 |
The trouble with Ubuntu Server for beginners
At one point or another, any web publisher who is hosting web sites elsewhere will be tempted to bring a few of them closer to home, say, on a web server located downstairs, in a work-at-home office.
And when that happens, operating system-related choices need to be made.
Sure, there’s Microsoft’s Windows Server 2008 or Apple’s MacOS X Leopard Server which come with their fair share of goodies but both are somewhat mediocre —and prohibitively expensive— compared to UNIX and Linux-based alternative, which are the crowned server room favorites.
So after dabbling around in either Windows or Mac server offerings for a while, initially weary of the “nix” alternatives, web publishers will likely cozy up to the idea of firing up such a box, namely to have access to the vast universe of options related to Apache, PHP and MySQL, running a rock solid, non-bloatware OS.
By the way, Apple came real close to building a winner with it’s MacOS X Leopard Server but it falls short on just about every count, the moment you try to go further than what Apple expected you to do with your server.
For instance, GD and ImageMagick aren’t available and installing them is the proverbial equivalent of landing men on the moon.
Furthermore, FTP management is a complete and utter drag since they have to be linked to “users” and only 10 seats come with the US$500 version. Yes, it’s lame. Ditto for email. And just trying to make domain name aliases redirect correctly is a complete waste of time. In other words, Leopard tried but it failed.
And that’s, in part, why UNIX or Linux alternatives seem so enticing. Most people end up in the Linux camp and the Ubuntu Server build feel like a natural winner. After all, Ubuntu desktop is quite impressive so the server edition should deliver the same kind of experience, right? Wrong! Ubuntu’s Server Edition, like many other Linux Server-oriented releases come without a GUI.
No graphic user interface makes the download shorter and the OS lighter but it condemns the web publisher, the one firing up Linux on a black PC box, in his basement office, to typing long, hardly understandable commands even geeks find tedious for jobs that could be much more easily handled… through a GUI.
This is going to drive 5% of the “nix” gurus crazy but 95% of the would-be “nixers” are completely stunned, at that point when the Ubuntu Server installation states that it has finished and all that’s offered to the user is a black screen and a prompt line. Users are going “What is that?” and they basically scrap the whole thing, install Windows and use WAMP or XAMPP, half-way solutions which lack raw power but come with an comprehensive interface where some productivity can actually occur.
And then, UNIX and Linux gurus continue to question themselves why the “nix” adoption rate is stalling, even as their archenemy, Microsoft’s Vista is the epitome for bloatware and costly licensing fees.
The problem, with UNIX and Linux servers has everything to do with no GUIs or very darn poor GUIs with very little comprehensive server controls, if any. Sure, a user could type “apt-get install kde” into the command line and install a GUI but it wouldn’t sport anything to control the server stuff so it’s basically pointless.
So the message to the “nix” crowd is: throw in a GUI —with server-specific controls— that the GUI-addicted web publishers will digg or risk losing countless would-be converts who hit a wall when they see how utterly unwelcoming these GUIless servers are, for them.
Let’s assume the message will be heard and something will be done about the regularly decried GUI issue, on OSs like Ubuntu Server Edition. The guys developing Ubuntu releases are some of brightest people around and perhaps that’s a problem (if such a thing is even possible) because they seem to underplay the fact that web publishers aren’t all guru-level “nixers” and that’s seriously holding back their adoption rate.
But there’s a ray of hope.
Yes, a bright light is shining on some Linux distributions, like CentOS, through the use of VirtualMin which is a free and paid mixed offering that delivers the kind of Linux-server handling which should come STANDARD with all distributions, such as Ubuntu’s Server Edition.
Users can also opt for Webmin but it’s not going to win any beauty contests soon, as far as its interface is concerned. The engine underlying the Webmin script, however, is as reliable as the Linux OS itself. A good interface designer would do that project a lot of good.
UNIX and Linux are wonderful operating systems and once they’re setup and somewhat manageable through a web interface like VirtualMin, they offer the utmost in power, stability and versatility… but one has to get to that point and it’s not easy, right now.
Once the “nixers” figure out a way to make their server-oriented OS release interesting for human beings, their success, for that important niche, will grow exponentially.
Tags: unix, linux, open source, free, server os, servers, operating systems, nix, nixers, linux gurus, linux experts, linux server, unix server, ubuntu server, centos, virtualmin, webmin, windows server, leopard server, mac server, macos x, manageability, stability, gui, graphic user interface, guis, user interfaces
23 Responses to “The trouble with Ubuntu Server for beginners”
Leave a Reply
 |
If you can’t setup/manage a server without a FisherPrice interface – you shouldn’t have a server. It’s not rocket science and it weeds out the dweebs who are too stupid or too lazy to learn just a teeny tiny bit about how servers work and how they should be setup. The world is full of bots because of stupid users – the last thing it needs are stupid server admins with bot infested boxes on high speed connections.
