[ale] New Twiki topic LinuxInGASchools

[Mike Panetta]

Either I am not capable of writing an email that adequately expresses my
ideas and intentions, or you are not capble of reading, interpreting and
undrestanding what I or possibly others write.  IE We seem to not be on
the same wavelength... :(

Maybe someone else on this list could read over this and tell me if I
make any sense... :)

See below for comments...  Please actually read them this time before
replying...

On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 04:12, Charles Marcus wrote:
> > From: Mike Panetta [mailto:ahuitzot at mindspring.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 2:25 PM
> >
> > Let me start by saying that I think the solution to the problem is a
> > custom distro..  See below...
> >
> >> There are a *lot* of things the implementer of *any*
> >> production Linux environment must address, but that
> >> doesn't mean that each app must address *all* of the
> >> separate issues.
> 
> > No but who ever designs the distribution should.  Or
> > at least put in place "reasonable defaults". (Whatever
> > that may be).
> 
> You know Mike, you are right - except for one, tiny little detail...
> 
> LTSP IS NOT A DISTRIBUTION OF LINUX !@#$%^&*

No kidding?  Did you not read the first sentence of my post at all?  I
am saying that we NEED TO DESIGN a distribution for this purpose.

> 
> It is simply some add-on software that provides certain functionality - like
> Webmin or Apache.
> 
> This entire argument developed because one person said that this problem was
> an LTSP problem - it was NEVER about whether or not some/all distros do a
> poor job of configuring KDE.
> 
> sheesh.

And I am atleast half agreeing with you.  Its not an LTSP problem, and
its not a KDE problem IN GENERAL.  I am trying to change the direction
of the discussion from NIT PICKING on KDE, to a constructive one on how
to solve problems like the ones you guys were "discussing".

If you can't handle that, or you do not care to actually try to
rationally and constructivly discuss this topic, then I am sorry.  I
hope someone else on this list will take up the discussion with me
instead.


> 
> <snip>
> 

> 
> > No but there are some things that apply to the way LTSP
> > is going to be used in a School environment, and thus
> > can be planned for in advance and put into a default
> > config that the distribution installs.
> 
> This is self-evident - but again, has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
> This statement applies to *every* Linux application that goes on a Server,
> under *every* circumstance and environment, *period*.

Then why comment on it?  Do you like to just argue for the sake of
argument? ;)  If so then it seems like your having fun :)

And again, I am trying to change the discussion from one that is an off
topic and somewhat pointless argument on the faults of KDE or the non
faults of LTSP, and create a constructive discussion on why a
distribution targeted explicitly to Schools will help the effort of
linux in Ga schools, by making it easier to install and by making
installs easier to manage in general.


> 
> > If the sys admin for a particular school wants to change
> > the defaults, then let him.  If the sys admins of all
> > schools want to change all the defaults, then we
> > programmed the defaults wrong and the distribution
> > manager needs to change them.
> 
> Ridiculous.  This suggests that 'one-size-fits-all', and this can never be
> the case.  Is there an ideal default config?  Sure - one that would require
> the least amount of tweaking by the Sys Admin - but the fact is, every
> environment is different, and it is impossible to create a config that would
> satisfy all situations.

No, thats not what I was saying.  I want a distro that is like Redhat is
to desktop installs.  It fits most peoples uses most of the time right
out of the box.  We need a distro that is not targeted to single user
desktop installs, but to multi user server installs based around the
idea that LTSP will be used to serve up applications to SCHOOL personel
and students.  IE I want a School system (or even school) specific
distribution of Linux that does what we want out of the box.

We are NOT trying to target ALL situations as you say above.  We are
trying to target a SMALL SET of situations (small compaired to EVERY
situation indeed).  Listen to what I mean, not to what I say (so to
say...)  

