTP or a simple web server is as easy as > clicking a single button in Mac OS X. I've yet

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> On the otherhand however we see that a gui has one major advantage: It > visually displays you all the options you have directly and thus, if you > are looking for something, but are unsure what it is, you can just > search through the submenus until you find the right checkbox/dropdown > menu e

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

I have been reading the discussion so far, and would also like to say a few words about it. Because I feel that both sides here have some valid points. On the one hand of course it is true that stupid people will do stupid things. It doesnt matter if you work on console or on gui. To oversimplify i

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> > In this case, the GUI isn't well thought. For one, a GUI can have > instructions in form of context sensitive messages. For two, with a GUI it's > much easier to fit checks in which prevents users from shooting into their > foot. > I disagree. A sysadmin who doesn't understand the concepts of

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Christopher Chan wrote: > Luke L wrote: >> I read some comments on this thread, and I feel I must chime in, >> because I get furious at the anti-GUI people. >> > > Where? Where? I don't remember anybody being explicitly anti-GUI. No, it's been explicitly anti-anybody-who-can't-configure-a-ser

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Am 20.11.2009 um 13:25 schrieb Joseph Miller: > And either way, GUI or non-GUI - you can set it up completely wrong > if you don't read the instructions. In this case, the GUI isn't well thought. For one, a GUI can have instructions in form of context sensitive messages. For two, with a GU

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> It's been said before, and I will say it again. Stupid people will do > stupid things, one way or another. I do know that often times, with > repeatable tasks and with things that can be done step-by-step, a GUI > can be useful in keeping the learning curve low. Can a low learning > curve make so

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Luke L wrote: > I read some comments on this thread, and I feel I must chime in, > because I get furious at the anti-GUI people. > Where? Where? I don't remember anybody being explicitly anti-GUI. > It's been said before, and I will say it again. Stupid people will do > stupid things, one way o

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

I read some comments on this thread, and I feel I must chime in, because I get furious at the anti-GUI people. It's been said before, and I will say it again. Stupid people will do stupid things, one way or another. I do know that often times, with repeatable tasks and with things that can be done

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> If someone wants to make a tool that makes it easier for Windows > admins to run Linux servers, I'm sure that would be useful to some. > But to claim this as a cure-all for the perceived (but nonexistent) > additional complexity is bogus. > I salute you, sir, for being humble enough to m

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

OK, I've been using Linux for about 10 years. And at first, I did think it was hard. Now I've come a long way, but so has Linux. I do also work on Windows desktop systems (mostly XP) from time to time and manage a small Windows XP network. I am not what you would call an IT Professional, but I

RE: Ubuntu Domain Server

c: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com; Derek Broughton > Subject: RE: Ubuntu Domain Server > > I just edit resolv.conf anyway and fix it the next time it “breaks” > (every time I log into my company VPN, even though I have the PPPoE > client set to not apply DNS settings from the DH

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

>> and attacking me >> personally >> > > I attacked you personally, Derek? If that's the way it sounded, then > rest assured that was not my intention. Please point out what appeared > to be a personal attack so that I can learn not to do it again. Maybe > there was a bit of culture clash. >

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

2009/11/1 Derek Broughton : > Dotan Cohen wrote: > >>>  They _are_ they sysadmin.  Like it or not.  And yes, they'll >>> enable an exploitable module - but they'll do that whether you make it >>> hard for them or not.  If you won't give them the tools, they'll just >>> google for an answer, take t

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> They _are_ they sysadmin. Like it or not. And yes, they'll >> enable an exploitable module - but they'll do that whether you make it >> hard for them or not. If you won't give them the tools, they'll just >> google for an answer, take the first one they find - safe or no

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Remco wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 19:28, Derek Broughton wrote: > >> As for whether they'll understand - that's what the tool is for, to make it >> _possible_ for them to understand. The people you would aim such a tool at >> certainly don't have a clue about virtual hosts, but they do kn

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Ethan Baldridge wrote: > I just edit resolv.conf anyway and fix it the next time it “breaks” (every > time I log into my company VPN, even though I have the PPPoE client set to > not apply DNS settings from the DHCP server). For a personal computer, I can > just keep editing; I have to fix the

RE: Ubuntu Domain Server

ldgaard > Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com; Derek Broughton > Subject: Re: Ubuntu Domain Server > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > On 20/10/2009, at 15.35, Derek Broughton wrote: > >> >>>> I will never understand why a se

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > On 20/10/2009, at 15.35, Derek Broughton wrote: > > > > >>> I will never understand why a server GUI would improve anything? > > > > I will never understand why elitists hate GUIs. A good UI should > > improve > > things by absolutely

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On 20/10/2009, at 15.35, Derek Broughton wrote: > >>> I will never understand why a server GUI would improve anything? > > I will never understand why elitists hate GUIs. A good UI should > improve > things by absolutely preventing misconfiguration. That's because the GUI often gets in the wa