You’re kidding right?
There are those who are running a few small websites from home, over a residential or even business cable ISP connection,
However, anyone who has any formal training whether in Windows or Nix or other OS , will have some degree of command line education and experience. If they don’t, they need to go back to the training source ( college, job trainer, etc…) and demand their money back, they were robbed.
Command line interaction is not as archaic as you make it sound. It requires practice and a bit of memorization. A lot of good notes and sources help as well.
If you want a ‘pretty’ interface for admin work, you need to be in a different line of work. Server admin is about keeping a system light, tight and out of sight. Meaning you don’t add anything that isn’t ‘necessary’ to it’s operation.
Servers aren’t meant to be put out for display, they stay in the background, getting things done.
If you want a GUI interface for server administration, Webmin does more than a fine job. It is very well documented in the Webmin Wiki and tools are easily and quickly accessible.
There is some contention about adding a GUI desktop Environment to a server, especially in Linux.
Much of the discussion centers and security and bloat.
There are those who will say that because there are certain GUI apps that are not coded in a ’secure’ manner, that will leave holes open that crackers can and will take advantage of. Why leave doors open if they don’t ‘need’ to be opened.
There are those who will say that GUI environments take up too many resources and will eventually cause memory leaks and generally slow down the server unnecessarily.
If you think running a server is about how it looks, you need to stay away from servers.
I’m not saying one shouldn’t or can’t use GUI on a server. That is up to the end administrator to decide.
I do think those end admins should make that decision based on having ALL the information available to make such a decision though, and not this nonsense about how pretty an interface is or if it isn’t GUI then it is unusable.
In the large world of computer servers, the GUI is the exception, not the rule.
There are reasons for that and one would be well advised to learn a bit about it before just jumping in uneducated.
Big Bear
Thanks for the replies!
More server experts will surely add their voice to the first two commenters to decry my view of things.
That’s fine!
It’s part of the process of getting things done.
I’m aware that classes, books, money, effort and time can buy anyone with a brain a set of techniques to master a UNIX or Linux server. We all agree that’s something possible for those who make it their goal in life to go beyond “cd”, “ls” and “hostname”, in the CLI.
Now, my concern is with the masses.
Those equally nice folks producing content and hosting it elsewhere who, at some point, wish to host it closer to home. Much closer, actually.
They have legitimate needs for serving their web destinations but as it stands in the Nix world, getting things off the ground can be intimidating. Anyone denying that isn’t paying attention.
For Nix servers to grow, there needs to be a bridge for these people which goes beyond the CLI, hence the GUI.
Having all of these web publishers, who happen to have more talent in other things than the CLI, shun Nix because of the lack of a comprehensive GUI (something with as much control, or more, as VirtualMin) is frustrating. Is adding an optional GUI that much of a stretch?
Experts wouldn’t install it and everybody else would — it would be fantastic!
But this is obviously a sensitive theme so I’ll wait and see what you think.
servers for the masses is not a ubuntu rack in people’s basement.
hmm, what do they call it? oh.. oh.. it’s SaaS!
App engine, Azure , mosso to name a few.
My experience–use Ubuntu for the best Desktop experience.
Use openSUSE 11.1 for any server work–it has both GUI and CUI (ncurses) for doing any configuration of a web server–Yast is very comprehensive in that respect–often criticized when compared to Synaptic Package Manager–but with Ubuntu, do get certain things done you must drop to the CLI.
Not so with YaST and openSUSE.
I use Ubuntu 9.04 for my laptop and openSUSE 11.1 for my server–rock solid and secure.
Thanks
–Dietrich
Hi, I administer two *nix servers, the one hosting my blog, and the one hosting my office’s services.
I do not use GUI on none of them, as I like to manage them remotely, and GUI is not the best option for that.
But I have heard (read) a lot of times “Linux is about choices” when it comes to talk about Linux Distros, or Desktop managers.
Why not when it comes to talk about server admin tools?
I think you are right, mmh actually all of you are right.
GUI is not the best way to administer a server, if you seriously plan to admininster a server, you should get your hands dirty, otherwise, get someone to do it for you.
But for those amateurs, there could be a good GUI admin, it will increase the use and adoption of Linux as servers (even more than now!!), so why not?
