[olug] linux web server management ?

bbrush at unlnotes.unl.edu bbrush at unlnotes.unl.edu
Wed Dec 18 22:46:59 UTC 2002

I'd just like to state that I was referring solely to desktop workstation
installations.  Most desktop software that I use is install and use.  Not
much configuration or maintenance required.  Servers and the like are a
whole other matter.

For a server I accept a certain level of complexity.  For my personal
workstation I don't.

FWIW, if anyone really cares, the one NOS out there that really does things
right IMO, is Novell Netware.  Yes, I consider it better than any flavor of
*nix for the vast majority of NOS applications.

It's got:

Best cross-platform directory available (Netware, Windows, Linux, *nix,
Graphical configuration tools (Soon to be web-browser based)
Internet server apps (Apache)
Rock solid stable
Secure (Heard any exploits for it lately that didn't require physical
Generally excellent documentation and support

I could go on, but I won't.  My dream is to run a network where I have
Novell's servers and directory to manage the servers, and workstations
running a nice, stable, secure version of Linux.


Phil Brutsche said:

> Windows - the most common example - isn't as simple as people suggest.
> On the few Windows servers I am responsible for (or have been
> responsible for) at work I have different pieces of software to
> configure:
> Active Directory
> NT4 Domains
> SMTP/POP3/IMAP servers
> database servers
> fax server software
> Each and every one of them requires a different tool - some of them
> aren't all that well documented compared to the Apache documentation web
> site or the Exim specification.  Being a GUI doesn't make the
> configuration tool any simpler :(
> The only way to make everything configurable through the same interface
> is to throw out anything not written by Microsoft and abandon everything
> older than Windows 2000.
>> Better yet, with standards established you can present APIs for
>> accessing configuration information, removing this burden entirely
>> from individual applications.  In other words, from a developer's
>> stand point the Win32 Registry API is a god send, even if the
>> monolothic binary registry file is obviously a mistake that Linux
>> wouldn't need to repeat to get the benefits of a standard
>> configuration mechanism.
> This has been suggested - the KDE and GNOME desktop environments even
> use it.  And it's a WONDERFUL idea.

More information about the OLUG mailing list