New Remote Configuration App For Linux 106
Whyte Wolf writes: "Olympus is a new remote administration suite for Linux. Its currently in development by Mount Linux a company based out of Calgary, Alberta. This is a really neat little product, with some cool ideas (I especially like the NetMessage class) and ofcourse, it's Open Source. They're looking at developing a Windows client to allow Win32 users to administer a Linux system remotely."
Telnet? (Score:3)
-John
Great! (Score:1)
Cool (Score:1)
Advantages over Linuxconf? (Score:2)
Any thoughts?
Hrmmmm (Score:5)
cheers
Re:That's great, but.. (Score:1)
Uhm, why does "linuxconf.com" bring up BestOfTheWeb.com, with no Linux-related links in sight?
--Joe--
Re:Also on the team (Score:1)
File formats. (Score:4)
The veteran admin is so accustomed to using a text editor via telnet he won't consider any other option. Even in situations where it is faster.
Yes such situations do exist.
Re:Hrmmmm (Score:1)
Re:Hrmmmm (Score:1)
Ya, you could always run it under WINE on a Linux box.
Oh, come on. (Score:2)
Maybe if it was an SSL http interface to linuxconf, that would be something... just so you could administer your machine from a web cafe, if for some reason you felt a need to do so.
Re:Cool (Score:1)
Win32 users (Score:1)
Eh? Do any Linux SysAdmins really want/need to use Windows to admin their server? Heh.
I can just see this:
PHB: Give NTdude more access on your Unix server.
SysAdmin: huh?
PHB: He has a Win32 client to allow him to administer your server.
SysAdmin: He's an NT administrator.
PHB: All you geeks are the same!
For the record, my Linux remote admin program on my Mac is called MacTelnet.
\//
Re:Telnet? (Score:3)
There's your answer, according to the makers themselves.
Re:Advantages over Linuxconf? (Score:2)
How would this be a bad thing? So what if there's another tool out there doing the same thing? Now you've got a choice. I thought one of the (many) battlecries of the linux community was having choice in your applications or operating systems and not being locked into using whatever the boys in Redmond said you must. This doesn't apply to just Microsoft. Choice is good. The more the better. Let people choose an application because they think its the best tool for the job, not because it's all there is.
Far from it (Score:1)
Just what I need ... (Score:1)
Am I the only one... (Score:1)
They're looking at developing a Windows client to allow Win32 users to administer a Linux system remotely.
Kinda like Bo2K for dummies that really want to cause some real damage...
Another too-early to tell application. (Score:3)
This software is so far from being complete that they don't have much of anything except a few shots of mockups. They mention that it should not be used for production and that it's nowhere near complete.
This is all part of Linux's slide into the mainstream, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a step in the right direction. All the software does is put a Windows-style GUI on top of an encrypted channel - something anyone with an ssh client and UNIX competency has anyway.
In places, the 'GUI-on-top-of-CLI' is even more apparent, such as the "olympus ping" which simply opens a window with a text box and displays the result of a ping in a different format. That's very helpful, in case you forget how to spell 'ping'.
As a UNIX sysadmin, the notion that this could actually catch on frightens me. This could breed a whole new set of clueless [l]user/admins who don't know what traceroute is, or how to configure a firewall without their precious GUI. What's next, Linux Certification? Linux Certified Engineers?
The last thing the Linux world needs is abstraction of administrative functions via a GUI.
Re:Telnet? (Score:1)
I have not used it so but from looking at the screenshots and glancing over the documentation they can probably have some monitoring capability to this too, a process goes down on one system and the icon flashes red. They can have a command to launch ssh or telnet for that system from within Olympus too.
Re:Win32 users (Score:1)
Many places force NT/Win2000 desktops on to a persons desk. Often, the physical devices are in another building/city/province(state)/country. So, a nice tool would be good. Mind you, I'm part of the population that thinks that telnet (ssh) and a text editor is the best trick.
Re:Cool (Score:1)
Re:Advantages over Linuxconf? (Score:1)
I think it's great we have KDE, Gnome, etc to choose from and wouldn't want it either way myself!
Re:Telnet? (Score:2)
The second is to actually reduce the complexity of the system by automating certain things and removing them from the user's control. This often means a loss of flexibility and power, but it might suffice if an inexperienced user simply needs to perform routine tasks without experienced supervision.