CLI will always offer more options, and for those who really want to admin a server, that will always be the best way to have things done.
My two cents.
I use Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (the desktop version) on my server, for precisely this reason. While most of my server management is done via SSH (and thus via the CLI), every once in a while it’s easier and more convenient to have a GUI. It’s a simple matter of installing the LAMP metapackage once your Ubuntu desktop is up and running to get the required server utilities, and anything else you may be missing is a quick apt-get away.
I think Big Bear is right on target, not just because he is the man behind BEL but because what he says is common since and true. Mom and Pops that want to run a server, should be able to do so. One should not have to be an Admin to run a server.
Linux and the various window managers have proven they are very secure, much more so than some other OS. With the power of today server, the amount of resources used by the GUI should not even be mentioned.
Thanks for the great article.
[...] few of them closer to home, say, on a web server located downstairs, in a work-at-home office. More re So after dabbling around in either Windows or Mac server offerings for a while, initially weary of [...]
Surely you are joking — is it April first? There are so many things wrong with this post it’s not even worth trying to elucidate all of them.
If Ma and Pa Kettle are really thinking about hosting a web site in their basement, at least they will get a quick education in why that is a __bad__idea__.
If all these nice people that create content need it hosted, well, there are people for that. What will you recommend next, do-it-yourself heart surgery?
Thank you -so much- for your comments, everyone. I believe it’s another testimony that many opinions exist on this matter.
So that I’m perfectly clear, the intent of my article is to illustrate a way for Ubuntu and other *nix releases to reach the next level, which is “mainstream consumers”.
Servers should be closer to appliances than rocket science.
Ubuntu offers so much, it would be wonderful to make all ot that available to the maximum number of users and serverwise, this logic remains the same.
Making something simple is actually hard work and that should stand as a worthwhile challenge for the insanely talented *nix coders and brainiacs behind this collective triumph of the open source flavor.
In short, if it can be done, it should.
And it’s a good thing if more people can have fun with Ubuntu Server, with or without the need for specialized CLI commands.
I think what you need to do is specify here the difference between ‘commercial’ or production servers and home market LAN servers.
What you describe are not commercial production servers used for work or business related purposes. You are referring to servers that home users can stream multimedia through their homes, show off videos and photos online to a select few friends and relatives, etc…
Microsoft has a ‘home server” to meet that non technical group of users and it is indeed offered in terms very like appliances.
click and go type of interaction.
Ubuntu Server is NOT marketed to the “Home Server” market. Canonical specifically has mentioned it intends to pitch Ubuntu Server to the commercial production market. As such, it will prepare Ubuntu Server in the manner that trained and educated network and web technicians will use in a commercial environment. All this meaning, no GUI.
There have been remasters of various distros targeted to the home server market. BEL Project offered one called Basic Server that provides exactly you describe here.
Perhaps you should create a project remastering Ubuntu Server and remaster it to be what you think it could be.
But, you have to warn people of the potential risks that do exist by running GUI on a web exposed server.
[...] trouble with Ubuntu Server for beginners < http://beep.name/2009/05/01/the-t…; [...]
If you are setting up a web server then why not use what many web servers out there use; CentOS.
It’s built on the stability of Red Hat, without having to pay for the support subscription.
It has the available GUI or non-GUI as you so choose.
It includes some apps for managing Samba, Apache and others for the GUI.
The NetInstall CD is very small and this way you download and install just what you want AND the latest version of the applications instead of what they put on the CD that your downloaded and burned.
For any of the servers, though, I’ve found some help at HotToForge.org, including reading through some of their “Perfect Server” tutorials.
The thing that the purists would do well to consider is that while users like myself were admins on Windows systems for years, *nix is a completely different animal. I have a website and use Cpanel. All I want is the ability to build a local test server to try out things before committing them to the Internet. I don’t want to have to be a purist, command-line only guru to do this. And although I don’t want to offend, it comes off as a little elitist to say that I have no business using Ubuntu if I don’t have a grasp of its command-line commands. I agree with the author of this piece that many with my limited knowledge level will simply pass on Ubuntu. If you feel they are not good enough to use your system, you will get your wish, but pass up a lot of potential users.
I would never use a distribution based to be a server that would waste resources running a GUI by default. You want your server to be as lean as possible and if it’s internet-facing, you want it to have as few exploitable running processes as possible ( THIS IS IMPORTANT ).
What type of magically amazingly hard to configure server are you trying to run anyway? It’s not as if Samba, Apache or CUPS is hard to configure if you actually read the documentation (all of which easily can be run on a desktop-oriented distribution as well).
