Server comments

[Eric Dunbar]

On 2/16/06, Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom) <JimBodkins at yahoo.com> wrote:
>    No, I"m not on 'crack'. By the way, keep the pissy comments to yourself -
> whoever you are - please. My comments were to the 'ubuntu' group and were
> not intended to be critical - just comments. Processor cycles? I'm not
> counting processor cycles. System load is not the issue on these servers.
>
>    Having a desktop extends the market. Many companies will not invest in
> solutions that dont provide the broadest options (including  support -
> personel) possible. I'm not alone in this. Sun to IBM agree here. This isnt
> about me, its about customers and the ability to provide support - by us and
> them.

To chime in on an already long and rapidly growing thread...

The presence or absence of a desktop isn't going to make a lick of
difference to larger companies (i.e. those with budgets), I suspect.
They'll be getting themselves support from a third party, or, if
they're going to do it in-house they'll build and configure the server
themselves. If they're doing LTSP they'll install X and all the
desktop environment goodies that are needed. If they need an apache
server, they'll install what they need for apache and to configure
apache (probably a commercial package anyway ;-).

However, I do think the presence of a desktop could make a difference
to the amateur user of the server install, e.g. the personal, home
office or small office user. In these cases the user will have just
enough knowledge to set up the server (like me), but not enough
experience, training or TIME to fiddle with the CLUI and RTFM.

For e.g., my YellowDogLinux (FC2+FC3 hybrid PPC GNU/Linux) server
works pretty nicely "out of the box" and Webmin allowing me to
configure and turn on/off a wide variety of services (I guess Webmin
doesn't require a GUI though ;-).

Eric.