Hi Ante, Ante Karamatic wrote: > On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:23:31 -0500 > "Dustin Kirkland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's the purpose of fluxbox, openbox, xfce, enlightenment (etc...) on > server? It's not like you have some point and click application for > setting up apache virtual website or psotfix transport tables.
We find increasingly a large number of applications are *requiring* a full X environment to run the setup procedure. It's not something I agree with, I strongly believe a CLI installer should always be present for any software that might end up on a server. Unfortunately it's also something outside of our control. > Even GNOME and KDE don't have flexible applications for server > management. Still, if someone really wants (for some strange reason) X > window system on server, I see more reasons to install full GNOME or > KDE, than some X window manager just for xterm. I would suggest the opposite. If a GUI is required on a server then it's best to install the smallest possible environment to save resources and crucially, to limit the attack vector. On average, less code = less chance of a security hole. Coverity[1] research shows that a range of Open Source software contained 0.434 bugs per 1000 lines of code. The more code, the more bugs. We're only human after all. :-) [1] http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3589361 -- Paul Elliott UNIX Systems Administrator and Programmer Computing Service, University of York -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