The third is to simply put a prettier face on the system, making the user feel more comfortable. However, this doesn't make the system any less complex or difficult to understand; it simply paints the system with prettier colors.
My guess (having not seen or used this product) is that it fits somewhere between the second and third options. It could be a good thing, in some cases, but I don't see how it would alleviate the need for an experienced system administrator.
-John
Note that these are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of my employer.
Re:TELNET BAD. SSH GOOD. (Score:1)
bye bye raq (Score:1)
Now instead of having to use RAQs when you want to have an easy-to-admin server remotely you can use any hardware you choose. That's great! Especially since this shouldn't actually remove any functionality anyway. Nice!
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:1)
It was just meant to be a joke.
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:1)
No FUD intended, good sir. Just a little dig at NT getting more and more unix-like features over time.
don't they already have something that does this? (Score:2)
----
A config idea (Score:5)
This is something I proposed in a Slashdot article a while ago, but it was way late in the conversation. Since this appears to be on topic again, gonna try once again to see what you guys think of it.
The concept revolves around a similar notion to linuxconf in that the idea is to provide a GUI tool for configuring network properties. Instead of trying to develop a unique graphical module for each possible daemon, build an API that looks to definition files. Each of these def files (most likely XML) would contain what text file is used to config a service, what are the possible attributes of that service, and what are the valid values of those attributes. I imagine one could also include the same kind of help text you would normally find in most
Rather than trying to reinvent the GUI for all this, instead provide this API as a means for config GUI's to be written. So whether you're writing a config file for KDE, Gnome, or just X they all call to the same API. The API would handle reading the definition files, and writing to the config files as defined.
From what I'm thinking, the
Good idea, or am I full of it?
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:2)
Used to remotely admin AT&T 3B2's with a dial up connection from a dumb terminal.
That's what I love about Linux... (Score:3)
I guess this is what Microsoft means about encouraging innovation; third-party stuff like this is actually useful on Windows. Try to sell it to Linux people, and everybody shrugs and says, "I don't need it. I've got ssh." (or whatever simple, elegant tool fits the task in question)
Re:And the topic of the day is: MDMA (Score:1)
Re:A config idea (Score:1)
There is a database on the server side of the system that tracks its environment (including where config files and the like go) and the modules coded with the API can take advantage of it to remain fairly independant of architecture
Aaron J. Seigo - aseigo@mountlinux.com - Olympus team leader
Caldera already has it... (Score:2)
Odd thread (Score:2)
Struggling back to the point, I'm afraid that as head tech of an IT department that uses Linux boxes, the perils of everyone and their dog (including my boss's PA (who wants to 'get into IT and learn Linux' - oh dear). In fact, as an aside, my boss has decided that she's going to be our new first line support (two week trial). She's never used anything apart from Word in her life. Sweet Jesus help me) wanting to be a sysadmin are very apparent.
I hate to sound like a snob, but people should really keep away from Linux (or any other proper operating system) in a production environment unless they know what they're doing. This does not lend itself to click kiddies fucking everything up because they think they know what the difference is between RAID1 and RAID5.
It may catch on elsewhere, but not in my department...
One machine at a time? One OS? (Score:1)
And then you have the issue of nomadic machines like laptops and PDAs. When they use your network, you need to assert some administrative control over the resources they use. Has anyone attempted tools to help with these?
Don't suppose anyone even remembers cfengine [gnu.org]? Or has looked into GUIs for PIKT [uchicago.edu]? Or any of the other tools [freshmeat.net] that already exist?
What about Webmin? (Score:2)
Webmin is currently at 0.8, and is also cross platform. And, for the corporate minded, it falls under the BSD license.
It can be found at http://www.webmin.com/webmin
And no, I do not work for them. I have used the product, and have found it to be really cool. Server administration thru a web browser, using SSL!
Re:What about Webmin? (Score:1)
Re:Telnet? (Score:2)
1. Excellent documentation... Almost nobody reads documentation... Especially when the better your documentation, the larger the document, the less the user wants to pull that 20kg book off the shelf.
2. Loss of flexibility and power. That's why people use Linux, dummy!
3. Pretty face, comfortable user... Nastynastynasty!!! bad idea. Think psDooM. Would you log an inexperienced user in as root and let them play psDooM on your webserver? If a user is administrating stuff, they shouldn't feel "comfortable" in the beginning. Remember the first time you typed rm -Rf * as root? scary, huh? that's how it should be.
administering a system should not be easy. i'm not saying this because i don't want competition in the field, i'm saying this that if advanced administration becomes an easy, comfortable thing to do, users will fuck up their systems with the greatest of ease, and clog up tech support. Let the dummies be end users. End users generally stay in the little boxes that we make for them. If they go outside the box, they're probably smart enough to do so. But DON'T put dummies in the captain's chair!!!
