Comments on: Are Ubuntu Server and Desktop Editions At Odds?

By: Dave Lane

Dave Lane — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:23:23 +0000

Once you learn a little bit about the command line, remote server maintenance is a breeze. It’s all about getting that little toe-hold of understanding, ignoring the fear and embracing the opportunity… after that, you’ll rapidly get to the point where you wonder how anyone could hope to achieve anything with a GUI.

With the huge number of decent tutorials out there, getting started isn’t nearly as daunting as it used to be.

By: jonabyte

jonabyte — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:08:03 +0000

I like the non-gui install for a server, if I want a gui I can easily install it later.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:41:00 +0000

I use Ubuntu Desktop as my main server platform.
The question is: Do I like to manage my server with a GUI, or manage it remotely. My answer: YES!
I manage my server remotely from the comfort of my desk or couch using the GUI wherever possible (NXserver works pretty well for me). So I think it would be great to have more server GUI admin tools – then we might see Linux replacing Windows, not just proprietary UNIX.

By: SPM

SPM — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:35:36 +0000

There are two types of server market. The Internet server which tends to be mission critical and security critical – the previous haunt of proprietary Unix systems, and the corporate intranet server – eg. file and print server, intranet web server etc. which are not so critical in terms of uptime or security and which tend to be served by souped up desktop OSes like Windows because of lower grade sysadmin staff’s familiarity with corresponding desktop OSes. Redhat is targeting the former while Ubuntu is targeting the latter. There is room for both.

By: Toby Deemer

Toby Deemer — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:41:54 +0000

There’s also this way to think about it- on the desktop, Ubuntu has been trying to be the best desktop experience it can be, and as easy as possible for new users to adopt. A strong approach there, and very successful.

And rather than “the other edge of the same sword”, the server approach is instead a different weapon altogether, and perhaps defaults to CLI as a beacon that ‘we mean business’.

I do think perhaps there is a little room for filling in some gaps between the two though…

By: Dummy00001

Dummy00001 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:01:13 +0000

I’m still waiting for Linux-based server OS where I can do most of the things without ever seeing root shell…

By: Alan

Alan — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:06:02 +0000

@JP – I know you can, and I know the conventional wisdom about GUI’s on servers. I got about 25 headless Debian boxes under my care, so I’m not out of touch there. But my point is that newbie installs Ubuntu server and doesn’t know any of this. He’s expecting the same friendly environment he got on his workstation, not a console. If ebox is so great why not put it in the default install?

And that’s my point; there are all these things that newbies get counseled to install to make it easy to use the server. Why not put them there (or make them an install option — put tasksel to work) to begin with?

It isn’t that there aren’t good arguments for leaving the GUI off, it’s that this is UBUNTU. They built their name being newbie-friendly, so why not on the server as well? It’s just out-of-sync.

By: JP

JP — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:24:45 +0000

@Alan – you can install the GUI of choice, but servers are not the place for GUI’s…imho. Manage it remotely using ebox – sudo apt-get install ebox-all – far more efficient and just as simple. Besides – who wants to be in a cold, dark, loud place. I’m happier managing servers from my boat!

@Admin or er, eh Christopher? – you are a smart fella arnt you? Now if you dig under the covers of this strategy I’d be willing to bet you would find that the Ubuntu Server strategy is designed to be the most efficient and expedient server OS for the enterprise. Besides the fact that it will remain a no-cost option (in other words truly free in every sense).

By: Alan

Alan — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:19:44 +0000

Given their reputation on the desktop, I am a bit baffled as to why Ubuntu server edition defaults to a CLI-only interface. Not that I don’t understand the logic in running a headless server in general, but one would think Ubuntu would leverage it’s user-friendly-GUI ethos to make servers newbie-friendly as well. Suse does this, and I find it’s easier to sell the Windows admins I know on SLES than on Ubuntu for this reason.

Even putting a minimal WM like IceWM on there, along with webmin, would go a long way towards making ubuntu server easier for switchers. If you spend any amount of time in the Ubuntu server forum, you’ll find that installing a GUI and installing webmin are the two most common recommendations for people going through the CLI-newbie crisis.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:07:14 +0000

I am a non-IT pro, but do mettle with our server here at work on occasion. It seems to me having a familiar format on both the server and the desktop is a desirable thing. I feel confident that’s why Windows Server is so popular it surely isn’t because it is so great. Sadly we are totally Windows (at work, but not at home , but the ease of use of Ubuntu will surely catch on more and more.