Topic: SME Server 6.0 ?

[Peter Walter]

Congratulations on a fine product in SME Server! The software is incredibly easy to configure (for basic server-oriented services) compared to other Linux distributions. It is also rock-solid stable (I have never had a server crash in the six months I have been using your product). However, I hope Mitel will consider adding the following features to the next major release:

1. Optional GUI X-Windows support, with the option to start the server local display with a (Mozilla-based) web interface instead of text mode. The web interface would be the same as that available from a workstation; Java-based applets would then be possible.

2. remote VNC server capability for X.

3. Expansion of the "blades" and "template" concepts to support an "Add/Remove/Change" feature similar to Windows. Also, more documentation on how-to create a blade, and how the template mechanism works. This would allow developers (and users) to create blades/templates to manage add-on services.

4. Ability to add multiple SME servers as domain clients to a SME domain controller, enabling single-sign on without having to add usernames to every SME box in the network.

5. Expansion of paid support options - how about a subscription for technical support direct from Mitel beyond what is available in the forums?

[Rob Hillis]

Peter Walter wrote:

> 1. Optional GUI X-Windows support, with the option to start
> the server local display with a (Mozilla-based) web interface
> instead of text mode. The web interface would be the same as
> that available from a workstation; Java-based applets would
> then be possible.

I think Mitel has made it pretty clear that this will *NOT* be included in future releases.  X-Windows is totally unnecessary for a server, and only consumes system resources for no significant returns.  It could potentially add security holes as well - once again, for no signifcant gain.  All necessary administration can be done from another computer.

> 2. remote VNC server capability for X.

See above.  No real need.

> 3. Expansion of the "blades" and "template" concepts to
> support an "Add/Remove/Change" feature similar to Windows.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here... you can add and remove blades at will already.  What function would 'Change' provide?

> Also, more documentation on how-to create a blade

We've been asking for it ever since v5... We're assured we'll get it... eventually..

> 4. Ability to add multiple SME servers as domain clients to a
> SME domain controller, enabling single-sign on without having
> to add usernames to every SME box in the network.

I beleive there's a call for developers to take a look at getting LDAP authentication going on SME for this purpose.  Mitel have other priorities at the moment, so it's up to others to get it working and publish a HOWTO for the moment.  If you could contribute towards this, it'll be for everyone's benefit.  Don't forget the basic SME package is open source, meaning that everyone who can should contribute.

> 5. Expansion of paid support options - how about a
> subscription for technical support direct from Mitel beyond
> what is available in the forums?

That's a function for your Authorised Partner.

[Peter Walter]

> I think Mitel has made it pretty clear that this will *NOT* be
> included in future releases. X-Windows is totally unnecessary
> for a server, and only consumes system resources for no
> significant returns. It could potentially add security holes
> as well - once again, for no signifcant gain. All necessary
> administration can be done from another computer.

Okaaay ... then. I did not mean to trample on sacred cows. I agree that X is *unnecessary* for a server, from a resource service point of view. I was thinking of the persons who have to administer the server. Not all server administration tasks can be done using the http interface. I have  set up many Non-ix small business server environments over the last twenty years (Microsoft, Novell, IBM, and others). I am new to Linux; I thought that SME Server was ideally poised to be marketed as a replacement for Microsoft SBS. Not supporting a local GUI interface is intimidating for many server administrators who are new to Unix/Linux; even Novell finally had to go the GUI route. With regard to security concerns, I had thought that it would be possible to restrict the X-Window interface to only the local console, but make it accessible remotely via VNC if the administrator so desired. Finally, my understanding was that including X would facilitate the installation of many fine Unix/Linux GUI-oriented tools. The command line interface would still be available for gurus to use.

I hope that Mitel reconsiders this issue.

[Simon Domepling]

I agree that a X-Windows gui is totally unnecessary, however the spartan environment lynx offers is also not necessary.

Why not replace lynx with links text browser. It is way better with tables and frames and the use of colors to differentiate page elements.

However I would not make this a priority myself, but it might be viable for sys admins, who just switched from windows etc. platforms.

[jms]

X don't have to run all the time. It should start when someone login as "admin" and it should close when the user logout. No unnecessary system resource are used. And the security risc's are small.

[robert]

jms wrote:
>
> X don't have to run all the time. It should start when
> someone login as "admin" and it should close when the user
> logout. No unnecessary system resource are used. And the
> security risc's are small.