Think that was flamebait? You've obviously never met me in person...
Re:The New Wave (Score:1)
wrong (Score:1)
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/winvncviewer
Re:File formats. (Score:3)
Just get WebMin - Blows Linuxconf away.... (Score:3)
Exceed (Score:1)
Re:Telnet? (Score:1)
My point is that complex systems such as Linux are, well, complex. In general (exceptions, of course), if you water a Linux tool down to the point where an idiot could use it, you've just limited your interested audience to idiots.
However, I'm interested in your suggestion that "better" documentation equates to "larger" documentation. I don't think that's necessarily true - I've seen 300-page books that are much more informative than some 1000-page books.
-John
Press release? (Score:2)
Re:Yawn... (Score:1)
Thank U BSDs
Re:Hrmmmm (Score:1)
They send us remote updates, the WinNT VM very happily eats the update, and the Red Hat stays firmly in place.
We have to check the VM every few days, in case we need to report the BSoD that the remote update generated. Usually the all-WinNT box in the hall gives us a hint.
tc>
Re:Cool (Score:1)
It's called Windows Terminal Services, included with Win2k...but if you want to get away from that crappy MS RDP protocol, use MetaFrame.
www.citrix.com
Costs a lot of money, but it rocks.
And they have clients for all sorts of *NIX boxen.
-Kevin, MCSE/MCT
Re:A config idea (Score:1)
Well, actually, this is nearly exactly what we are doing: providing a simple API to configure various services with.
There is a database on the server side of the system that tracks its environment (including where config files and the like go) and the modules coded with the API can take advantage of it to remain fairly independant of architecture
Aaron J. Seigo - aseigo@mountlinux.com - Olympus team leader
As cool as this sounds, aren't you still going to be running into the problem of having to code your own definitions of daemons? Especially true seeing as how the definitions are stored in a database rather than in a seperate file for each. I'm no great fan of having to parse XML (just got through writing some routines for just that), but might it not be wiser to use it instead of a database format? A seperate XML document for each daemon stored in a single directory might encourage more outside support, and maybe some standardization of this type of thing.
If Linux hopes to pull some serious numbers away from the NT crowd, something like the utility you guys are working on is desperately needed. As this moves forward I would hope you would keep in mind a means of doing this that allows for standardization, and a life beyond your direct support of it.
Oh, only if time and my complete inability to deal with C weren't issues for me. Sounds like this is going to be a fun project.
Re:File formats. (Score:1)
If you are going to use a graphical admin tool you really have go whole hog for it. Personally i think that this is very good. The design is nice and modular, it looks slick, and is fairly easy to use. Linuxconf is ok, but it gets a lot of things wrong. I think that this is a very nice start in the direction that business would like to see and in a way that can keep programmers happy being GPL and easy to extend the features
If a graphical admin tool was needed I usually used webmin and hacked out modules for it. Webmin is very nice but doesn't have the slick feel that this does.
Re:Calgary, Alberta (Score:1)
Re:Advantages over Linuxconf? (Score:1)
"I think there are more wannabe-managers who read slashdot than wannabe-developers."
Re:File formats. (Score:1)
Re:Telnet? (Score:2)
Linux users.. need a clue? (Score:1)
I wonder how long it will take Linux users to realise this ?
rconsole (Score:1)
Just a thought.
--
This is a good thing.... no, really (Score:3)
1. We want more people/companies to use Linux as servers
2. People need to administer servers
With those assumptions in mind, let's look at the people who adminster servers. There are 4 potential categories of server admins.
1. *nix geeks
2. MC*E winders types
3. "other" (isn't Banyan Vines still in business?)