> 
> >> What if you install LTSP and KDE hasn't been installed
> >> yet?  There are just too many variables.
> 
> > Then your not installing from a distribution, and your
> > doing it the wrong way anyways. :P
> 
> Huh?  So, you're saying it isn't possible to install Redhat without KDE?
> How long have you been using Linux?

No, but if you did install RedHat, and you wanted to use KDE, would you
not install KDE from the very beginning, IE when you installed Redhat? 
Last time I checked LTSP did not come with RedHat, so unless you
installed KDE after installing LTSP after installing RedHat, which noone
in their right mind would do (unless you used Gnome, in which case, why
the hell are you installing KDE?) KDE would be installed before LTSP.

This is all irrelevant (as you seem to like to say) anyways, as what I
propose is to create a distribution that installs LTSP and
KDE/GNOME/WhateverGUIyoulike for you.  Our own "Linux for the Ga school
system", or "Gwinett County School Linux", or "Brookwood High School
Linux install for LTSP servers" distribution.  But you won't understnd
that because I bet you won't even read this far :P

FYI: I have used Linux for well over 5 years.  I have developed for
linux for over 4, and I was the one responseable for recreating all the
packages in the custom distribution I mentioned in the last post I sent.

> 
> >>> Receiving a litany of showstopping issues from end
> >>> users and responding with "I can fix that, I'm the
> >>> SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR...I can fix that, I'm the SYSTEM
> >>> ADMINISTRATOR..." isn't going to make a very good
> >>> impression.  The person who does the design, does the
> >>> testing, finds the problems, implements the fixes,
> >>> and releases working, good, solid "re-distributions"
> >>> is the SYSTEM DESIGNER.
> 
> >> OK, well, lets talk semantics then.  Give me a break.
> >> A *good* system administrator *also* performs the
> >> functions of what you have just termed the 'System
> >> 'Designer'.
> 
> > No he does not.  The distribution designer does.
> 
> Depends on what is meant by the 'I can fix that, I'm the SYSTEM
> ADMINISTRATOR' snide remarks above, obviously.  If we are talking about
> actual bugs in the software and tools that are installed, then yes, you are
> correct.  However, I was simply talking about purely configurational issues
> (like the KDM issue).

Not if the distribution installs the wrong config files to start with. 
That is the distribution managers fault.  If you baught a Linux
distribution that advertised that it made desktop installs of linux
easier, and then installed a config file for Bind that made it a node
server instead of a cacheing name server, would you not be upset?

Would you not be upset if you baught a distribution of linux that was
supposed to be targetd to multi user graphical environment server
applications, and then configured the window manager to allow any user
to shut down the system? ;)

See what I mean?

> 
> By the way, you are arguing this as if it had been proposed that we develop
> a *Distribution* of Linux.  That has never been proposed.  It all started as
> a simple exercise, where the use of LTSP was proposed as a simple,
> manageable way to inroduce Linux into the school environment.  Jeff then
> came back with an 'I don't know - LTSP looks like its got quite a few
> security problems and who knows what else', based on one cited example of a
> misconfigured KDM.

Well guess what!  I am proposing it!  And something like replacing the
software that all the school systems use from something they are used to
using and know, to something new and different is NEVER a simple
exercise.  And as for "one example of a misconfigured KDM", I am saying
that my idea (or whatever you want to call it, I am sure anyone here is
capble of coming up with the same or similar idea), will help prevent
that from happening while at the same time reduce the amount of work the
system administrator has to do!  (notice I used the word REDUCE here,
instead of GET RID OF, or MAKE NULL, or whatever.  The sys admin will
still have to do some work, just not as much work).

> 
> >> This conversation is getting more and more ridiculous.
> >>
> >> All I wanted to point out was that a misconfigured KDM
> >> is *not* the fault of LTSP.
> >
> > No its not.  Its a fault of the distribution manager (in
> > this case).
> >
> > [ Snip of everything else that is irrelevent to MY point ]
> 
> Your entire post was irrelevant to the QUESTION that was being argued -
> there are thousands of different ways software can be configured.

