Hello everybody, my name is Alessio Fattorini and I'm part of a team of FLOSS developers that is working on a project named NethServer. We’d like to share with you our experience and our ideas for the future developments. You could think of NethServer as CentOS with some extra packages, particularly a powerful and extensible web interface that simplifies common administration tasks. NethServer is for the sysadmin who appreciates the effectiveness of a user interface which saves time compared to direct configuration file modification and for users who want to approach CentOS without having Linux skills.
We didn't reinvent the wheel, NethServer is a partial rewrite of the original SME Server code, focusing on maintainability, extensibility and standard compliance with CentOS. We think we achieved those goals with: * A dynamic, streamlined user-interface * Standard components, tested widespread configurations * Minimal differences with upstream (CentOS) * Easy installation * Simplified administration tasks * Use of templates and text-based db for configuration (configuration will always be consistent) * Built-in extensibility
NethServer architecture explicitly supports developers by making it easy to install and integrate additional software. We quickly added some pre-configured modules, installable with a “single click”, for example: LAMP framework Caching + filtering web proxy (with SSL filter) SOGo Groupware Mail Server with Antispam and Antivirus VPN (OpenVPN and IPsec/L2TP) Firewall (Shorewall) Intrusion detection (Snort) ownCloud
More informations could be found on the official project website: www.nethserver.it.
As soon as we read about CentOS variants, we have developed the idea of releasing NethServer as a CentOS variant and we are thinking of a SME SIG, a group exploring the needs of small enterprises (we are based in Italy, where the vast majority of enterprises is really small). According to you, does NethServer meet the basic requirements?
We’ll be at Brussels Dojo and FOSDEM and we'd love to discuss directly with you our ideas. Cheers, Alessio and the NethServer team
On 01/10/2014 05:50 AM, Alessio Fattorini wrote:
Hello everybody, my name is Alessio Fattorini and I'm part of a team of FLOSS developers that is working on a project named NethServer. We’d like to share with you our experience and our ideas for the future developments. You could think of NethServer as CentOS with some extra packages, particularly a powerful and extensible web interface that simplifies common administration tasks. NethServer is for the sysadmin who appreciates the effectiveness of a user interface which saves time compared to direct configuration file modification and for users who want to approach CentOS without having Linux skills.
The Clear folks have proposed a SIG/Variant as well that on the surface sounds somewhat similar. Is there overlap here, where cooperation/coordination between the two groups would be beneficial?
We didn't reinvent the wheel, NethServer is a partial rewrite of the original SME Server code, focusing on maintainability, extensibility and standard compliance with CentOS. We think we achieved those goals with:
- A dynamic, streamlined user-interface
- Standard components, tested widespread configurations
- Minimal differences with upstream (CentOS)
- Easy installation
- Simplified administration tasks
- Use of templates and text-based db for configuration (configuration
will always be consistent)
- Built-in extensibility
Where does this code live currently? is it available via git or similar?
NethServer architecture explicitly supports developers by making it easy to install and integrate additional software. We quickly added some pre-configured modules, installable with a “single click”, for example: LAMP framework Caching + filtering web proxy (with SSL filter) SOGo Groupware Mail Server with Antispam and Antivirus VPN (OpenVPN and IPsec/L2TP) Firewall (Shorewall) Intrusion detection (Snort) ownCloud
Are these packaged in rpm or handled via some other installation method?
More informations could be found on the official project website: www.nethserver.it.
As soon as we read about CentOS variants, we have developed the idea of releasing NethServer as a CentOS variant and we are thinking of a SME SIG, a group exploring the needs of small enterprises (we are based in Italy, where the vast majority of enterprises is really small). According to you, does NethServer meet the basic requirements?
We’ll be at Brussels Dojo and FOSDEM and we'd love to discuss directly with you our ideas. Cheers, Alessio and the NethServer team
Certainly. Please stop by and we can discuss in a bit more detail.
We would be more than happy to work with Alessio and the NethServer team to consolidate energies. This same invitation goes out to any who are in this space. It is true that we have a lot of common functions. Our team is intimately familiar with their architecture and we've already identified several areas where we can leverage some of their key architecture pieces into our methods to produce a sum greater than the parts.
