Moog wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>>> The video you watched blew you away specifically because it was
>>> server-oriented. No operating system is ever easy to use as a server,
>>> not even Windows (trust me, I have experience in this).
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what is so different about setting Ubuntu up as a
>> server?
>
> The lack of a GUI.

I actually wouldn't mind a GUI on my primary servers for configuration
purposes and to see statistics graphically, etc. Not a necessity, but would
be nice to have.

Additional machines that will just be used to handle off-loaded tasks from
the main servers though will definitely not need a GUI.

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出すひなんてないのは
君のこと忘れた時がないから

Stephan Rose illuminated the devils arse on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:34:12
+0100, by typing:

>>> Out of curiosity, what is so different about setting Ubuntu up as a
>>> server?
>>
>> The lack of a GUI.
>
> I actually wouldn't mind a GUI on my primary servers for configuration
> purposes and to see statistics graphically, etc. Not a necessity, but
> would be nice to have.
>
> Additional machines that will just be used to handle off-loaded tasks
> from the main servers though will definitely not need a GUI.

I can't see a problem installing X and Gnome/KDE/XFCE etc. after setting
up Ubuntu server. Simply use the appropriate apt-get install commands.

--
Moog

http://www.last.fm/user/efcmoog/
"Liquor in the Front. Poker in the Rear"

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:07:11 +0000, Moog wrote:

> I can't see a problem installing X and Gnome/KDE/XFCE etc. after setting
> up Ubuntu server. Simply use the appropriate apt-get install commands.

You can't see a problem with it because you don't know much about servers,
apparently. Free clue: it has to do with stability and security.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C illuminated the devils arse on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:46:23 -0600, by
typing:

>> I can't see a problem installing X and Gnome/KDE/XFCE etc. after
>> setting up Ubuntu server. Simply use the appropriate apt-get install
>> commands.
>
> You can't see a problem with it because you don't know much about
> servers, apparently. Free clue: it has to do with stability and
> security.

No. I can't see a problem with it *if* someone wants to do such a thing.

Hint: Freedom of choice.

--
Moog

http://www.last.fm/user/efcmoog/
"Liquor in the Front. Poker in the Rear"

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:59:06 +0000, Moog wrote:

>>> I can't see a problem installing X and Gnome/KDE/XFCE etc. after
>>> setting up Ubuntu server. Simply use the appropriate apt-get install
>>> commands.

>> You can't see a problem with it because you don't know much about
>> servers, apparently. Free clue: it has to do with stability and
>> security.

> No. I can't see a problem with it *if* someone wants to do such a thing.

See above about you not knowing much about servers. Any system
administrator who knows anything at all will agree. You don't install X
or Desktop Environments on a server. Simple as that. Saying otherwise
only shows you to be a n00b, or to be ignorant.

> Hint: Freedom of choice.

It's got nothing at all to do with that.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:59:06 +0000, Moog wrote:
>
>>>> I can't see a problem installing X and Gnome/KDE/XFCE etc. after
>>>> setting up Ubuntu server. Simply use the appropriate apt-get install
>>>> commands.
>
>>> You can't see a problem with it because you don't know much about
>>> servers, apparently. Free clue: it has to do with stability and
>>> security.
>
>> No. I can't see a problem with it *if* someone wants to do such a thing.
>
> See above about you not knowing much about servers. Any system
> administrator who knows anything at all will agree. You don't install X
> or Desktop Environments on a server. Simple as that. Saying otherwise
> only shows you to be a n00b, or to be ignorant.

So, if I want to run a server and I also want a GUI, and I'm perfectly
able to set this up, nevertheless I shouldn't because...

....I should enjoy making my life needlessly difficult?

....You said so?

....It goes against the Holy Commandments of Administration?

Hell, people with your ridiculous mindset have started holy wars over
less...

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:28:02 -0500, Mercury wrote:

>> See above about you not knowing much about servers. Any system
>> administrator who knows anything at all will agree. You don't install X
>> or Desktop Environments on a server. Simple as that. Saying otherwise
>> only shows you to be a n00b, or to be ignorant.

> So, if I want to run a server and I also want a GUI, and I'm perfectly
> able to set this up, nevertheless I shouldn't because...

Because it introduces possible instability, and definite security risks.
That's why. Now, if you're talking about a home LAN server to serve up
porn files to your kid brother in the other room, or some similar
function, then it probably wouldn't matter too much. I'm speaking of a
"real" server, used in a production environment.