4. Newbies and aspiring server admins
Now, given assumption 1, that we want to see Linux expand, we will need to see a lot more admins be Linux savvy and Linux friendly. All of those future Linux admins will have to come from the 4 categories above. We've got category 1 wrapped up, so if we want more Linux admins it will have to be at the expense of 2, 3 and 4. Ignoring the VMS hold-overs from category 3, this boils down to acheiving 2 things:
1. Converting MC*E types to Linux
2. Convincing new admins that they would really rather do Linux than Winders
Olympus helps in both these cateogries. For the MC*E type, the ability to have access to the Linux box from a Win rig will make them more amenable to setting up a hetrogenous environment. Really, if I had a dollar for every WinAdmin who said they wouldn't consider incorporating Linux in their network because it was too tough to integrate... well, I'd have enough to go see a movie, but damn are movies expensive these days! And don't rattle off at me about Samba. Rattle off at those WinAdmins. Olympus will help gain converts from category 2. Mock MC*E's all you want... but keep in mind they can be converted and "see the light". Olympus will go a long way towards that.
Category 4, new admins, is much more fertile. Lots of aspiring admins go the MCSE route. There are a number of reasons for that, the biggest being that MCSE is an instant credetential. We have responded to that in part with the Red Hat cert. Another major reason for the continued success of NT is the illusion that it is easy to admin (it's an illusion because the troubleshooting of inevitable failures, in the long run, more than make up for the crunchy point-and-click ease of setup). By giving a straighforward config interface to Linux servers we provide newbies with real ease of use. I like to think of this in terms of "total ease of ownership". Once Linux runs, it runs. Easy. Making the config easy is step two.
Then what exactly is THIS program for? (Score:2)
We already have a remote configuration app (Score:1)
'nuff said
oh, btw, I do not know whether to be amused or alarmed by the win32 comment.
___
COOL! (Score:1)
Why use a gUI? (was RE: Telnet?) (Score:1)
Re:Calgary, Alberta (Score:2)
Sadly, though, Calgary is located on "Aspen Parkland" and "Montane" land and not prarie.... and I doubt "Silicon Aspen Parkland" would catch on.
Re:TELNET BAD. SSH GOOD. (Score:1)
Re:A config idea (Score:1)
Sometimes it is good to hear suggestions from non-regular Linux users because they can tell you what they don't understand, or what might be better. A different perspective is always a good thing, even if it doesn't help, becuase it makes you look at a solution from that different perspective.
With everything being open source, why not make he config files more so?
Re:That's what I love about Linux... (Score:1)
ISA, no?
Re:Advantages over Linuxconf? (Score:3)
Does it suddenly delete the entire contents of the /etc/group file for no apparent reason? Does it introduce lines consisting of nothing but commas into the /etc/aliases file? Does it put things that belong in /etc/rc.d/init.d into oddly named files in the /etc/sysconfig tree?
If it doesn't do these things, it is a VAST improvement over linuxconf. I once made the mistake of letting the sysadmins here use linuxconf to administer our linux farm, and the company barely survived.
--Charlie
Re:One machine at a time? One OS? (Score:1)
There are a lot of reasons, there are a lot of uses. It will always be a trade off.
Security vs. Functionality, always.
Re:Odd thread (Score:1)
--Charlie
what cult would that be? (Score:1)
Association of people who give more money to Bill Gates than Chruch?
NT hermits?
WinBaters?
Blue Screen Cult
Eternal Patience Society
VB users group?
Office Inductees?
Meditation through disk grinders?
Modern Quakers?
Really. Pointing out windows flaws around some people is like talking bad about the pope.
Windows has it's uses, but security is not a feature. Why would I use my potentially compromised game box for things that I should do at the console? It will be nice if the authors can get this to run through a secure shell or some other encryption, but it's like plugging a hole in a strainer.
The Company... (Score:1)
If anyone wants to know the full story of how/and/or what Mountlinux is all about from someone that has worked with these guys let me know.
.HIghoS
--
Jesse Tie Ten Quee - tie@linux.ca - highos@highos.com
http://highos.dhs.org
Re:A config idea (Score:1)
Sometimes it is good to hear suggestions from non-regular Linux users because they can tell you what they don't understand, or what might be better. A different perspective is always a good thing, even if it doesn't help, becuase it makes you look at a solution from that different perspective.
As you may have already guessed, come from a heavy NT background. One of the things that I expect from NT is a central place to locate the bulk of the tweaks, which it does reasonably well. Of course, NT's weakness is that it doesn't allow for the full ability to tweak on stuff without diving into that monster registry.
On Linux it just feels like everything is scattered about when it comes to configuring. After months of mucking around with it, I still just don't feel comfortable with the scheme for where to find files and services. Certainly the strength of Linux is that when you do find these things you get all the options available.