I think the example set my CentOS and RHEL is that we have more in common than we have in differences and that together we can all reach the common goals that we have. We welcome the opportunity to work together. Ultimately, this will be a win for everyone! Exciting things in store for all of us ;)
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
On 01/10/2014 05:50 AM, Alessio Fattorini wrote:
Hello everybody, my name is Alessio Fattorini and I'm part of a team of FLOSS developers that is working on a project named NethServer. We’d like to share with you our experience and our ideas for the future developments. You could think of NethServer as CentOS with some extra packages, particularly a powerful and extensible web interface that simplifies common administration tasks. NethServer is for the sysadmin who appreciates the effectiveness of a user interface which saves time compared to direct configuration file modification and for users who want to approach CentOS without having Linux skills.
The Clear folks have proposed a SIG/Variant as well that on the surface sounds somewhat similar. Is there overlap here, where cooperation/coordination between the two groups would be beneficial?
We didn't reinvent the wheel, NethServer is a partial rewrite of the original SME Server code, focusing on maintainability, extensibility and standard compliance with CentOS. We think we achieved those goals with:
- A dynamic, streamlined user-interface
- Standard components, tested widespread configurations
- Minimal differences with upstream (CentOS)
- Easy installation
- Simplified administration tasks
- Use of templates and text-based db for configuration (configuration
will always be consistent)
- Built-in extensibility
Where does this code live currently? is it available via git or similar?
NethServer architecture explicitly supports developers by making it easy to install and integrate additional software. We quickly added some pre-configured modules, installable with a “single click”, for example: LAMP framework Caching + filtering web proxy (with SSL filter) SOGo Groupware Mail Server with Antispam and Antivirus VPN (OpenVPN and IPsec/L2TP) Firewall (Shorewall) Intrusion detection (Snort) ownCloud
Are these packaged in rpm or handled via some other installation method?
More informations could be found on the official project website: www.nethserver.it.
As soon as we read about CentOS variants, we have developed the idea of releasing NethServer as a CentOS variant and we are thinking of a SME SIG, a group exploring the needs of small enterprises (we are based in Italy, where the vast majority of enterprises is really small). According to you, does NethServer meet the basic requirements?
We’ll be at Brussels Dojo and FOSDEM and we'd love to discuss directly with you our ideas. Cheers, Alessio and the NethServer team
Certainly. Please stop by and we can discuss in a bit more detail.
-- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
One other thought. I had mentioned a 'Server Management' SIG in the other thread where I suggest a CentOS variant based on our work at ClearFoundation. I would love to work with Alessio, the NethServer team and any other similar project in this space.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 9:52 AM, David Loper dloper@clearcenter.com wrote:
We would be more than happy to work with Alessio and the NethServer team to consolidate energies. This same invitation goes out to any who are in this space. It is true that we have a lot of common functions. Our team is intimately familiar with their architecture and we've already identified several areas where we can leverage some of their key architecture pieces into our methods to produce a sum greater than the parts.
I think the example set my CentOS and RHEL is that we have more in common than we have in differences and that together we can all reach the common goals that we have. We welcome the opportunity to work together. Ultimately, this will be a win for everyone! Exciting things in store for all of us ;)
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
On 01/10/2014 05:50 AM, Alessio Fattorini wrote:
Hello everybody, my name is Alessio Fattorini and I'm part of a team of FLOSS developers that is working on a project named NethServer. We’d like to share with you our experience and our ideas for the future developments. You could think of NethServer as CentOS with some extra packages, particularly a powerful and extensible web interface that simplifies common administration tasks. NethServer is for the sysadmin who appreciates the effectiveness of a user interface which saves time compared to direct configuration file modification and for users who want to approach CentOS without having Linux skills.
The Clear folks have proposed a SIG/Variant as well that on the surface sounds somewhat similar. Is there overlap here, where cooperation/coordination between the two groups would be beneficial?
We didn't reinvent the wheel, NethServer is a partial rewrite of the original SME Server code, focusing on maintainability, extensibility and standard compliance with CentOS. We think we achieved those goals with:
- A dynamic, streamlined user-interface
- Standard components, tested widespread configurations
- Minimal differences with upstream (CentOS)
- Easy installation
- Simplified administration tasks
- Use of templates and text-based db for configuration (configuration
will always be consistent)
- Built-in extensibility
Where does this code live currently? is it available via git or similar?
