btw, i don't think satega and i have the same objectives, he's writing an easy to use server packet i'm writing a management center for experienced sysadmins, not only for easy of use and to catch new user, what i want is to have a tool i can use on real world servers (which doesn't have Graphical interface) so it need to run in CLI, but i'm open to the idea of having a GTK/QT/Whatever frontend, but i think this will make the sysadmins to clicky, so i don't think is a good idea to start with a Graphical interface, that's why i prefer to use a curses one.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well i was thinking on doing it using MVO model so it would be easy to > add more GUI's, so if you want to do it i'm ok with that, also i'm > more a backend man than a GUI one, so if you want to write the GUI and > the i add the backend i will be happy with the idea so we can load > balance an i can concentrate my efforts on writing the backend. > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Matthew D Barley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I really like the idea. I am one of those individuals that you refer to >> who are somewhat new to the Ubuntu/Linux environment and a GUI interface >> on the server-end sounds like a fantastic idea. >>> >>> Ting >>> >>> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:08 +0200, JAWUD wrote: >>> >>>> Just my thoughts on ubuntu server GUI. >>>> >>>> English is not my native language so I apologize for grammar mistakes. >>>> >>>> Windows server system is very popular and I think it is because of the GUI >>>> it >>>> has. In my opinion a user should be able to configure a server without the >>>> cli. >>>> GUIs have some big advantage over the cli, it's easier to learn, more >>>> users are >>>> comfortable with it and it just looks better. There is also a huge demand >>>> for a >>>> good gui, see all the brainstorm ideas. >>>> But a server without CLI is also not nice. A lot of Linux sysadmins are >>>> used to >>>> it and some things are very hard to do with GUIs. So the perfect server os >>>> should provide the user with a nice clean GUI but without disrupting the >>>> usual >>>> cli. >>>> >>>> Building a GUI doesn't automatically mean that the problem is solved. >>>> Developing >>>> a bad GUI isn't that difficult. The GUI needs a lot of usability testing. >>>> I also >>>> believe that the GUI shouldn't be developed with the current situation in >>>> mind. >>>> Systems like webmin provide a GUI for a lot of server software, but it >>>> isn't >>>> easy. >>>> >>>> The target group of a GUI are people with less Linux experience and who >>>> wants a >>>> stable and secure server. People who knows the cli are probable not >>>> interested >>>> in the GUI. People with large deployments are also not interested in a >>>> GUI. They >>>> want control over all the details. >>>> >>>> Server GUI options: >>>> >>>> There are several options for a GUI. First one is to run X/gnome and make >>>> a GUI >>>> for the server. Remote server management can be done with VNC. This is the >>>> windows way of server management. Running X/gnome takes a lot of resources >>>> and >>>> VNC is not so fast. So this is not a nice option. >>>> >>>> Another option is to run a web server and make a web interface. As far as >>>> I know >>>> this is the current vision of the ubuntu server team (ebox). Running a web >>>> server also takes some resources. Another disadvantage is that web >>>> interfaces >>>> are not as nice and rich as QT/GTK apps. The real time graphs like system >>>> monitor are not possible with html/css etc. >>>> >>>> The third option is to create a curses GUI. The advantages are that it >>>> doesn't >>>> take a lot of resources, doesn't need some external services like a web >>>> server >>>> and it is accessible via SSH. Some huge disadvantage is that it looks >>>> horrible. >>>> How things looks are also important on the server. Server admin are also >>>> humans >>>> just like desktop users. >>>> >>>> The last option is to make a remote GUI system. Here's a example: a user >>>> installs the "Ubuntu Server Console" program on his desktop. It's a GTK or >>>> QT >>>> app which can be used to connect to a supported ubuntu server via ssh so >>>> it can >>>> be configured. In my opinion this is the best option. It has a nice and >>>> rich GUI >>>> and there is no web server or X/gnome. It's comparable with Rapache. >>>> >>>> Maybe I can do a small usability test to figure out what people think of >>>> cli, >>>> curses or remote gtk. I can also create a ubuntuforum poll to get peoples >>>> preference. >>>> >>>> All the interfaces are just different front ends. So I think ubuntu needs a >>>> configuration abstraction layer. Something like Augeas. Augeas can become >>>> the >>>> back end and then it's easier to build different GUIs. Augeas intend to >>>> cover >>>> all commonly used configuration files and it is still possible to edit the >>>> config files manual. >>>> >>>> Work together? >>>> There are several people working on some gui option. Why not create one big >>>> project, define some goals, create a roadmap and start working. These >>>> people >>>> might be interested in working together.. >>>> >>>> Nxvl – packaging augeas for ubuntu and want to build a cursus gui >>>> Rapache – working on a remote apacke gui tool >>>> Satega – working on ubuntu home server >>>> Someone else?? >>>> >>>> As far as I know all these people are on this mailing list. Together we >>>> can do >>>> nice things and I'm interested in your opinion about this. Especially in >>>> creating a "Ubuntu Server Console". >>>> >>>> - JAWUD >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kindest regards, >> >> Matthew >> OIT Help Desk >> Duke University >> 684.2200 >> >> >> -- >> ubuntu-server mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server >> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
