Server comments

[tepy]

I'm looking at a similar goal.

I need to place some 'servers' in a few physician offices. These will
run, Apache, MySql, and OpenEMR. For the server to function this
software and whatever it depends on is all that is required. However,
there will be times (I'm positive about this) when I'll need to walk a
physician through something over the phone. When that happens I want to
be able to say "type 'startx' Doc." Believe me when I tell you that's
going to be a lot easier on both of us!

I say give the option to install and the admin can set the run level for
x to whatever he or she feels is the best.

Okay, I've spoken. You can all relax now.

**********
Illiterate? Write for Help ... P.O. Box ... Washington D.C. ....

On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 12:53 -0700, Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom) wrote:
>    They arent my people, they are the people of customers. (In some cases, 
> customers themselves).
> 
>    Light desktops would be fine. I'm easy. I just want to enable 'them' to 
> do the simple things.
> 
>    I"m trying not to 'spam', honest. Just responding to an interesting 
> discussion.
> 
>    And keep the minimal install. Makes sense. (Keeps it easy for some).
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Smith" <tom71713-ubuntu at yahoo.com>
> To: "Ubuntu Help and User Discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Server comments
> 
> 
> >
> > Julio Biason wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/16/06, Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom) <JimBodkins at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>   My real problem is with the server install. Come on guys. Are you
> >>>serious? What you call a server install, stopped being useful ten years 
> >>>ago.
> >>>Contemporary servers require desktops and more. (I am more than capable 
> >>>of
> >>>admining a server from a command line. But a credible and 'deployed' 
> >>>server
> >>>needs admining by others, not just me)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I don't get it. I mean, why a server would ever need a desktop? A
> >>server won't be used for anything other than serving a network. You
> >>won't write a document on a server, just store it there.
> >>
> >>But I agree that the name "server" is a little bit misleading: it
> >>actually install just the base system. It won't even install apache or
> >>any other serve (except for postfix, that also comes with the desktop
> >>install), so it isn't a server on the real meaning of the word. Maybe
> >>"base"?
> >>
> >>[PS: Looking at that perspective, your view of a server is just a
> >>normal desktop install followed by the installation of the servers you
> >>want]
> >>
> >>
> > One would think that those individuals who are administering your server
> > would be properly trained to utilize whatever tools you've put in place.
> > To that end, the presence of a "desktop" shouldn't matter. However...
> >
> > I install a light weight GUI on all of my servers. The only purpose it
> > serves is to allow me to start some process, such as a kernel recompile,
> > on the server and not have to worry about it preventing me from working
> > as normal on my workstation. The compile (or whatnot) runs inside a VNC
> > session--I just come back to it every now and again to check its progress.
> >
> > A GUI like Gnome or KDE is certainly not necessary--they just act to
> > suck up disk space and usually have some daemons that start during boot
> > (such as hald) that consume additional resources.
> >
> > Further, when I think of a "server" install, Ubuntu's current "server"
> > installation ALWAYS comes to mind. For me, I want the server to start
> > out as minimal as possible. I can then easily add the components I need
> > for it to serve its purpose.
> >
> > -- 
> > ubuntu-users mailing list
> > ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users 
> 
>