[ale] New Twiki topic LinuxInGASchools

[Charles Marcus]

> From: Mike Panetta [mailto:ahuitzot at mindspring.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:15 AM
>
> 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... :(

You got that righht, but you left out one other possibility...

*You* misunderstood the context of the discussion you jumped into the middle
of, and therefore your points, while posibly being technically correct, were
nevertheless off-point to the discussion at hand.

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

Its not that your points don't make sense - it is just that they are
irrelevant to the question that was being discussed.

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

>>> 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.

OK, you're right, I missed that part - sorry.  :(

Now that I know the topic of discussion ;), I'll put in my plug here for
Gentoo as the base install.  We could design a script that d/l and installs
all packages necessary for an LTSP Server, providing for flags as to whether
to include the DHCP server or not (maybe there is already a DHCP server on
the network that must be used), whether to include Samba (default should be
yes), etc etc.  Gentoo is *ideally* suited for this kind of thing and, imho,
this functionality (specialized Server Installs), due to the nature of the
Package Management system, is the next natural step for Gentoo.

> And I am at least 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".

What I meant, and I think what I said initially, was not that it was a KDE
problem *per se*, but that it was a KDE CONFIGURATION ISSUE.  I certainly
did not mean 'bug', nor do I think anyone could have gotten that idea from
my comments.

> 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.

Again, I apologize for missing the intent of your initial response, and I
will ignore any further comments that were a result of my comments that were
based on a missed intention.

I was frustrated by Jeff's apparent refusal to acknowledge the simple fact
that he had blamed something on LTSP that had nothing whatsoever to do with
LTSP.  He essentially said 'LTSP is bad because KDM allows anyone to reboot
the server', and all I did was call him on his glaringly innacurate
assessment of LTSP, and from that point on he refused to acknowledge his
mistake, opting instead to argue a bunch of irrelevancies.  If you are
getting the idea that I am an LTSP nut, you are correct... ;)

I would love to discuss the creation of a custom LTSP installation concept,
but again, it is silly to reinvent the wheel.  Gentoo is *perfect* for this.
All that needs to be done is to script the ebuild (if I could, I already
would have - I offered (a measley, I know) $50 to someone to write just a
rudimentary ebuild, but got only one response, and he cannot do it right now
(busy with other stuff).

> 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.

www.k12ltsp.org already does, but it is Redhat based.  I hate Redhat (or,
more specifically, RPM).  Gentoo is the wave of the future, and is the only
distro I will support as the base for an LTSP distro.  If you want to use
Redhat, fine, but I have no interest in that.  RPM sux.

> This is all irrelevant (as you seem to like to say) anyways,

Only when appropriate... ;)

> 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

You're on - $100.  Pay up!  ;)

I like the idea, and although I am not a hacker, I would be willing to
invest some money, time, and hardware toward the goal - again, as long as we
agree to use Gentoo.

> 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?

Sure I do - but do you see what *I* meant - seeing as I was arguing this
from the standpopint that someone thought that LTSP was a Linux Distro, or
*should* be?

As a simple add-on app, it simply cannot, by itself, take everything into
consideration.  If, however, as I now understand you to be saying,
pre-configured LTSP is included with a Distro, then yes, certain default
settings can and most definitely should be ensured.

> 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.

Well, the good thing about using Gentoo is you could create different Server
Profiles relatively easily - ie, 'SSK-3' (School Server K thru 3rd Grade),
'SS3-7', 'SS8-12', 'Biz-Banks', etc etc.  All you'd have to do is write some
scripts that would install the proper ebuilds, and possible customize the
config

> Everything is configuareble at install time.  Install
> debian... At least 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.

Which (the fact that it is targeted to Single User Systems) is a good reason
*not* to use Redhat for this kind of Server.  The fact that it uses RPM is
another.

> If you do not think there is any other logical way to
> look at THIS SPECIFIC problem, then I think you do not
> know how to reduce problems down to the bare essentials.

Well, since my comment was aimed at Servers in general, I'll have to agree
with you.

:)

> I know for a fact that custom distros targeted to a
> specific situation work, look at Redhat.

I didn't say they didn't.

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Sure I do, and again, although I'm not a hacker, wouldn't a post-install
script that copied pre-designed config files for each Server Daemon /
Application that was installed work just as well on a vanilla system (like
Debian or Gentoo)?  For example, If Sendmail is installed (ugh - much rather
use QMail or Postfix), copy the included config file to the correct
location, renaming the vanilla/default config file in the process.

Granted, it would be some work, but in the long run, it would be worth it.
A Gentoo system is much faster and more stable than a Redhat system.

Anyway, again, sorry for taking out my frustrations with Jeff on you...

Charles


---
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.