That said, why Ubuntu server? I love what the Ubuntu team has been doing on the desktop but why do you need cutting edge server applications in the repos? Debian does the job just fine and it’s not like they don’t push necessary security updates when needed. For a server you want rock solid stability, reliability, security and performance first and foremost. The day I rely on the stability of xorg to handle a high priority machine on my network is the day I stop using Linux and might as well buy Windows Server licenses (not bloody likely).
I manage 7 Linux (CentOS) servers right now, with several more in the past.
Asserting that you need a GUI to administer Linux is – forgive me for being direct – dangerously stupid.
Reasons: at least 3.
1. Lightness and stability: when you install a server it’s for years. The oldest one I manage is a 9 years old filserver with RedHat 9. Can’t update anything as I have to recompile the shit out of it, but it’s doing its job well so there’s no reason to bother (security is not a problem since only a couple of services are exposed and only to the local net). Therefore, you don’t need unnecessary software.
2. Command line is often shorter. Try reloading a service by GUI: open the tool, locate the service, find the toolbar, click Reload. Compare that to reusing the command line and typing a path and “reload”. With tab completion, it comes down to 15 keystrokes for, say, apache.
See for yourself:
[root@*** ~]# date
Sun Jun 7 00:04:15 EEST 2009
[root@*** ~]# /etc/init.d/httpd reload
dReloading httpd: ate
[ OK ]
[root@*** ~]# date
Sun Jun 7 00:04:20 EEST 2009
As you can see, I started typing the second ‘date’ command before the reload output has even completed.
Of course, adding users in different back-ends can be tedious, but what’s stopping you from installing a web based GUI? Or writing you own provisioning scripts? I find Webmin/Virtualmin or SWAT rather easy to use (though SWAT is quite ugly and ugly doesn’t go well with usability), there’s not need for a whole desktop manager to add an user.
3. Servers and services often crash. They do it under heavy load, by luser error, from security issues, software dependencies and many more. When they do, it’s time to get down and dirty with the lowest level tools available. If you’re not used (correction: proficient) with the command line and Google search you’re a defenseless victim, a sheep in the woods, at night, in winter. As far as I know, there’s no GUI for GRUB setup or kernel compiling (as in a Gnome or QT app).
Other than that, installing a desktop manager is trivial under most distribution. I sometimes install a lightweight one. I do it either for the moronic Windows admin – who’s required by the client to look at the server from time to time – or in order to have a desktop in the local net, without taking hold of a workstation. Of course, I only start it when I need it.
There are so many arrogant and elitist people in the Linux community that are extremely vocal and want to force their beliefs on everyone else. They cry loud about freedom, but do not want to grant that freedom to others!
If you hate the GUI so much, I am sure you do not use a GUI on your desktop? I am sure it is more efficient and faster to edit pictures, do animation, browse the internet etc. in CLI?
Let me tell you something: A WELL DESIGNED gui is very often better than CLI. It can lay all options out for you so you do not have to remember long commandstrings. It will take care of spelling and syntax, so you do not have to waste your time retyping things because of errors.
But more important than anything: It lowers the barriers for people that come from other OS’es. People that might be very familiar with networking concepts, but they don’t know any commandline stuff, because they have been used to an adequat gui for the tasks they need to do.
Why is everyone so hung up on webservers? I could not care less most of the time. If I need a webserver, I hire space on a server with cPanel.
The servers I need are workgroup servers, file and print servers for the LAN. They will not have any more contact with the internet than any general desktop PC. So if you are concerned about security for the server, you really should be concerned about the security of the desktop systems.
A lot of small companies, organisations, churches, government offices could use a server. No need for a rackmount
, but it would be placed in something that could be thought of as a server room. Or maybe not even that.
For these people, a gui is a must have. And why not build on the knowledge they hopefully already have?
I have installed Ubuntu Server at home, and ended up installing KDE on top of it. I have been using Linux in various shapes and sizes for many years, and like CLI less and less. I do not want to use my day running a server and memorizing CLI commands. I don’t care if there are tools that might help. I really do not like CLI!
KDE has a very ok application to configure Samba. It is a great start and I wish there would be more config tools following. Apache, php, mySQL, bind9, ldap, cups and a few others.
Yes, I know there are webinterfaces, but I really prefer ONE consistent interface that has been designed to fit all the underlying structure of the distro. Webmin does not always fit with the distro you want to use it on, so all modules will not work perfect.
I suggest a Kubuntu Server that is stripped for all “user/office” applications, uses the same nice graphical installer as the Kubuntu Desktop, gives the same options that you get while installing Ubuntu Server, and has config applets that can set most things for the different parts of the server.
