Author Topic: Zentyal 3.1  (Read 5763 times)

ArchW

  • Zen Monk
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2013, 08:42:20 pm »
After installing 3.1x beta, I tried to upgrade the packages after the initial installation howver this error pops up:

Internal Error, No file name for libssl1.0.0



Gilberto Ferreira

  • Zen Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2013, 08:58:28 pm »
Hi

Try this:

apt-get install libssl1.0.0

May be this can fix

Neksi

  • Zen Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Karma: +1/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2013, 09:18:14 am »
I upgraded from 3.0 to 3.1 as easily as changing settings in /etc/atp/sources.list
So far the only visible problem is web server (apache) not starting because conflicting with Nginx. So not a big issue.

again and again, 3.1 is beta so do not complain because this is not yet stable  ;)

Tell me in detail how to fix conflict Apache with Nginx

christian

  • Guest
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2013, 09:26:11 am »

Gilberto Ferreira

  • Zen Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2013, 07:15:56 pm »
Hello guys

I know that Beta systems is very unstable...
But, zentyal 3.1 was the only one that works SSO with HTTP Proxy and Windows 2003 SP2.

So, I will use this beta version in a future customer.

Can anyone tell me what is the risk??

Thanks.

christian

  • Guest
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2013, 12:20:14 am »
Can anyone tell me what is the risk??

 ::) risk is that some new development, as this is still beta, just prevents everything to work?
3.2 will not be issued next month but rather in September, meaning in the meantime, potentially some changes will be introduced.
To me, going today live with this version is risky if use for your own company but risk is even higher when used for customer. Argument about SSO with HTTP proxy a really a poor one and if your client push you in this direction, be prepared for more problems to come, not because of Zentyal but because of such non-sense request.

BTW, I hardly understand how one could offer services to clients without any SLA, meaning with community edition. So thinking about use of beta in prod for customer just because it provides SSO for one service (here HTTP proxy) is far beyond what I can imagine  :o

Gilberto Ferreira

  • Zen Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2013, 12:23:14 am »
well, btw, I remake all installation. doing a fresh install, and do not work again...

and regards SSO, many  customers require this feature here, at least in my country, because is nor confortable than type user and password everytime when open a web browser...

tanks

« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 12:28:29 am by Gilberto Ferreira »

Sam Graf

  • Guest
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2013, 03:28:32 am »
regards SSO, many  customers require this feature here, at least in my country, because is nor confortable than type user and password everytime when open a web browser...

I agree that this is a valuable feature (at least it sounds like it would be, if I could only get it to work ;D ). Nevertheless, under no circumstances would I put 3.1 into production except, maybe, as a home server. The risks are not worth it, to me, whatever benefits there might be.

christian

  • Guest
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2013, 06:42:21 am »
and regards SSO, many  customers require this feature here, at least in my country

I can understand this is not your own clever choice but pressure from customers, this is the reason why I wrote:
"be prepared to face many other problems later with such customers"  :-X

Once all this stuff will work, you can be famous among your customers when you will suggest to extend Kerberos ticket lifetime. This will help them to not even type their password once a day but perhaps once a week ;D  but, here again, be clever and do not accept the security officer responsibility  ::)

 

Gilberto Ferreira

  • Zen Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2013, 04:10:40 pm »
I see your point Christian

But, you have to consider that I search in many sites on web, and this solution with squid + kerberos + windows server 2003 in fact works pretty well in a no Zentyal environment...

So, I think that there's no reason this can work on Zentyal too... At least I think...

That is the point...

And here an example:

http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ConfigExamples/Authenticate/Kerberos
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 04:25:12 pm by Gilberto Ferreira »

christian

  • Guest
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2013, 04:40:50 pm »
So why do stick with Zentyal if this feature is mandatory for you  ::)

Yes Squid+Kerberos works and yes Zentyal is maybe not yet ready, and may have some bugs or design not fitting 100% of your needs.
So, it doesn't matter whenever I consider or not that you search for something working on internet and not yet working on Zentyal as to me, it brings nothing to the current debate.

Let me give you some (perhaps stupid) examples:
Ubuntu does support NFS server but Zentyal doesn't !! Why ?
OpenLDAP does support RFC2307bis but Zentyal doesn't implement it !! why ?

If I do need NFS, then I'll implement some "non Zentyal" solution. That's it (and BTW this is why I'm currently doing).
I will not waste time pushing for Zentyal to do it.
And if it appears to be hopefully in Zentyal roadmap, I'll wait for stable release before deploying it in prod.

For all these reason, sorry but I don't see your point.

One more point: if you think this should or could work with current Zentyal implementation assuming some code changes, then you're very welcome with fixes or implementation that will fix what is currently broken. The whole community will for sure thank you  ;)

Gilberto Ferreira

  • Zen Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2013, 04:49:43 pm »
Well

I think debate is always good... Seems to me you get nervous...
Sorry if if provoke some kind of bad feeling...
I just saying that Zentyal is a nice tool but need some bug fix and if some feature doesn't work properly, do not release it to the public, because a lot of users will be grateful for such function released, but when gona use it, get desappointed...

Just because the feature is there all of us suppose the feature was tested and homologated in a many kind of situation...

At least my point is: if the feature doesn't work, do not release it, until work properly...

Again, sorry to push...

christian

  • Guest
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2013, 05:07:41 pm »
D'ont worry, I don't feel nervous  ;D
I just don't understand why you don't understand that this product is not perfect, still evolving and hopefully better with the next version but in any case this may justify to go live with beta. That's it

This said, you can push as much as you want, this is real life.
The is not bug-free software as there is no perfect implementation.
Zentyal is perhaps less perfect than some other products  ;) however, it basically works and is currently used by quite a lot of customers.

I'm not Zentyal staff, neither involved in Zentyal deployment but I react - perhaps strongly, I'm sorry - to your behaviour that is to say:
"this works elsewhere, why can't Zentyal do it too ?"

Again, if your priority is to implement feature currently missing or buggy with Zentyal but working elsewhere, well, this is your business, you can still decide to implement something else.

I will also react to you last comment:
"At least my point is: if the feature doesn't work, do not release it, until work properly..."

I feel this one funny as you are even prone to go for beta, thus not waiting for proper implementation  ;D

For what I understand (I don't use it), Zentyal + Kerberos + Squid works but doesn't work when Zentyal is linked to Windows 2003 server.
What do you suggest (aside obviously solving all current bugs plus all the other that will pop up later  ;) ):
- to remove Kerberos ?
- to remove link to existing Windows domain ?
- to not authorise Kerberos when Windows domain membership is enabled ?
- something else ?

Not so easy isn't it?


Gilberto Ferreira

  • Zen Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
  • Karma: +12/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2013, 05:12:12 pm »
What I can't understand is the fact this feature works well on first Zentyal 3 versions...
But, with no reason do not work more on next releases... That what upset me you see???

« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 05:38:52 pm by Gilberto Ferreira »

christian

  • Guest
Re: Zentyal 3.1
« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2013, 05:38:48 pm »
But, with no reason do not work more on next releases... That what upset me you see???

Which one ?