Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Jul 2006 20:26 UTC
Oracle and SUN Linux.com reviews Xandros Server 1.0, and concludes: "Xandros Server does have a lot to offer, though, particularly for organisations that have standardised on Windows servers in the past. I like the Xandros management tools, and it seems like a good solution for small and medium-sized businesses."
Order by: Score:
Windows/Linux administrators
by jcinacio on Mon 24th Jul 2006 20:58 UTC
jcinacio
Member since:
2006-03-12

"Employing graphical management tools, centralized administration, and workflow-based wizards, Xandros Server streamlines server management and eliminates the need for Linux server administration skills or use of the command line.
This revolutionary design enables Windows Server administrators to manage Xandros servers, without any additional training, and businesses to use their administrative resources more efficiently."


Sorry, but i can't imagine a server admin without ANY knowledge of linux doing a good job. Linux IS different from windows, and one must at least try to understand it's fundamental principles.

Yes, the tools might work OK and make administration easier in general terms, but the way they put it - "Instant Linux server for dumbs" - just can't work in practice.

I can only imagine the ammount of "server admins" that will eventually visit this page: http://www.xandros.com/products/business/server/support.html

Reply Score: 3

RE: Windows/Linux administrators
by segedunum on Mon 24th Jul 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "Windows/Linux administrators"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, but i can't imagine a server admin without ANY knowledge of linux doing a good job. Linux IS different from windows, and one must at least try to understand it's fundamental principles.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but unless Linux as a server, not just a desktop, gets adequate graphical management tools for the vast majority of tasks you would reasonably want to perform, Linux is as dead as a door nail - both on the server and the desktop. Does a Linux system anywhere have something to compare with this?

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=25983&a=183983&po...

Just have a think for a second there about just how far any Linux based system has to go in this area.

The fact that things can be done graphically, and a lot easier than through a command line or text editing method, does not mean that people are unskilled. You've picked that up from the pretty haphazard way that Microsoft has grown its graphical tools for servers over the years.

Through well thought out and sane graphical tools and best practice, administrators can be guided painlessly through setting up many of the common things you'd want to do in no time. Indeed, we've all made a ridiculous mistake through using a command line or editing a text file wrong at some point or another. Let's just take that out of the equation and let people get on with their work, OK? There's also the case of being more aware of the status of your system through well thought out graphical tools, and usability as well.

In terms of the quality and depth of management tools on a server, Xandros is the best I've seen - and they still have some way to go. Red Hat is the market leader and they have pretty woeful graphical tools for even the most basic of functions. Suse has historically had YaST, but it's never had the depth or quality reflecting all the software someone might reasonably want to use on a server, from LDAP to DNS to Apache to groupware. The future of YaST seems to be in a bit of flux from what I've seen in SLE 10, and it hasn't really seen the development forward I would hope to have seen.

It's worth pointing out at this juncture that the quality of graphical tools needs to be top notch if you're going to get a Linux based server to compete within the traditional domain of Windows Server's usage. It then follows that to produce those excellent graphical tools you need excellent GUI programming tools at your disposal. Have a look at the GUI technology Red Hat have been using for years, and now Novell are supposedly using, and then look at what Xandros are using. Nuff said.

Reply Score: 5

Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

That's the price of being modular, sadly, lets take for example Apache, there is no good graphics interface well integrated to a DE, and lets supose some one try to make a good interface for Apache the next questions arrive:

Who shoul work on those GUI tools?
Apache members, Distro makers or DE makers?
all of them?

Who would take the responsability?

what toolkit?

MS have the advantage here, they develop ISS and Windows and they integrate it well in the OS.

And that's only a example, there are many more.

Edited 2006-07-24 22:41

Reply Score: 2

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Apple have an excellent graphical manager for Appache (1.3) in OSX Server. For Linux, there's likely no desire - you're considered stupid and inferior just for mention the word GUI.

Reply Score: 5

Stemp Member since:
2006-02-09

you're considered stupid and inferior just for mention the word GUI ?

Ten years ago ?

Reply Score: 2

ThanhLy Member since:
2006-03-14

"but unless Linux as a server, not just a desktop, gets adequate graphical management tools for the vast majority of tasks you would reasonably want to perform, Linux is as dead as a door nail - both on the server and the desktop."

If what you said is true then Linux (or any OS that can run without a GUI for that matter) would not survive in today's tech industry. Yet they are thriving.

I remember reading an article about a professional gamer at some trade show, who was stumped because he couldn't figure out where in the display properties are the controls to setup dual monitors. The video card in question was an ATI brand and even an ATI representative was there trying to help him out. Long story short the article was poking fun at ATI's lousy GUI design. As you've already pointed out, good GUI design is what makes them more productive.

I think GUIs hinder my productivity when I have to adjust many many options. I would have to remember where one particular option is to be found if I don't want to hunt for it among tabs of option panes, or long lists of check boxes etc.

In contrast, when editing a config file in plain text, I can just do a word search for a particular keyword. I'll even setting for a web-based GUI config interface because at lest then I can word search the page to find the option I want.

Reply Score: 3

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

If what you said is true then Linux (or any OS that can run without a GUI for that matter) would not survive in today's tech industry.

I'm not saying all servers should run with a GUI.

Yet they are thriving.

Not as much as they could be.

I think GUIs hinder my productivity when I have to adjust many many options.

Indeed. A GUI is useful for the many tasks someone may want to perform, but there will always be a need for shortcuts. A GUI could even make the process of searching for settings and changing them together much better. There's so much extra that can be done.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Mitarai on Mon 24th Jul 2006 22:17 UTC
Mitarai
Member since:
2005-07-28

The deciding factor for most organizations will be cost. The licenses for Xandros server run $450 per license, for a single server with up to four CPUs. This includes 90 days of email support; if you run into problems that you can't solve via email, you'll either need to negotiate a support package with Xandros, or pay support fees starting at $149 per incident over email, and $219 per incident over the phone. The a la carte support is available only five days a week, 12 hours per day, which would give me pause, since I wouldn't be eager to have to wait until Monday for a server issue that crops up Friday evening.

It is me or the support is kind of expensive?
Only 5 days a week?
Only 12 hours per day?

I think they need do it better than that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Windows/Linux administrators
by JamesTRexx on Mon 24th Jul 2006 22:48 UTC
JamesTRexx
Member since:
2005-11-06

I doubt it's got to do with stupid and inferior.
I can imagine why there's no demand for a graphical manager for something like Apache, all options can be set just as easily in the config file, and most instances are managed remotely through ssh.
Having to use a GUI would mean it takes up more bandwidth to manage the server and it would mean having to run (part of) X on it, which adds another point of failure/security risk.
Some things are better managed through a proper GUI, like complex things that change often (think LDAP/Active Directory), some things are better done by text files which change only once in a while.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Windows/Linux administrators
by Soulbender on Tue 25th Jul 2006 07:40 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"Who should work on those GUI tools?"
Whoever wants them or whoever wants to make them.

"Who would take the responsability?"

Whoever cares about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows/Linux administrators
by re_re on Tue 25th Jul 2006 21:34 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

GUI tools for servers is way overrated, when I want to set up a server I am far more proficient with text tools then with the gui. Everything goes so fast with no dilli-dinking around trying to find certain advanced settings (which may not exist) to set up unusual paramaters.

If gui server tools were where the cats meow, nobody would be using Linux, BSD, or Solaris and between the three, they account for a pretty healthy portion of the servers on the net although I don't have an exact number on hand.

Reply Score: 1