An installation would take much more disk space with X. Also, the download size for the distribution would be a lot bigger. And how about the fact that adding X would complicate distribution maintenance A LOT: all these new dependencies and security issues you would need to keep track of. In short, adding X would mean a lot of unnecessary use of resources. And for what good? The only argument I've heard so far is that people would want a GUI browser on their server to do system configuration. Does anyone have a REAL argument in favor of adding X?

[Peter Walter]

robert wrote:
> An installation would take much more disk space with X. Also,
> the download size for the distribution would be a lot bigger.

So what? X does not have to be packaged with the base distribution - I assume it could be added via RPM's like any other software. What additional disk space are we talking about here? 5 Mb? 50Mb? X does not have to be directly supported by Mitel, just facilitated.

> And how about the fact that adding X would complicate
> distribution maintenance A LOT: all these new dependencies
> and security issues you would need to keep track of.

Other distributions seem to be able to handle the maintenance load. I do not know of a popular distribution (other than SME Server) that does not include X at least as an option.

> In short, adding X would mean a lot of unnecessary use of
> resources. And for what good? The only argument I've heard so
> far is that people would want a GUI browser on their server
> to do system configuration. Does anyone have a REAL argument
> in favor of adding X?

Well, if you are a diehard command-line user, I suppose X would be superflous. The "good" I see in adding X is that beyond being able to administer the server with a GUI, it opens up the possibility of eventually migrating SME Server beyond Web / file services / print services to supporting application services which require a GUI for administration. I know of few programmers willing to write new programs with a command-line interface only.

A GUI interface is critical to getting current programmers to port non-ix applications to Linux. I have been following the mono project (www.go-mono.com) with interest, and look forward to the day when Micro$oft programmers such as myself can use familiar tools to build server applications for Linux.

Linux is the wave of the future, for all applications. Why close off SME Server to only supporting the past?

I am a newbie to Linux. If any of you gurus out there would be willing to start a project to add X to SME Server via RPM's, I will gladly participate in whatever way I can.

[Duncan]

I think from a design point of view SME is supposed to be a simple to install simple to administer product for the average Jo Bloke in the street.

The fact that we want to add product to it and "enhance" it is really quite irrelevant and i can easily accept that. SME was never intended to just be another Distro.

>Not all server administration tasks can be done using the http interface.

True, but all server administration tasks required for SME can.

>And the security risc's are small.

There should be no security risks (or at least no known security risks)

>I do not know of a popular distribution (other than SME Server) that does not include X at least as an option.

Mandrake SNF, Clarkeconnect and Smoothwall dont come with X. And as far as i am aware Unix doesnt come with a gui.(This ones a bit petty of me)

Taking this a bit further with respect to other posts. There are allways requests for additional bits of software to be added to the system. One of the big ones is Hylafax. To me this would be a great addition to the system, but i understand that it could never be included in its present form. Why?, because it would force the end user to go to the command line (gui or not) to configure it. Again this flys in the face of Mitels design philosophy ie simplicity for the end user.

My suggestion to you is to grab yourself a copy of Redhat, or even better Debian and build your server with one of these. However i know from past experience that to get your server to the same point as SME you will spend most of your time at the command line.

Me i prefer the command line. It is quicker and easier than using a gui and it just plain works. But that is just my preference.

btw For any one that wants a better text based browser go here.
http://www.w3m.org/
Much much better.

Regards Duncan

[Andy MacDonald]

I can appreciate why Peter would like X. I have been just short of thrashed for running X on my toy FreeBSD box as root by my local FreeBSD guru.
It has security problems.
I am no linux guru by any means, but I can do anything to my server via the command line. Of course I cheat and use mc (god bless it) and pico.
Recently I had the honour of being asked to show a Cisco Networking Guru how to set up an E-smith box for his kids school.
Peter, your resources are the howto's on the forums and at http://www.myezserver.com. There is step by step stuff in there that is brilliant, like how to use midnight commander and how to install rpms.
This sort of stuff should be in the manual. If you spend a day reading, you'll find that the command line can be your friend.
The commands I use most are ls (-ltr), cd, mkdir, mv, top (for fun) mc (to invoke midnight commander, Can you say dosshell?) and pico. I think that's about it.
My confident use of this meagre command range gives me great status amongst my Gui only friends. I am careful to not let them know just how easy it is.

[Rob Hillis]

Peter Walter wrote:

> > An installation would take much more disk space with X. Also,
> > the download size for the distribution would be a lot bigger.
> So what? X does not have to be packaged with the base
> distribution - I assume it could be added via RPM's like any
> other software. What additional disk space are we talking
> about here? 5 Mb? 50Mb? X does not have to be directly
> supported by Mitel, just facilitated.