NethServer architecture explicitly supports developers by making it easy to install and integrate additional software. We quickly added some pre-configured modules, installable with a “single click”, for example: LAMP framework Caching + filtering web proxy (with SSL filter) SOGo Groupware Mail Server with Antispam and Antivirus VPN (OpenVPN and IPsec/L2TP) Firewall (Shorewall) Intrusion detection (Snort) ownCloud
Are these packaged in rpm or handled via some other installation method?
More informations could be found on the official project website: www.nethserver.it.
As soon as we read about CentOS variants, we have developed the idea of releasing NethServer as a CentOS variant and we are thinking of a SME SIG, a group exploring the needs of small enterprises (we are based in Italy, where the vast majority of enterprises is really small). According to you, does NethServer meet the basic requirements?
We’ll be at Brussels Dojo and FOSDEM and we'd love to discuss directly with you our ideas. Cheers, Alessio and the NethServer team
Certainly. Please stop by and we can discuss in a bit more detail.
-- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-- David Loper Vice President of Technology ClearCenter -- clearcenter.com twitter.com/pr0f3550r linkedin.com/in/daveloper
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM, David Loper dloper@clearcenter.com wrote:
One other thought. I had mentioned a 'Server Management' SIG in the other thread where I suggest a CentOS variant based on our work at ClearFoundation. I would love to work with Alessio, the NethServer team and any other similar project in this space.
I think of 'server management' as what you do when you have racks and racks of servers and you have to be fairly intimate with the OS and specific applications. And what ClearOS/SME/NethServe do is about the opposite for small offices an home servers - that is, so you don't really have to do server management. So I don't think they belong together. The latter is more about mapping management into task or function oriented forms so you get appliance-like operation without knowing/caring much about the actual applications performing the functions. Both topics are interesting and to a certain extent the developers need to know some of the same things, but there would not be much overlap in usage or users.
I disagree. Perhaps that is because I see how these systems get used in actual production environments. While it is true that we don't touch upon subjects like 'racks of servers' as the typical use-case is doesn't mean that it isn't done on ClearOS, SME, NethServer and other similar boxes. For example, I can set up 10 ClearOS servers at multiple locations with integrated directory services, PDC/BDC operations throughout and site-to-site VPN tunnels at to different locations all with relative ease. While this isn't racks of servers, it does require, and these solutions do provide, standardized deployment scenarios for Server Management. For me, server management has less to do with 'intimate knowledge' of a thing and more to do with 'ease of use' in deployment, reporting, and day-to-day tasks. That is what ClearOS, SME, and NethServer do, we are all about making it very, very easy to use and very easy to manage. The fact that our sweet spot happens to be in enabling Linux Server Management to those that are wholly novices at Linux (in general) is reason why this type of server management is needed; to grow and expand the use of CentOS and Linux in general. The lesson of Darwin (MacOSX) and Android is that the more manageable the experience is for the user, the more it gets used.
You do raise an important point about the aspects of our systems that is lacking and that is in the multi-server management space. Instead of calling that 'Server Management' (which to me means the management or manageability of a server) I call it 'Rapid Deployment and Automation'. Managing multiple servers through an intimate knowledge of Linux voodoo falls in this category. Here we can turn to Puppet, Saltstack, Kickstart and others. Many of these solutions and vendors don't consider themselves "Server Management" but rather 'Automation.' We'd love to be able to ALSO integrate these functions within our environment. Hopefully, working together in this SIG space, we can come up with some standards and best practices to benefit us all in greater adoption of these tools.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM, David Loper dloper@clearcenter.com wrote:
One other thought. I had mentioned a 'Server Management' SIG in the other thread where I suggest a CentOS variant based on our work at ClearFoundation. I would love to work with Alessio, the NethServer team
and
any other similar project in this space.
I think of 'server management' as what you do when you have racks and racks of servers and you have to be fairly intimate with the OS and specific applications. And what ClearOS/SME/NethServe do is about the opposite for small offices an home servers - that is, so you don't really have to do server management. So I don't think they belong together. The latter is more about mapping management into task or function oriented forms so you get appliance-like operation without knowing/caring much about the actual applications performing the functions. Both topics are interesting and to a certain extent the developers need to know some of the same things, but there would not be much overlap in usage or users.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David Loper dloper@clearcenter.com wrote:
I disagree. Perhaps that is because I see how these systems get used in actual production environments. While it is true that we don't touch upon subjects like 'racks of servers' as the typical use-case is doesn't mean that it isn't done on ClearOS, SME, NethServer and other similar boxes. For example, I can set up 10 ClearOS servers at multiple locations with integrated directory services, PDC/BDC operations throughout and site-to-site VPN tunnels at to different locations all with relative ease.
