Re: [SLE] ...and speaking of SuSE / Novell...

From: Andre Truter (andre.truter_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/17/05

  • Next message: Steve Graegert: "Re: [SLE] xawtv4 with a superlong error message" 
    Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:46:19 +0200
To: suse-linux-e@suse.com

    On 11/17/05, Peter Van Lone <petervl@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > right .. it's called experience. 600 hours is only 15 weeks of
    > experience. I don't have a problem with it, and did not complain. What
    > I orginally said was "stop calling names of linux newbies that
    > rely/use the GUI on a server to get work done"
    >

    Yes, I agree that calling newbies names for using a GUI is wrong.
    I have seen a number of newbies that start out with installing a GUI
    on a server, until I show them that it is not really needed.
    Now they run GUI stuff they need over ssh to thier workstations. :-)

    I think one thing where MS damaged people is by instilling this idea
    that a good server should have a GUI.
    When I was still a Windows user, I used to think of UNIX as an old,
    outdated system, with a horrible user-interface. All mono-chrome..
    That was until I actually saw a real live UNIX machine and worked on
    it. It opened my eyes.
    I was lucky, I suppose, that my first interaction with UNIX was from a
    Sun Sparcstation, running CDE, with telnet sessions to an HP
    development server.
    I never really used the Sun box for anything else, than it's X-server,
    so I could run Nedit (a graphical editor) on the HP box.

    > lists of people carping about "noobs that put a gui on a server" ...
    > well, damn ... if it makes the transition and traslation to linux
    > easier why, as a linux advocate, would you (not you personally) want
    > to be so freaking hostile about it?

    I don't have a problem with noobs putting a GUI on a server, I have a
    problem with experienced admins running a GUI on a server. (I did not
    mean to offend noobs, sorry)
    I also have a problem with SLES defaulting to a GUI install. I
    expected it to default to the minimal install, or options like
    "Webserver", "Mail server", "File Server", etc and then you pick the
    options you want.
    But the default Graphical desktop install threw me a bit.

    I thought about it a bit and I can see valid reasons for an
    experienced sysadmin to install a full desktop on SLES:
    1) If you want to use it for a desktop workstation (You lost all your
    SUSE Linux or NLD media or something) :-)

    2) You set up a LTSP server where people will run desktops from dumb terminals. 

    --
Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282
ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org
~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
  • Next message: Steve Graegert: "Re: [SLE] xawtv4 with a superlong error message"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: which linux? (not flame bait, thank you)
      ... > Portupgrade really helps with maintaining ports. ... I would like to have a little exposure to linux ... > keep my server and desktop running with the same versions, ... 'full' RH or SuSE install, but slightly behind the times, as is Debian, ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Are there advantages of Linux over XP Pro.?
      ... Excuse my ignorance but what does KDE mean? ... dual-boot 98SE/XP PRO machine for a copy of Linux. ... small file server with RAID and Backup storage with the easy addition of ... The Mandrake 10.1 install was also painless, but the GUI would not run. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
    • Re: what version?? need file sharing and web server
      ... I have to say I'm sort of in a similar position in that I'm ... I'm no expert when it comes to things Linux ... As a reference point, hardwarewise, my current server is an old 'Super ... you don't need a GUI and a much smaller subset of distros that might be ...
      (uk.comp.os.linux)
    • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
      ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
      (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
    • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
      ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
      (microsoft.public.exchange.connectivity)