*VERY* approximately (without ANY window managers, and possibly missing a couple of libararies) 65mb.  By the time you include a window manager, web browser, terminal client and another miscellaneous utility or two, you're looking at an extra 150mb on the install CD - nearly HALF as much AGAIN as the current installation for something that realistically is of very limited use.

> > And how about the fact that adding X would complicate
> > distribution maintenance A LOT: all these new dependencies
> > and security issues you would need to keep track of.
> Other distributions seem to be able to handle the maintenance
> load. I do not know of a popular distribution (other than SME
> Server) that does not include X at least as an option.

Primarily because most other distributions are ALSO aimed at the desktop market.  By the way, if you install either RedHat or Mandrake in server mode, *BOTH* leave out the installation of X under these circumstances.

> > In short, adding X would mean a lot of unnecessary use of
> > resources. And for what good? The only argument I've heard so
> > far is that people would want a GUI browser on their server
> > to do system configuration. Does anyone have a REAL argument
> > in favor of adding X?
> Well, if you are a diehard command-line user, I suppose X
> would be superflous.

That's what the web interface is for.  For a basic server implementation, there is usually no need whatsoever to access the command line.

> The "good" I see in adding X is that
> beyond being able to administer the server with a GUI, it
> opens up the possibility of eventually migrating SME Server
> beyond Web / file services / print services to supporting
> application services which require a GUI for administration.

THAT is a LONG way into the future.  SME is, and always has been, a fairly basic, easy to set up and maintain server soloution.  It's small size is one hell of an advantage, and not once have I ever really needed or wanted a GUI on my server.  I *have* installed a couple of X libraries, but only to satisfy Ghostscript dependancies in order to get HylaFax going.

> I know of few programmers willing to write new programs with
> a command-line interface only.

SME is not, and never has been designed to run applications.  In any case, if you look around, I think you'll find quite a lot of projects with command line interfaces included.

Yes, you can install X on SME if you really want to.  Given the nature of the template system and the implementation of a damned good web-based configuration tool, there is at present NO reason whatsoever to install X.

[Bruce]

Let's forget about the processing. One of the beauties of the SME solution is that the lack of a GUI allows for ANY video card to be used. While I have successfully installed Linux on a number of desktop, notebook and server boxes, no version works as smoothly as SME.

The major contributor to system problems is graphics. Why would you want to mess up a GREAT system with graphics anyway?  I'd vote for more user control, expanded web services availability and smoother installation of 3rd party add-ins long before I considered a GUI.

[Michael Smith]

Hear, hear!  I'd MUCH rather see Mitel keep extending the *strengths* of SME -- ease of setup, ease of use, security -- than tart it up with a GUI.  

In my experience, most aggravations I've had with Linux distributions have been related to X ... the setup & use thereof with various hardware.  SME is just sooooooo easy ... I'd like to see it kept that way.

[Michiel van Es]

exactly!
No X on servers!
learn how to use vi (or joe or pico ) and learn the BASH shell!
That's the strength and security of Linux!
You have a webmanager and you have alternative administration tools (webmin: HINT!)
What I would like to see is more hardware support..the Mylex DAC960 Raid SCSI controller module is not well implemented in the 5.* versions.
That's mt small and easy request

Greetz,

MichielvE

Michael Smith wrote:
>
> Hear, hear!  I'd MUCH rather see Mitel keep extending the
> *strengths* of SME -- ease of setup, ease of use, security --
> than tart it up with a GUI.
>
> In my experience, most aggravations I've had with Linux
> distributions have been related to X ... the setup & use
> thereof with various hardware.  SME is just sooooooo easy ...
> I'd like to see it kept that way.

[schotty]

oki oki so X would be cool -use the linux edonkey on the server ) wow ...

BUT unfortunatly I am against X on sme......The reasons are :

a) lots os peolple are having probs with other functions like ftp from extern...
b) email from extern....

what help are they going to need when graphic card xyz doesnt work.... And what about update xfree 4.1.23.12.212.1213. beta??

I would most certainly like to see other functions built into this server... I need a server thats robust, and a server that i can rely on.
XServer is for me and the company I work for not a requirement on a server....

Use a desktop if you need x.... Or if you need a server that needs X then use microsoft... Just cos microsoft got it wromg doesnt mean we all got to get it wrong.....

cheers from Germany......

[D. Zucker]

About edonkey :

you can simply install the edonkey command line client and control it from any workstation with the java applet.

So edonkey can work all the time on the server.

cheers