It could also be stripped for all “eyecandy” so it becomes as light as possible.
I am sure a Kubuntu expert could do a basic image in a couple of days (a stripped down Kubuntu Desktop) and then it would be up to those that are positive to this idea to find or make the missing tools.
I wonder why people that do not like this idea take the time to comment? You already have your toy – Ubuntu Server. Why not be happy with that and stop pestering every discussion with your opinions? The fact that you CAN post here does not mean you SHOULD.
The point of this post is not to discuss IF a gui is needed. That has already been established. You might have a different opinion, and I support your freedom to have that. Just do not push it on me.
[...] the Ubuntu community asks for is a home server or small business server. This Beepstar post, The trouble with Ubuntu Server for beginners, encapsulates the argument nicely when the article [...]
I think most of you need to get off your high horse and instead of critisiZing the lad/lass help em.
@Vonskippy what was it like bein born knowing how to use linux so well,considering you have never asked any questions have you!!!
Some servers companies dont have the option to install ubuntu desktop,vectoral for e.g.
Some people dont have control over which host they use either.
TBH alot of you should be ashamed of urself.A true expert would help the said person.Myself am lucky my host offers ubuntu desktop,even though ive tried a lot of times to install a GUI on server edition and failed miserably everytime.why would i come on a forum set up for help when all you do is get blasted down by know alls that have never needed help in their life,yeah right…
If you already have a desktop then you don’t need a GUI on the server. You can use the GUI tools off the server and display them on your desktop PC. Redirected apps is the whole point of X.
If you’re after a PC which also runs a web server then it might be better to install Ubuntu Desktop and then add Apache, Mysql, PHP to that install.
If you want a ‘Server Appliance’ then there are Linux distros that offer that ability – they tend to use Web based interfaces for ‘GUI management’
I have no issue with the Author’s idea of GUI in server edition.Not bad.Anyone who wants that should be able to install it in their server edition.But,what really bothers me is the author’s attitude towards CLI.He makes it seem like an archaic or primitive way of managing server.I have been working in enterprise & SMB linux/*Nix environments for some time now and hardly 5% of the servers have GUI installed and that too are mostly disabled for various reasons.All those servers are managed entirely via CLI.I have had no issues managing them via CLI till date.Infact,I feel I can manage them efficiently with a clinical precision.Infact,some things which will take you 20-40 clicks in GUI can be done in a single line on CLI.Now,is CLI a rocket science for one needs to be nerdy or geeky?Absolutely not!Infact with a little patience,you can master CLI.And,then you realize how efficient it can be and would certainly wonder how you ignored it till now.Also understand that when you say server,it usually brings images of a headless machine sitting in a corner or a 2U/1U rack mounted machine humming away in some remote datacenter.Now,in those scenarios,a GUI is of no use and infact is a liability.Its a different issue,if someone intends to run a server in their basement which will also double as their workstation.In that scenario,having a GUI makes sense.Else,if you just want to run a server for some dedicated service and dont have to work directly on it,then it really doesnt make sense to install a GNOME/KDE GUI on it.But,you still can install many GUI based tools which can make your life easy for some particular tasks which you want to avoid CLI as much as possible,assuming you are not familiar with it or completely averse to it and donot intend to learn CLI or its intricacies in the next 50 years.The beauty of Linux/*NIX OS lies in its simplicity.Once you understand the basics,you can realize how flexible it is.A humble request,just dont bash the CLI just because you are uncomfortable with it or dont understand the underlying engine.Make the best of your article by putting behind any prejudice or preconceptions.
All the best.
A Touchy & Religious *NX User
thank you for the article. it says a lot.
i have a fantastic database driven website using php and mysql all designed and developed by myself on xp using wamp!!! it proves i have half a brain! agreed?!
…but i still can’t get me head around linux and ip addressing, tcp/ip and have also to worry abut security. right! isnt that the main reason for wanting linux?
so, will some nice nixer although not willing to produce a GUI to make it really easy for the masses at least pleeeeze provide a complete guide to getting a php/mqysql/apache webserver running on a linux…. yes plz every command!
i can find some bits here and there but they are too hard to put all togther – plz do a proper guide step-by-step missng nothing out… and help stop the world domination of MicroSoft.
do you know there must be thousnds of peole like me, most probably ditching linux in the end because the learning curve is too high and linux isnt properly documented for ordinary folks to comprehend.
i bought books on linux and apache – but none show me how to get the whole thing done??
thank you.