But it IS relevant to the TOPIC of the discussion.  The question you
were arguing be damned.  

And I know there are thousands of ways that sofware can be configured,
hell thats an understatement even, there are BILLIONS and BILLIONS of
ways that software can be configured.  My point is that we should make
things easier on ourselves by reducing things down to the target
application at hand, A SCHOOL SYSTEM APPLICATION SERVER. Not a Single
user machine, not a shell server on an ISP, not a DNS server, not a
"fillin your favourite app, or apps" machine, just a SCHOOL SYSTEM
APPLICATION SERVER.

> 
> Maybe someone *wants* anyone to be able to reboot the machine when logged on
> in KDE.  In this case, that someone could then argue that the Distro was
> 'configured wrong' - simply meaning that it was configured wrong *for them*.

But would the SCHOOL SYSTEM want the students to have that kind of power
over their SCHOOL SYSTEM APPLICATION SERVER?  NO, I do not think so.  I
am not targeting this distro at Joe user.  I am targeting it at the
SCHOOL SYSTEM.  Please read what I am saying.

> 
> So, you cannot say that in all cases, KDM should be configured this way or
> that way by default.  Would it be nice to have this be an option at install
> time - sure.  You wanna program it?

No I am not saying that.  I am saying that the SCHOOL SYSTEM (if they
even want to use KDE) would not.  We can guess what the school system
would want.  We can even  ASK them!  This is not a one size fits all
solution.  Its a VERY very specific solution to this problem, even so
specific that we may want to have a distro designed for EACH SCHOOL! 
(with an appropriate distribution configuration builder of course ;)

Do I want to program it by myself?  No.  Would I be willing to
participate in a team effort?  Maybe!

> 
> Until that time (when *everything* is configurable at install time), issues
> like this will have to be dealt with by a competent System Administrator.
> there simply is no other logical way to look at it.

Everything is configuareble at install time.  Install debian... Atleast
thats the impression I got when I installed it.  Its very annoying that
way, I spent more time configuring krap then I did installing it.  This
is why I like redhat more then debian.  I have to configure less after
install.  Its a distro that is targetd to Single user systems, so it can
guess how I want my sendmail configured and it guesses pretty well in my
book.  If you do not think there is any other logcal way to look at THIS
SPECIFIC problem, then I think you do not know how to reduce problems
down to the bare essentials.  I know for a fact that custom distros
targeted to a specific situation work, look at Redhat.  And from
personal experience as well.  Creating a distro that is targetted to a
specific situation with reasonable defaults for most (not all) of the
installed applications will make a sys admins life alot easier.  Would
you not love it if it were possible to install "app server X
distribution" and only have to install apps after you were done
installing, instead of making sure the window managers config files did
not create a security hole, configure bind so that it acted as a caching
name server for the apps, set up what network cards you had installed,
create routing scripts to set up the network, blah blah...  You get the
idea. 

As it stands, The redhat distribution already sets up some things for
you that "way back when" the sys admin would have had to do.  Things
like configuring the machines IP through a nice UI at install time, or
allowing you to select to use DHCP instead.  If you wanted to use DHCP
(Or BOOTP) in the good ole days you would have had to set it up
yourself, probably even install it yourself depending on if you
remembered to select the package during install time.  Oh wait, way back
when there were not even packages!  Wow, so the admin if he/she wanted
to install new software, would have to resolve all dependancies MANUALLY
by installing all the dependent software, usually from source (like I
used to do all the damn time in slackware, it was a great learning
experience, but it was time consuming.  I even built X from scratch a
few times).  I bet the school system would really like that...  Paying a
systems admin to waste his time doing something a package manager can do
for you.  Or paying him to "fix" the configuration of the window
manager, when it could have been done at install if there were a custom
distribution for application server available.

I hope you get my point...

> 
> Charles

Mike


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.