> ...I should enjoy making my life needlessly difficult?

Nothing difficult about it, at least for a qualified, competent system
administrator.

> ...You said so?

Yup, and I'm right. As usual.

> ...It goes against the Holy Commandments of Administration?

You can make fun of it all you want, which just shows your lack of
knowledge and unprofessionalism. It's the way things are done.

> Hell, people with your ridiculous mindset have started holy wars over
> less...

Ask a real system administrator if my "ridiculous mindset" is correct or
not. Get back to me with what you find out, and then you can eat your
words, in public. OK?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C illuminated the devils arse on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:56:01 -0600, by
typing:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:59:06 +0000, Moog wrote:
>
>>>> I can't see a problem installing X and Gnome/KDE/XFCE etc. after
>>>> setting up Ubuntu server. Simply use the appropriate apt-get install
>>>> commands.
>
>>> You can't see a problem with it because you don't know much about
>>> servers, apparently. Free clue: it has to do with stability and
>>> security.
>
>> No. I can't see a problem with it *if* someone wants to do such a
>> thing.
>
> See above about you not knowing much about servers. Any system
> administrator who knows anything at all will agree. You don't install X
> or Desktop Environments on a server. Simple as that. Saying otherwise
> only shows you to be a n00b, or to be ignorant.

Bollocks. If you cannot see a need for a file server to be used as an
occasional workstation on some networks then that says more about you
than it does about me.

"Nearly always right" eh Dan? Well until you're wrong...like now.

I find you to be a pedant

>> Hint: Freedom of choice.
>
> It's got nothing at all to do with that.

No. Of course it hasn't.

BTW. What on earth are you drivelling on about?

--
Moog

http://www.last.fm/user/efcmoog/
"Liquor in the Front. Poker in the Rear"

Dan C illuminated the devils arse on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:02:32 -0600, by
typing:

> I'm speaking of a "real" server

Christ almighty. Do you really believe this stuff?

--
Moog

http://www.last.fm/user/efcmoog/
"Liquor in the Front. Poker in the Rear"

Wow, you didn't call me a win-droid this time. You feeling OK? :-)

Dan C wrote:
>
> Because it introduces possible instability, and definite security risks.
> That's why. Now, if you're talking about a home LAN server to serve up
> porn files to your kid brother in the other room, or some similar
> function, then it probably wouldn't matter too much. I'm speaking of a
> "real" server, used in a production environment.

A server, or any computer, first and foremost should do what you *want*
it to do (not what "the rules" say it should do). Everything needs to
be measured according to this.

What's "real" is what is needed for a particular use.

That aside, why would running a GUI introduce instability or security
risks? This can only happen if the GUI itself is flawed, which is
possible but isn't everything Linux supposed to be more secure than
Windows, which runs servers already? How secure (read: paranoid) do you
want to be?

I think maybe you mean that a GUI introduces unnecessary complexity that
increases the potential for undiscovered vulnerabilities, and that's why
it shouldn't be used. While this seems to be a sound argument, it's
actually a nice piece of circular logic because it assumes that the GUI
is something superfluous, when the whole point here is that the user
*wants* the GUI, so it's not superfluous.

You can give the user the choice: a GUI and reasonable security, or no
GUI and bulletproof security.

You can't tell the user "You don't *want* a GUI."

>
> Yup, and I'm right. As usual.

No comment. :)


> You can make fun of it all you want, which just shows your lack of
> knowledge and unprofessionalism. It's the way things are done.

It's the way things are done if you have a very specific goal in mind. A
"friendly" server and a "bulletproof" server are both possible goals and
neither one is more proper or real than the other.

>
> Ask a real system administrator if my "ridiculous mindset" is correct or
> not. Get back to me with what you find out, and then you can eat your
> words, in public. OK?

What do you consider a "real" administrator, anyway? Someone who's paid
to do it? Or someone who does things the "right" way, which is the way
"real" administrators do it, who are the ones who do it the "right" way,
which is the way "real" administrators do it, who are...

> "Nearly always right" eh Dan? Well until you're wrong...like now.
> Moog

Wow, Dan C has managed to post, in my dad's exact words, two of his
favorite lines! :)

There is no use trying to show where my dad is wrong about anything.
He's never made a mistake or ever "been wrong" about anything, ever.
Never ever had to apologise either...
"why should I apologise? I didn't do anything wrong!"
(just waiting for Dan C the post that one :)

My dad is what's called a "momma's boy".

