[ale] New Twiki topic LinuxInGASchools

[Joseph A Knapka]

Charles, I replied to your post before reading it
in its entirety. It seems understanding has already been
achieved, so I apologize for my previous reply.

-- Joe

Charles Marcus wrote:
> 
> > 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.

-- 
 "I'd rather chew my leg off than maintain Java code, which
 sucks, 'cause I have a lot of Java code to maintain and the
 leg surgery is starting to get expensive." - J. Knapka

---
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.