My goal is for businesses to use Ubuntu, especially as workstations, because I believe you won't convert the majority of people unless they experience it at work. My motive is entirely to get Ubuntu used by more people. The only way I see Ubuntu being used in the workplace is by having a "domain solution" where the server and desktop editions integrate tightly to provide a better solution than Windows. Servers having GUIs is not my main goal but I think it's important if we want to get Ubuntu used in businesses.
I personally don't mind using a CLI environment. At work I have an Ubuntu Server providing file sharing services which I manage only using SSH. However, I fear that when I eventually leave no one will know how to manage it and it will be decommissioned. I realise I may have come across as a typical newbie who just wants a GUI server, and I apologise if anyone got that impression. -Ryan On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Onno Benschop <o...@itmaze.com.au> wrote: > On 20/10/09 15:24, Ryan Dwyer wrote: > > What are your thoughts on having a server product that competes with > > Windows Server? Something which has a GUI, is very easy to manage and > > works best with Ubuntu workstations. > In light of some of the other comments in this thread, I'd like to make > an observation, which may or may not hold true. > > I personally prefer the CLI for many, if not most, tasks. > > The reason that I do is because I have an understanding of what is going > on for the tools that I use. > > The reason that a GUI is nice, is for those times when the understanding > is poor. For example, I'm still trying to get my head around how LDAP > and Samba work together to make a Domain Controller. I've read lots of > documentation on the subject, but the overall picture some how still > eludes me. A well built GUI can remove some of the complexity in the > implementation and management of such a complex environment. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about the Windows or KDE approach > that everything in the system has a check-box or a menu option. I'm > talking about how a GUI can simplify the complexities of such an > environment. (This is not intended as a swipe on KDE, just that I've > never liked the thundering horde of options it provides - I use a CLI > for that.) > > If all the processes on a server were simple, we wouldn't need system > administrators. That's unlikely to ever happen. > > I think what you are trying to discuss is a way of making server > administration less complex. > > I think that you feel that a GUI will assist in that, and to some degree > it will. > > I think it is admirable that you want Ubuntu to be used by more people, > but I'm beginning to wonder if you're asking the right question. > > What I think you're asking is for a simpler way to manage a complex > system - and for me that comes with installing sensible defaults. > Perhaps your blueprint might attempt to describe functionality, rather > than a GUI. If you're not careful you will be building ebox or webmin > all over again. > > -- > Onno Benschop > > Connected via Bigpond NextG at S31°54'06" - E115°50'39" (Yokine, WA) > -- > ()/)/)() ..ASCII for Onno.. > |>>? ..EBCDIC for Onno.. > --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. > > ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 8888 - > o...@itmaze.com.au > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss >
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