I can usually spot one of them from a mile away.
(tougher to do over the internet)

His mom always agreed with him about everything, so he's perfect and
always right, always has and always will be. "mom said so" There's
no changing him, "winning is more important than being right" with
momma's boys, so give it up. :)

Dan C, you ever say this one? :)
"I'm right and you're wrong, that's all there is too it"

That's a favorite when he finally sees he actually isn't "all the
way right" and wants the disagreement to be over because "he ain't
winning" might as well get out.

BTW, my dad never managed to keep friends for all that long, I
figure that's a symtom of always being right and being so much
smarter and better than the others around him.

One of the funniest tricks I ever pulled on my dad was to set him up
on a political newsgroup! LOL :) "tell the world your politics"

Of course the world was going to see all his wisdom and fall to
their knees in awe. ;)

Somehow the world did not seem to see it his way. :)

He fought and argued for a few weeks and got off there and still
talks about how stupid -all- those people are!

LOL :)

That was almost 10 years ago. ;)

He's a democrat, just like his mom.

Alvin in AZ (libertarian)

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:20:08 +0000, Moog wrote:

>> I'm speaking of a "real" server

> Christ almighty. Do you really believe this stuff?

Yeah, when you snip the context of a sentence, you can make it appear to
be nearly anything you want.

**** off, dickweed.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:52:20 -0500, Mercury wrote:

> A server, or any computer, first and foremost should do what you *want*
> it to do (not what "the rules" say it should do). Everything needs to
> be measured according to this.

True. If you *want* a server to be as reliable as possible, you don't
install a GUI on it. As I've already said, it's that simple.

> What's "real" is what is needed for a particular use.

I clarified what I meant as "real", which is a production server, so
what's your point?

> That aside, why would running a GUI introduce instability or security
> risks? This can only happen if the GUI itself is flawed, which is
> possible but isn't everything Linux supposed to be more secure than
> Windows, which runs servers already? How secure (read: paranoid) do you
> want to be?

You asking this question proves beyond any doubt that you don't understand
the issue with GUI's and servers.

> I think maybe you mean that a GUI introduces unnecessary complexity that
> increases the potential for undiscovered vulnerabilities, and that's why
> it shouldn't be used. While this seems to be a sound argument, it's
> actually a nice piece of circular logic because it assumes that the GUI
> is something superfluous, when the whole point here is that the user
> *wants* the GUI, so it's not superfluous.

It's not an *assumption*. The GUI *is* superfluous to a server.

> You can give the user the choice: a GUI and reasonable security, or no
> GUI and bulletproof security.

Any intelligent user/customer is going to choose "no GUI".

> You can't tell the user "You don't *want* a GUI."

You can, and in fact, *should* tell them that.

>> You can make fun of it all you want, which just shows your lack of
>> knowledge and unprofessionalism. It's the way things are done.

> It's the way things are done if you have a very specific goal in mind. A
> "friendly" server and a "bulletproof" server are both possible goals and
> neither one is more proper or real than the other.

In my other post I already acknowledged the difference between these two
types of servers, and made it clear that I'm referring to a *production*
server. Why do you keep banging on that point?

>> Ask a real system administrator if my "ridiculous mindset" is correct or
>> not. Get back to me with what you find out, and then you can eat your
>> words, in public. OK?

> What do you consider a "real" administrator, anyway? Someone who's paid
> to do it? Or someone who does things the "right" way, which is the way
> "real" administrators do it, who are the ones who do it the "right" way,
> which is the way "real" administrators do it, who are...

Yes.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:19:13 +0000, Moog wrote:

<snip>

> "Nearly always right" eh Dan? Well until you're wrong...like now.

Nope.

> I find you to be a pedant

I find you to be a moron. Bugger off, n00b.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
> > I find you to be a pedant
> I find you to be a moron. Bugger off, n00b.

Funny thing about being a "noob". :)
Newbie means you are trying to learn something new.
What could be cooler than being a "noob"? :)
Oh don't tell me...
....being Dan C, right? ;)

> --
> "Ubuntu" an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Newbie Xubuntu user here and I think it's pretty cool. :)

YMMV

Alvin, as always, being easily entertained in AZ