Wouldn't it be great if there was a standard protocol for that? Cheers, Leandro.
Em Dom, 2008-05-04 às 07:14 -0700, Martin Hess escreveu: > Serge has pointed out what should probably be a 5th requirement. > > * Easy to use > > No point in having a GUI that is difficult to use. Windows is full of > examples of such GUIs and gave GUIs a bad name. Additionally, if the > tool makes it possible to manage a set of machines at the expense of > managing 1 machine easily then it has failed the ease of use test. > > > Yes. But haveing some enterprise management tool installed, to > > manage just a bunch of servers might also be if not rificulous, a > > little overkill. > > > > Lots of businesses are small companies who need to only manage a > > small number of servers. Small companies on low budget where one has > > to put up stuff in a short time frame, as one server won't serve a > > workgroup 200 users, but maybe 15. > > > > A per server management tool is what often is needed there. > > > > > > Serge > > Here is the requirements list so far: > > 1) Optional - must not be required for Ubuntu Server > 2) Secure - must not have known security issues, must have good known > security architecture > 3) Scalable - must be able to administer sets of machines > 4) Open Source > 5) Easy to use - for 1 or more machines > > Are there any packages that can meet such requirements? > -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