My point is that the scope of knowledge and operations techniques is very different (which is the whole point for these variations to exist). For example, a typical enterprise level server manager would know the names of the applications and the format of the configuration files that would have to be modified to add a DNS name for a device and have the matching IP assigned by DHCP, where one of these appliance-like systems would just present a form with a few fields so the user doesn't need to know that multiple services are being configured, or even which applications are doing it. Similarly, if you want a user put into both an email group and a unix permission group (or file/web server access group), a 'real' server manager would need to know all about multiple applications where a good appliance would hide all the cruft behind a single form.
While this isn't racks of servers, it does require, and these solutions do provide, standardized deployment scenarios for Server Management. For me, server management has less to do with 'intimate knowledge' of a thing and more to do with 'ease of use' in deployment, reporting, and day-to-day tasks. That is what ClearOS, SME, and NethServer do, we are all about making it very, very easy to use and very easy to manage.
Agreed, but you replace the concepts of server management with your own, hence my view that the user base would not overlap much.
You do raise an important point about the aspects of our systems that is lacking and that is in the multi-server management space. Instead of calling that 'Server Management' (which to me means the management or manageability of a server) I call it 'Rapid Deployment and Automation'. Managing multiple servers through an intimate knowledge of Linux voodoo falls in this category. Here we can turn to Puppet, Saltstack, Kickstart and others. Many of these solutions and vendors don't consider themselves "Server Management" but rather 'Automation.' We'd love to be able to ALSO integrate these functions within our environment. Hopefully, working together in this SIG space, we can come up with some standards and best practices to benefit us all in greater adoption of these tools.
Yes! - I'd really, really love to see the 'fill in the form' server management systems converge with scalable configuration management tools as a middle layer instead of directly mucking with their own template schemes and local config files in their own weird ways. That way the logical task-oriented operations control could map out to a cloud of servers just as easily as one little box (or a home firewall/file server/media player on separate devices). Salt and ansible look promising in that space, with salt being perhaps more scalable, responsive and portable. But, at this point I think it is a big stretch to even consider that kind of convergence so I'll stand by the statement that appliance-like servers that hide the real management operations are a separate thing that deserve their own separate group.
Les,
Thank you for your thoughtful and though provoking comments.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David Loper dloper@clearcenter.com wrote:
I disagree. Perhaps that is because I see how these systems get used in actual production environments. While it is true that we don't touch upon subjects like 'racks of servers' as the typical use-case is doesn't mean that it isn't done on ClearOS, SME, NethServer and other similar boxes.
For
example, I can set up 10 ClearOS servers at multiple locations with integrated directory services, PDC/BDC operations throughout and site-to-site VPN tunnels at to different locations all with relative
ease.
My point is that the scope of knowledge and operations techniques is very different (which is the whole point for these variations to exist). For example, a typical enterprise level server manager would know the names of the applications and the format of the configuration files that would have to be modified to add a DNS name for a device and have the matching IP assigned by DHCP, where one of these appliance-like systems would just present a form with a few fields so the user doesn't need to know that multiple services are being configured, or even which applications are doing it.
So let's write the module to do exactly what you need. The framework is designed to move up market. The ClearCenter Marketplace is a pluggable framework that allows developers to create solutions to the scenario that you list above while at the same time leveraging common information sets. It's more than a webpage that changes a config file and restarts a server. It's a framework that is tied onto the under-pinings of the OS. For the example listed above, you don't have to write the DHCP piece because the DHCP API object already addresses the allocation of that data.
Similarly, if you want a user put into both an email group and a unix permission group (or file/web server access group), a 'real' server manager would need to know all about multiple applications where a good appliance would hide all the cruft behind a single form.
While this isn't racks of servers, it does require, and these solutions
do
provide, standardized deployment scenarios for Server Management. For me, server management has less to do with 'intimate knowledge' of a thing and more to do with 'ease of use' in deployment, reporting, and day-to-day tasks. That is what ClearOS, SME, and NethServer do, we are all about
making
it very, very easy to use and very easy to manage.