My hope is that Linux can bridge some of the gap between centrally locating configuration data (at least the interface to them) and full control of that data. As an NT admin myself, it would make a stronger case for me to consider using Linux in those places where I would look to NT now. My main reason for not using Linux in a lot of cases is that I still feel a long ways off from feeling comfortable with administering it as a server.
Unlike about 99% of the folks here, I don't have anything against NT as a LAN server, I have found it to be quite stable, and would use it again for a number of tasks. No way in hell would I make it a web server though! :) In the mean time, I'm still plugging away with this RH 6.1 box as a private web server for my site designs, and it's proved to be quite a nice set up. Nothing against NT, but I sure do look forward to seeing all the new stuff coming on with the new kernel, KDE 2.0 and all that.
For you folks stuck on emacs only admin, mark my words here. As Linux usability goes up, NT deployments will go down. Hopefully this turns out to be a good thing for the Internet at large. Time will tell.
I honestly don't get it (Score:1)
How is it any easier for somebody to know what it means when there's an option called "Wait?" with options of "No wait" and "wait". You still have to know what it means; throwing a GUI around it doesn't help that.
Re:Another too-early to tell application. (Score:1)
What's next, Linux Certification? Linux Certified Engineers?
Actually, RedHat has a Certification Program [redhat.com].
Latin american Conectiva [conectiva.com.br] has its own [conectiva.com], also. I know one of their certified engineers.
(No, I dont work for them, I just happen to use their distribution.)
Re:The Company... (Score:1)
Re:Cool (Score:1)
There is. It's called Back Orifice. Or you could use NetBus. Take your pick.
c:\> Error in USER.EXE. Replace user and restart.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Win32 users (Score:1)
Re:Just get WebMin - Blows Linuxconf away.... (Score:1)
WebMin (www.webmin.com) is a full remote configuration tool for Linux (and full UNIXes as well) via a web browser. It's cross platform, open source and much more mature IMHO. Since I started using Webmin, I never even touch Linuxconf any more. I just have no need to - WebMin does EVERYTHING.
Thank You for posting info about this app. I just got webmin downloaded and running. Wow are you ever right, this is some really sweet stuff.
Re:Advantages over Linuxconf? (Score:1)
Linuxconf is the best tool (Score:1)
Re:This is a good thing.... no, really (Score:1)
> 2. Convincing new admins that they would really rather do Linux than Winders
Agreed. However, this product has no place in a production environment. Administering a unix server takes more than what any single GUI can give you. You can't anticipate every flat file or program that is going to be installed with a module. Shell interaction is the backbone of *nix and its not going to go away anytime soon.
That being said, this product is a great starting point for newbies/MC*E on their home computers. I applaud the efforts of Mount Linux for (at a first glance) a nice step in the right direction. It can give a newcomer a feel for how things work and (generally) where to goto find information. Knowing that in order to disable telnet, one must go into something called "inetd", is a nice baby step to knowing that inetd.conf is in /etc. Being that unix is as flexible as it is, admins must be competent in their abilities and be able to properly set things up. I would rather have a smaller number of well maintained linux servers than a large number of insecure or broken linux boxes.
Administering a unix server requires a certain level of knowledge. I think this product could definately help as a step stool, but not a whole lot more.
> Category 4, new admins, is much more fertile. Lots of aspiring admins go the MCSE route. There are a number of reasons for that, the biggest being that MCSE is an instant
> credetential.
Enter half the reason for script kiddies can do whatever they want on the internet. People use certification as an benchmark for knowledge. Certification is nice to show that you know some stuff, but is no where nere a minimum requirement for someone to administer a server.
>We have responded to that in part with the Red Hat cert. Another major reason for the continued success of NT is the illusion that it is easy to admin (it's an illusion
> because the troubleshooting of inevitable failures, in the long run, more than make up for the crunchy point-and-click ease of setup).
This is why olypus should be a good starting point. Aspiring admins can see the stability and ease of maintenance without having the frustration of a steep learning curve to see results.
> By giving a straighforward config interface to
> Linux servers we provide newbies with real ease of use. I like to think of this in terms of "total ease of ownership". Once Linux runs, it runs. Easy. Making the config easy is step two.
Every attempt at making a configuration easy, usually results in a loss of functionality or flexability. It should only become easy, by people becoming more skilled in what they do, not in the interface.
Re:This is a good thing.... no, really (Score:1)
No, I think the two are completely intertwined. Computers are supposed to be used. All of the imporvements in computing have been with the end goal of making them easier and more powerful. Perl was invented because it is easier and more powerful than C. C was invented because it was easier and more powerful (and portable) than assembly. Assembly was invented because it was easier and more powerful than flicking tiny switches to lodge 1s and 0s into RAM. Ultimately, it's all about making computer more useable. Witness Ted Nelson's third (fourth?) law: "It should be easier to use a computer than not use a computer."
"Beating" windows is a byproduct. There are two types of computer users: Those who use them now and those who don't but will in the fairly-near future. If Linux is going to expand then at least part of it will have to be into the first category which, currently, is mostly occupied by Windows users. If BeOS had 90% marketshare, I'd be talking about expanding into BeOS's turf.
Lastly, it does not necessarily correlate that accessibility by the "least common denominator" means the OS will become "shitty". Everybody can use a phone. Tell Bellcore their system is "shitty." Computers should be empowering.... that means that joe average should be able to access it, get up to speed fairly quickly and then, hopefully, after some time discover the clockwork behind glockinspiel show.
Re:Win32 users (Score:1)
In terms of the future of Olympus, administration of multiple servers is something I'm keen on--something linuxconf doesn't do, or at least doesn't do well.
Once again, I'm a linux admin, and a Windows user. Maybe that makes me a lower form of life to the Linux fanatics, but if you ask me, flexibility is the watchword of an industry which goes through as many rapid technology shifts as ours.
Don't forget, Open Source advocates want the IT industry to be flexible enough to embrace the concept--let's not turn people away with pointless prejudice.
I like Linux. If it had a GUI that was as good as Mac or Windows, I'd use it on my desktop, but it doesn't. Until then, I want interoperability--and I'm willing to work towards that.
Prejudice simpley breeds waste.
Re:This is a good thing.... no, really (Score:2)
No, a single gui will never give it all... but remember that we're discussing admins or to-be-admins, not the stereotypical end user. It's a fair assumption that these admins will want to expand their control over the machine as time progresses. It's like guitar. If you want to be a serious guitarist you need to be able to read sheet music, but that's tough to learn and makes an already steep learning curve near verticle. Enter TAB. The real guitar geeks will get around to sheet music, but TAB actually gets people playing the guitar fairly quickly....
I would rather have a smaller number of well maintained linux servers than a large number of insecure or broken linux boxes.
Well, I don't subscribe to the (semi-popular) view that gui = broken. It depends, obviously, what the rig is being used for.... I suspect that the average NT admin will choose to use his/her NT box for heavy lifting, until s/he becomes more comfortable with and confident in the Linux box. Part of initiating that level of comfort, of course, is a decent gui.
Certification is nice to show that you know some stuff, but is no where nere a minimum requirement for someone to administer a server
I agree... when the day arrives when a total system failure presents you with a multiple choice question and the correct answer will fix the problem, MC*Es will rule the world. Since I'm completely self-taught, however, the continued survival of my ego depends on me diss-ing the heavily-credentialed. (mind you, I just found out about atoi(char*) yesterday... so maybe there's something to be said for education)
It should only become easy, by people becoming more skilled in what they do, not in the interface.
I think the interface is very important. We use 'ls' to list files in a directory. Easy. I could cook up an OS where the same comand was 47 characters long, most of them pipes, l's and colons. viz:
frymaster{/opt]# i||llll|||;;;|::|;||l:l:::::\/\/|
Perl jokes aside, the choice of a simple intuitive word to represent the command indicates that someone was thinking about the interface, if even only on the most rudimentary level... Computers are supposed to be used. Therefore they must be useable...
Re:Telnet? (Score:1)
Re:A config idea (Score:2)
Re:This is a good thing.... no, really (Score:1)
1. *nix geeks
2. MC*E winders types
3. "other" (isn't Banyan Vines still in business?)
4. Newbies and aspiring server admins
And shouldn't the goal be to convert categories 2-4 into category 1?
I say that somewhat jokingly, but I think there's a grain of truth there: if (for example) a newbie learns to use the CLI for system administration without learning the GUI, then that newbie doesn't learn to depend on the GUI, and instead learns the ''correct'' way to administer a server. (Or at least a linux server.)
Why make it easier in the short term to administer a server, when in the long term those GUI skills will not be useful in a dire situation? Those GUI skills will help very little in actually learning the CLI method of administration, and may even cause people to forego learning the CLI, since they have the GUI tools available.
Re:rconsole (Score:1)
Re:This is a good thing.... no, really (Score:2)
uh, yes... What I was trying to say (as if trying counts...) was:"
1. Linux has a steep learning curve. If you deny that you're a genius or a liar and the ratio is so in favour of the latter....
2. MC*E people are used to guis and are under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that guis equal ease-of-use.
3. A gui will reduce the resistence to incorporating Linux into their systems. This resistance is mostly fostered by 1 and 2. Olympus addresses these points.
4. Admins are not normal people (there I go, sounding like my mom again...). Given a system, it's really only a matter of time until they get curious enough to shake it till it breaks just to see what sort of pieces fall out. End users are content to point-n-click all the live-long day. Even an NT admin will eventually pick up the manual to find that faster, neater way to do stuff. Newbies, of course, are just bursting at the seams with enthusiasm (we hired a fresh grad here last week.... keen? oh yeah) anyway, that's what I meant to say...
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:1)
Trying 172.30.0.30...
telnet: connect to address 172.30.0.30: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
FUD, right.
Re:rconsole (Score:1)
Re:Telnet? (Score:1)
This is the reason that N.T. has a bad reputation for being unstable. The GUI Admin interface makes new admins *think* they know what they are doing without actually learning anything about what is going on behind the scenes.
This is OK for simple things, but not more for more complex tasks.
I learned more during my first edit of the Apache httpd.conf than I ever learned using IIS.
Re:Advantages over Linuxconf? (Score:2)
Linuxconf reminds me more of the... Backstreet Boys or N'Sync. The whole band is really only there for show, no one of substinance would listen to them unless made to by their daughter, and frankly the thought of solo careers scares the bejezus out of me. This turned out to be a pretty accurate comparison
I admit it, back when my machine was RedHat based I used linuxconf, and once a short while after I has switched to Slackware I tried to install it (I don't know I think I lost my mind) But after formatting and reinstalling Slackware (it was the only way I could get linuxconf off of my system in under 6 months) I never tried that again.
Devil Ducky
Re:A config idea (Score:1)
Exactly. My first impression of Linuxconfig was "cool!" and steadily toward "#@#@%! -- don't I ever learn!".
No matter what automated tool I use, I'm always back learning how to do it manually...so why not skip the frustration and screwups and just set up SSH? Doing it yourself takes no longer, and it's more reliable.
One question- WHY?? (Score:1)
SSh is all you need, if you cant understand vi, ssh and the text interface.... what the hell are you doing configurin anything!!! RH 6.1-6.2 braindead's the whole system for you now.... why do we need to make it more braindead?
Linux is popular because it is HARD! why cant you people get that through your heads.
Gawd, if I wanted to drool like a moron, I'd use a microsoft product.
Re:A config idea (Score:1)
To paraphrase a statement on linuxconfig's web site, the one thing that a GUI admin tool provides is the ability to show a user the variety of options available to them. Ya just can't get a drop down box to work in a text file. While providing these options, it can also provide context sensitive help at precisely the areas where it's needed. I know the pitchforks are going to come out on this one, but NT does this help business pretty darn well.
The other obvious advantage is centralizing where to find all the tweaks. It's not enough to know what the tweaks do. You also have to know where to find the little buggers. For example, I know full well what a "host" file is, what it does, and what format it should be in. Took me an hour to figure out where Linux stores it! Certainly NT is no better at how they hide this, but I don't believe Linux's usability should be limited by NT's flaws. Take the good stuff, fix up the bad stuff.
NT has a lot of great examples on how to do up a GUI for tweaking settings. Certainly there is also a lot of really bad examples as well in there. Thing is, it seems that a lot of the Linux community is so heavily focused on the bad, aka. Registry, that they can't see the good stuff. Linux has this wonderfully unique opportunity at this juncture of computer history to bring it all together and do it right. Mix the text configs with the GUI that's both powerful and reasonably easy to use.
Re:Win32 users (Score:1)
I've said it before (so have others, in this very discussion) and I'll say it again:
You need VNC [att.com].
I run headless linux boxen here and access them from my (spit) NT workstation. Stuff I like:
That's the last time I'm plugging VNC here. If you haven't tried it, it's your own fault.
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:2)