On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 08:52 +0100, Paul Elliott wrote: > 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,
In many cases, I find that X over SSH works for that purpose (with the X server and GUI on some remote client). In addition, fewer packages are required on the server to run an X client over SSH - than even a minimal GUI on the server - much less a full version of GNOME, KDE, or Xfce. And as Paul suggests, a smaller footprint means a smaller attack vector. However, if an admin chooses to run a full GUI on Ubuntu Server, I'd think he/she would want a - supported - system. While I like alternatives like Fluxbox or even Fvwm, I don't think they're in the main repository. I suspect at least a substantial minority of Ubuntu Server users have some Canonical support subscription. > 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. Yup, Red Hat has moved away from CLI installers too. Thanks, Mike -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