Agreed, but you replace the concepts of server management with your own, hence my view that the user base would not overlap much.
I don't see why it couldn't also do what you want as well. Like all things Linux, it depends on how you use it. The purpose of the management interface of ClearOS is to rapidly accomplish best practices under a particular scenario. "We have an app for that" and if we don't, we can write it. An enterprise using Samba server for file services will use the same Samba on ClearOS as they will on CentOS. It's all the same. The difference is that they will populate 3-4 fields, for example, and the management app for samba will take care of the setting up the directory as a replicate, joining it to the domain, adding the server to the domain and running all of the validation.
What was a 15 minute process is now reduced to mere seconds. Same thing goes for a Samba join to active directory, an OpenVPN configuration, or whatever. If there isn't a particular 'enterprise' function in our interface it is because it hasn't been written yet, not because it couldn't be written to accomplish it. Moreover, if you want to muck about in the smb.conf file after the fact and put some custom things in there, that's ok too. For the most part, we will not only leave your stuff alone, but we will show it in the UI if there is already a control for it. And if there isn't a control for it, let's put it in.
You do raise an important point about the aspects of our systems that is lacking and that is in the multi-server management space. Instead of
calling
that 'Server Management' (which to me means the management or
manageability
of a server) I call it 'Rapid Deployment and Automation'. Managing
multiple
servers through an intimate knowledge of Linux voodoo falls in this category. Here we can turn to Puppet, Saltstack, Kickstart and others.
Many
of these solutions and vendors don't consider themselves "Server
Management"
but rather 'Automation.' We'd love to be able to ALSO integrate these functions within our environment. Hopefully, working together in this SIG space, we can come up with some standards and best practices to benefit
us
all in greater adoption of these tools.
Yes! - I'd really, really love to see the 'fill in the form' server management systems converge with scalable configuration management tools as a middle layer instead of directly mucking with their own template schemes and local config files in their own weird ways.
Me too, we have a plan this how this gets accomplished.
That way the logical task-oriented operations control could map out to a cloud of servers just as easily as one little box (or a home firewall/file server/media player on separate devices). Salt and ansible look promising in that space, with salt being perhaps more scalable, responsive and portable.
We are already in talks with salt. They are in our neck of the woods and we hope to work more closely with them on integration.
But, at this point I think it is a big stretch to even consider that kind of convergence so I'll stand by the statement that appliance-like servers that hide the real management operations are a separate thing that deserve their own separate group.
Yeah, make a group for that. We'll join it too. But server management is the space we are moving to and our development target. So all your ideas here are extremely helpful and welcome. Thank you.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 01/11/2014 06:34 PM, David Loper wrote:
One other thought. I had mentioned a 'Server Management' SIG in the other thread where I suggest a CentOS variant based on our work at ClearFoundation.
step 1 is really to get the sources together and into a git repo so more people can poke at it - till that is visible, its all really just hand waving.
maybe one of the officehours can be dedicated to this.
- KB
Karanbir,
Agreed. We'll get our target sources put together early this week and pop it into a git repo and we can try some builds.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.orgwrote:
On 01/11/2014 06:34 PM, David Loper wrote:
One other thought. I had mentioned a 'Server Management' SIG in the other thread where I suggest a CentOS variant based on our work at ClearFoundation.
step 1 is really to get the sources together and into a git repo so more people can poke at it - till that is visible, its all really just hand waving.
maybe one of the officehours can be dedicated to this.
- KB
-- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
One other thought. I had mentioned a 'Server Management' SIG in the other thread where I suggest a CentOS variant based on our work at ClearFoundation. I would love to work with Alessio, the NethServer team and any other similar project in this space.
I'm glad to read this, I'd like to work on (at least) two areas: 1. CentOS as a distro for SOHO and SME 2. Server management infrastructure
[While writing this reply, I read the whole thread, we share terminology.]
For me, server management is "using the browser to quickly modify system configuration hiding complexity", while infrastructure is "to have tools to rapidly manage systems". There's overlap with every use case that deploys more than a few servers.
We've already explored Puppet, we need more and we're willing to work on this area.