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

>  They _are_ they sysadmin.  Like it or not.  And yes, they'll enable > an exploitable module - but they'll do that whether you make it hard for > them or not.  If you won't give them the tools, they'll just google for an > answer, take the first one they find - safe or not - and throw it in.  If

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 19:28, Derek Broughton wrote: > As for whether they'll understand - that's what the tool is for, to make it > _possible_ for them to understand.  The people you would aim such a tool at > certainly don't have a clue about virtual hosts, but they do know that > they're runni

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: > /me wonders if mom and pop in general will understand the stuff > below...and not enable an exploitable php module/formmail.cgi/remember > to update to security fixed packages. Best make this for zee sysadmin. They _are_ they sysadmin. Like it or not. And

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Derek Broughton wrote: > Dotan Cohen wrote: > > >>> In the first place, nothing they can do in the world of server >>> configuration is going to be that hazardous, and in the second, it's not >>> and never has been about whether it's wise to let them do that: THEY WILL >>> DO IT. So it's in _ev

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> In the first place, nothing they can do in the world of server >> configuration is going to be that hazardous, and in the second, it's not >> and never has been about whether it's wise to let them do that: THEY WILL >> DO IT. So it's in _everybody's_ best interest to give th

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Jan Claeys wrote: > Op woensdag 28-10-2009 om 07:36 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef > Christopher Chan: > >> Remotely administer a UDS server with a non-web-based, X-based GUI and >> therefore you need an Xserver on Windows. xrdp is probably better given >> that rdp is way faster than X or if we

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Op woensdag 28-10-2009 om 07:36 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef Christopher Chan: > Remotely administer a UDS server with a non-web-based, X-based GUI and > therefore you need an Xserver on Windows. xrdp is probably better given > that rdp is way faster than X or if we are going to install somethin

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> In the first place, nothing they can do in the world of server configuration > is going to be that hazardous, and in the second, it's not and never has > been about whether it's wise to let them do that: THEY WILL DO IT.  So it's > in _everybody's_ best interest to give them the tools that will p

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> Or give complex video recording and playback devices to consumers, or > provide tools for publishing your own > content, or advanced 3d modelling tools to amateurs.  All these things where > at one time considered to be the > realm of the professional only, but are now commonplace commodity items

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >>> Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether >>> they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and >>> shared via NIS+. >> >> My whole point has been that it could be done, while you've been saying >> it couldn't. Having appa

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Tim Hawkins wrote: > Or give complex video recording and playback devices to consumers, or > provide tools for publishing your own > content, or advanced 3d modelling tools to amateurs. All these things > where at one time considered to be the > realm of the professional only, but are now comm

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Or give complex video recording and playback devices to consumers, or provide tools for publishing your own content, or advanced 3d modelling tools to amateurs. All these things where at one time considered to be the realm of the professional only, but are now commonplace commodity items. I t

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

>> Oh feel free to code the thing then. Just don't ask mom and pop whether >> they want their user account database in ldap or mysql or in passwd and >> shared via NIS+. > > My whole point has been that it could be done, while you've been saying it > couldn't.  Having apparently accepted that was w

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Christopher Chan wrote: > Derek Broughton wrote: >> >> All the RFCs are defined as finite-state engines. There really is NO >> reason that a tool capable of making all the correct configurations need >> to be >> "predefined" and "fixed". It's 30 years since I did FSEs in university, >> but I'm p

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

>>> This has brought my focus back on the subject line for what we're all >>> replying to. I think it's been stated quite widely now that using a >>> GUI to configure Apache, SMTP, etc is probably unwise (RHEL seems to >>> disagree, but whatever), I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing >>> to

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

athered that the OP wants to make an "Ubuntu Domain Server" that is managed with tools designed for ease of use by untrained users. If that is not what the OP was suggesting, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. > Really, it's > insulting to tell someone with an idea that he

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Derek Broughton wrote: > Christopher Chan wrote: > > >>> Professionals need to be "on-call". In fact, for most medical treatment, >>> the doctor _is_ "on-call". If we could make the day-to-day >>> administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner >>> might be far more h

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Steven Susbauer wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: >> Hands up those who know end users that understand tcp/ip enough to >> decide on a static ip for the UDS server that will host the user account >> database, the update repository and the monitoring software. > > > So

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Christopher Chan wrote: >> Professionals need to be "on-call". In fact, for most medical treatment, >> the doctor _is_ "on-call". If we could make the day-to-day >> administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner >> might be far more happy to consider keeping an expert

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:53:08 +0800 Christopher Chan wrote: >Steven Susbauer wrote: >> On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Shentino wrote: >> >> >>> Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with >>> what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it >>> commercial

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: > Hands up those who know end users that understand tcp/ip enough to > decide on a static ip for the UDS server that will host the user > account > database, the update repository and the monitoring software. So now you're what, bashing land

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Steven Susbauer wrote: > On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Shentino wrote: > > >> Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with >> what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it >> commercially. >> >> > > This has brought my focus back on the subject lin

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Derek Broughton wrote: > Dotan Cohen wrote: > > >>> I completely disagree. There's no theoretical reason why a computer >>> program couldn't do any of the above. >>> >> We are discussing practice, not theory. In theory, there isn't any >> difference between the two. But in practice... >>

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Derek Broughton wrote: > Dotan Cohen wrote: > > My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the masses. Assessible in this context meaning "seemingly designed for". >>> I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already >>> accessible

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Derek Broughton wrote: > Christopher Chan wrote: > > >> Derek Broughton wrote: >> >>> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: >>> >>> Derek Broughton wrote: > I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. > >

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Shentino wrote: > Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with > what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it > commercially. > This has brought my focus back on the subject line for what we're all replying to. I think i

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >>> My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the >>> masses. Assessible in this context meaning "seemingly designed for". >> >> I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already >> accessible to the masses. They can set up completely bol

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

>> My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the >> masses. Assessible in this context meaning "seemingly designed for". > > I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already > accessible to the masses.  They can set up completely bollixed servers with > MS t

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Just curious, but would Landscape have any feature set overlap with what we're talking about here? I read that canonical uses it commercially. On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Derek Broughton wrote: > Dotan Cohen wrote: > > > Here is a great example of people administering things that they > > s

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: > Here is a great example of people administering things that they > shouldn't: > > http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/PHP-has-an-eval-function-like-perl.aspx > Very funny. Now, wouldn't it have been better to give Jim some useful tools? -- derek -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mai

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> I completely disagree. There's no theoretical reason why a computer >> program couldn't do any of the above. > > We are discussing practice, not theory. In theory, there isn't any > difference between the two. But in practice... > > >>"Professionals" are primarily require

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> You keep missing the main point. which is not whether or not people >> without knowledge _should_ be running servers, but that they _are_, will >> continue to be whether or not we support them, and can't be prevented >> from doing so. All of your arguments against providing t

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Christopher Chan wrote: > Derek Broughton wrote: >> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: >> >>> Derek Broughton wrote: >>> I don't follow why you would think an X server on Windows is required. >>> Easy. Remote desktop for remote administration. Of course, I do not >>> neces

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Here is a great example of people administering things that they shouldn't: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/PHP-has-an-eval-function-like-perl.aspx -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify s

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> Can you explain how the system becomes inflexible by adding a GUI tool? > I am not the OP, but I think that I can answer. The opposition is not opposion to GUI tools. The opposition is to tools that help untrained minions to feel like they are administrating a server. The term GUI was used becau

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> The software that brain surgeons use is highly graphical. > > > If it was text-only, it would be much less effective, and brain surgeons > would therefore be less trustworthy, not more. It is not the difficulty > o

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> You keep missing the main point. which is not whether or not people without > knowledge _should_ be running servers, but that they _are_, will continue to > be whether or not we support them, and can't be prevented from doing so. > All of your arguments against providing the tools to support them

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> I completely disagree.  There's no theoretical reason why a computer program > couldn't do any of the above. We are discussing practice, not theory. In theory, there isn't any difference between the two. But in practice... > "Professionals" are primarily required to > protect professionals' jo

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Cc: > ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Subject: Re: Ubuntu Domain Server > > Caroline Ford wrote: > >> On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen wrote: >> >> >>>> Or puts them out of a job? >>>> >>>> >>

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Jan Claeys wrote: > Op vrijdag 23-10-2009 om 11:57 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Kevin > Fries: > >> I mentioned this the other day, and other than a few people making off >> line comments indicating that they had never heard of the product, my >> suggestion of GOsa got completely ignored. >>

RE: Ubuntu Domain Server

Op vrijdag 23-10-2009 om 11:57 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Kevin Fries: > I mentioned this the other day, and other than a few people making off > line comments indicating that they had never heard of the product, my > suggestion of GOsa got completely ignored. Maybe it needs better documentatio

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Op vrijdag 23-10-2009 om 13:03 uur [tijdzone +1030], schreef Ryan Dwyer: > BTW: GUI tools shouldn't run on a server, but on the admin's > (or > pseudo-admin's) desktop. Using a secure connection to the > server, of > course. > I take it no one has any issue

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Derek Broughton wrote: > Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: > > >> Derek Broughton wrote: >> >>> John Moser wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Dwyer wrote: > I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GU

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: > Derek Broughton wrote: >> John Moser wrote: >> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Dwyer >>> wrote: >>> I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GUI or CLI is better. Shouldn't we focus on what the typical business

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Can you explain how the system becomes inflexible by adding a GUI tool? Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:05:37 To: Caroline Ford Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Ubuntu Domain

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Caroline Ford wrote: > > On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen wrote: > >>> Or puts them out of a job? >>> >> >> Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision >> maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might >> get him sued, and thus out of a business.

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Derek Broughton wrote: > John Moser wrote: > > >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Dwyer wrote: >> >>> I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GUI or CLI is >>> better. Shouldn't we focus on what the typical business wants and what >>> they're prepared to use? >>>

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dotan Cohen wrote on 24/10/09 13:25: >... > Why not have a GUI program that performs brain surgery? That rebuilds > Ford smallblocks? That gives legal advice? Some jobs require a > professional, and making them "accessible" does nobody any good. The s

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> I agree that all networks should be managed by an experienced >> administrator, but unfortunately a lot of them aren't. We can't change >> that. Many businesses just want something that works and is easy to >> manage, even if there are "issues" such as no backups. The target

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

John Moser wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Dwyer wrote: >> I don't think there's any use discussing whether we think a GUI or CLI is >> better. Shouldn't we focus on what the typical business wants and what >> they're prepared to use? > > This is an easy question. > > First off,

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> And you thing that simple file sharing server based on SMB are >> comparable to Mustang GT? >> > > No. But I think that running a public HTTP server is. No way - everybody _and_ their monkey runs a public HTTP server today. You can't expect that that will ever be done by

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> That tool is generally called a server. That Mac OS X tool is called >> Samba, with a nice interface to configure it. I see no reason why they >> should be forced to run Mac OS X to do this. >> > > I think that Chan was giving an example. > > >> People should have the choi

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Steven Susbauer wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2009, at 2:12 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote: > >> Thank you for proving my point. > > Or proving the point that easy to use GUI configuration tools can > actually help make the situation better, for example suggesting the > user set a password for their SMTP server

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

com because you don't think they should have access to > a powerful yet easy to use system, because they might do bad things? They are free to do what they want and I am free to firewall them anytime their server gets rooted. Given the astronomical cost that botnets bring upon the world

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Remco wrote: > Once upon a time, Linux was very hard to use on the desktop. If you > wanted to do anything, you had to read manuals and get flamed on > mailinglists. In recent years this has all been turned around. There > were some detractors that would argue that Linux would become as > insecure

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 23:42, Dotan Cohen wrote: >> As a computer science student, I know about Internet security. > > As a mechanical engineering student, I don't know anything about > internet security. You don't want to give me powerful tools and let me > loose on the wild wild web. Actually,

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> As a computer science student, I know about Internet security. As a mechanical engineering student, I don't know anything about internet security. You don't want to give me powerful tools and let me loose on the wild wild web. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il --

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Once upon a time, Linux was very hard to use on the desktop. If you wanted to do anything, you had to read manuals and get flamed on mailinglists. In recent years this has all been turned around. There were some detractors that would argue that Linux would become as insecure as Windows because any

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> That tool is generally called a server. That Mac OS X tool is called Samba, > with a nice interface to configure it. I see no reason why they should be > forced to run Mac OS X to do this. > I think that Chan was giving an example. > People should have the choice to do what they want, even if

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> Mom and pop small businesses do not need a server. They just need a > file/print sharing tool like what you have on Mac OS X, an account with a > local isp and a router from that isp. These shops think that with a server they can access their work from home or on the road, run a website, and oth

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

You are free to create such a GUI tool, or hire someone to create it, and (if it has sufficient quality and is secure) get it into Ubuntu. 2009/10/25 Steven Susbauer : > Should they be forced to hire a full time IT staff to run oldtownrootbeer.com Why would someone get a server just to host a web

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

On Oct 25, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: > Dotan Cohen wrote: >>> For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to... >>> >> >> Linux-savvy companies are not the issue here. GUI server tools will >> attract mom 'n pop small businesses as well. >> >> > > > Mom and pop sm

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen wrote: >> For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to... >> > > Linux-savvy companies are not the issue here. GUI server tools will > attract mom 'n pop small businesses as well. > > Mom and pop small businesses do not need a server. They just need a file/print sharin

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

> For your information, Linux savvy companies tend to... Linux-savvy companies are not the issue here. GUI server tools will attract mom 'n pop small businesses as well. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lis

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

Caroline Ford wrote: > > On 25 Oct 2009, at 15:09, Dotan Cohen wrote: > >>> Or puts them out of a job? >>> >> >> Likely we are talking about a small business here, so the decision >> maker might be the top of the organization's food chain. But it might >> get him sued, and thus out of a business.

Re: Ubuntu Domain Server

>> Someone may feed himself by selling used books. He has no interest in >> learning sister admiration whatever that may be. He just wants that >> new Unbuto thing that will let his customers see what books he has. >> And of course he will make sure that he can access the customer's data >> (name,

  1   2   >