NethServer is for the sysadmin who appreciates the effectiveness of a user interface
The Clear folks have proposed a SIG/Variant as well that on the surface sounds somewhat similar. Is there overlap here, where cooperation/coordination between the two groups would be beneficial?
Yes, collaboration between NethServer and ClearOS would be a win-win situation. I'm not up to date on ClearOS (I'm the CTO of NethServer), but I think that our work overlaps on many areas.
Where does this code live currently? is it available via git or similar?
git repo at http://code.nethesis.it/ or on github (https://github.com/nethesis)
Are these packaged in rpm or handled via some other installation method?
rpm and yum groups, ie you install nethserver-firewall-base which requires shorewall. nethserver-firewall-base contains shorewall config with a web user interface (I'm simplifying a bit, but to dive into details there's developer doc material on dev.nethesis.it).
We’ll be at Brussels Dojo and FOSDEM and we'd love to discuss directly
Certainly. Please stop by and we can discuss in a bit more detail.
Great. But we can still talk on this list and/or on hangout.
On 01/10/2014 01:50 PM, Alessio Fattorini wrote:
Hello everybody,
Hi!
You could think of NethServer as CentOS with some extra packages, particularly a powerful and extensible web interface that simplifies common administration tasks.
I am just curious : how much is of the nethserver package functionality is overlapping with webmin? Also, what kind of comparisons can be made against the TUV (feature) included (in rhel7) openlmi? Also some minor questions: On the yum installation page it is implied that you have to reboot and and configure offline the service? is this ok with you? (for my administration scenarios (remote, not willing to reboot) this is a bug) Also, it seems that it use different authentication mechanism than the system one. that would imply that with the package configured credentials you can use system users permissions. Is this also ok? I would think that, at least for the authentication, would be best to interact with the system configured authentication (not matter what that is) and use what the system use...
Thanks! Adrian
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Adrian Sevcenco Adrian.Sevcenco@cern.ch wrote:
You could think of NethServer as CentOS with some extra packages, particularly a powerful and extensible web interface that simplifies common administration tasks.
I am just curious : how much is of the nethserver package functionality is overlapping with webmin?
Webmin doesn't do much to hide the complexity. It just gives you a web interface and a little syntax checking but you still have to know what programs you need to manage and what all the options mean to modify any particular service. ClearOS/SME/NethServer management interfaces are much more task/function oriented and you generally manage them without needing to know much at all about the details of the underlying programs. Some of the form actions may in fact affect more than one program's settings.
The down side is that if you want to change things the existing web forms don't handle, you then need to not only know all the underlying normal linux configuration details, but also understand the additional web forms and their coding scheme that is going to rewrite the config files.
Hi Adrian, I'm Davide Principi, NethServer developer
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 19:47 +0200, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
Also some minor questions: On the yum installation page it is implied that you have to reboot and and configure offline the service? is this ok with you? (for my administration scenarios (remote, not willing to reboot) this is a bug)
We are working on this: feel free to write to our mailing list or file a bug into the project bug tracker.
Also, it seems that it use different authentication mechanism than the system one. that would imply that with the package configured credentials you can use system users permissions. Is this also ok? I would think that, at least for the authentication, would be best to interact with the system configured authentication (not matter what that is) and use what the system use...
NethServer authentication relies on the default system PAM libraries. I think it's better to discuss this point on NethServer IRC channel or mailing list too: you are welcome!
-- Davide Principi
Hi all,
On the yum installation page it is implied that you have to reboot and and configure offline the service? is this ok with you? (for my administration scenarios (remote, not willing to reboot) this is a bug)
the reboot is needed only on first install, and it can be avoided if you install from NethServer CD (the kickstart file will take care of this). No other boot is required unless you wish to change the kernel.
Also, it seems that it use different authentication mechanism than the system one. that would imply that with the package configured credentials you can use system users permissions. Is this also ok? I would think that, at least for the authentication, would be best to interact with the system configured authentication (not matter what that is) and use what the system use...
We always use PAM for authentication, so you can use normal system users. No matter if PAM is configured to use LDAP, passwd or even winbind joined to an Active Directory.
Giacomo
-
Adrian Sevcenco -
Alessio Fattorini -
David Loper -
Davide Principi -
Filippo Carletti -
Giacomo Sanchietti -
Jim Perrin -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic