Zentyal Forum, Linux Small Business Server
Zentyal Server => Installation and Upgrades => Topic started by: arun on July 25, 2011, 03:27:35 pm
-
Dear All,
I am planning to completely switch over to opensource OS plateform. For that our server is working on Zentyal (Firewall, file and proxy). Few of the users are working on Windows and rest all are having Ubuntu 10.04 and higher...
Now I am in process of implementing Domain, so that all the users should authenticate through Zentyal, while login and for all other services. Surprisingly W$ pc are working perfectly with zentyal domain (even roaming profile also), but I m confuse what to do with Ubuntu PCs. I have tried "Zentyal Desktop", but it cause very slow authentication, no roaming, how to access to user folder etc. ultimately user >:(
Is there any effective solution for this, so that I can force even W& users to move to Ubuntu ....
Arun
-
I found this (old) topic. It might do the trick. http://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,34.0.html
And some background info: http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/winbind.html
-
As I wrote in another thread, I'm a bit confused with the wording. I don't understand what "domain" provides to Linux clients.
To me (but I might be wrong), "domain" concept cover Microsoft Windows perimeter (only).
Somewhat equivalent features are provided implementing "NIS" or "NIS+" in the Unix/Linux work. The point is that NIS and NIS+ are quite old and Sun (now acquired by Oracle) doesn't promote it anymore because idea is to implement instead PAM-LDAP and NSS-LDAP.
PAM is clearly for authentication. Fine and simple. However, implementing NSS will not provide "out of the box" seamless integration with Windows domain.
Reason why I would suggest to refine what you intend to achieve when asking for "Zentyal domain client".
- Is it matter of single authentication back-end (here LDAP)?
- is it matter of resource sharing (Samba) with Windows clients?
I hope I'm clarifying here why I'm not comfortable with this wording ;)
-
Dear Christian, thanks for the details and background of the terminologies, now like you, I am also not comfortable or bit confused (on you comment I have removed the "Domain" term from topic also) thus I tried to list just required features ...
For Ubuntu as a Client to Zentyal :
1. Single Authentication to server while login.
2. Available resource access at Zentyal Server. (Samba in Roaming mode)
3. Jabber / Mail access
(open for others to complete the list)
-
Thus your main objective is SSO... meaning you would like users to authenticate once (opening session on their computer) and then access various services exposed by Zentyal server(s) without additional authentication. This Single Sign-On feature is not yet implemented.
This is discussed here too: http://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,6024.0.html (http://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,6024.0.html)
I've no doubt Kerberos will be sooner or later part of Zentyal product catalog :)
Technically speaking, implementing Kerberos is not that difficult 8) if one sticks on "Zentyal only" deployment.
I don't yet understand what it would mean to mix Zentyal and Windows domain (which is also implementing its own Kerberos-like authentication) ::)
-
I would like to completely switch over to open source, for which I have selected Zentyal as a server and Ubuntu at the clients (where currently user are at Win$), in such scenario administrator as well as users are intent to stick with M$ (even with combination of Zentyal).
Zentyal is working perfectly, but the Linux / Ubuntu / Zentyal philosophy fails here if somebody plans to switch over to Open Source Solution .....
-
Zentyal is working perfectly, but the Linux / Ubuntu / Zentyal philosophy fails here if somebody plans to switch over to Open Source Solution .....
??? I don't really understand why ???
I'm using Zentyal with mix of Windows and Ubuntu clients and don't face any issue. Of course, there is no SSO ::) but this aside, no problem so far for services I'm using.
What do you mean with "fails" ???
-
Dear Christian, I am extremely sorry if i have hurt somebody, but I too currently want to have the mix of Zentyal -> Windows + Ubuntu clients, for easy penetration of Ubuntu, and convert to only Zentyal + Ubuntu only. For that I am in search of "howto" which works cross Ubuntu and Windows.
If you have that please forward me the same ....I am desperate to do so ....
-
No hurts ;) I'm only trying to understand what is not working for you ???
Did you already look at:
http://trac.zentyal.org/wiki/Documentation?redirectedfrom=Document%2FIndex (http://trac.zentyal.org/wiki/Documentation?redirectedfrom=Document%2FIndex)
-
Yes ... Now two very simple question ...
1. I have setup PDC, how ubuntu users can access their resources ???
2. Zentyal has eased the working of Administrator, lots of things working out of the box. How any Zentyal administrator can handle the transaction with ease specially when Windows and Ubuntu both are in network ....
hope you can understand my pain ...
-
Yes ... Now two very simple question ...
Question is somewhat simple :) but answers may not :-[
It all depends on where you stand and what your strategy is.
Either you target full opensource landscape: Ubuntu clients, Samba... (with such design, why would you keep PDC?) or you need to keep Windows as your main core infrastructure but decide to integrate some Linux boxes in the landscape: then if you already have PDC, Samba has to join the existing domain and act potentially as domain controller. Be sure to select this option while configuring LDAP. I don't really like this option with Zentyal because Zentyal being initially designed to work as standalone SMB core box, it handles accounts and requires additional (I mean external to Zentyal) program in order to synchronize pwd change.
One option could have been not to handle accounts but to rely on external repository (either "true" LDAP server or AD) but this is not Zentyal philosophy... This would result in really too complex designs for those not understanding what each component provides and is used for. I'm a bit frustrated with this but at the end... I share it, keeping in mind what Zentyal targets.
Then another option is to deploy Zentyal as PCD because you target opensource landscape but need to keep some Windows clients. This one is easier. You, of course, have noticed that clients must be able to join the domain, which means no "Windows Home" or similar editions but "Windows pro", "enterprise"...
Notice, in order to build more accurate picture, that even with Windows "Home" clients, you can still share folders. Lack of Domain Controller will result in local account management on clients that will use Zentyal account to access resources.
Does it clarify a bit the multiple high level choices ???
-
For both the cases, considering Zentyal as a central server, may have the howto s ..... ::)
-
SSO is still not ready on Zentyal, hopefully it is in the near future.
You still can setup Samba as PDC for your Windows clients and use Zentyal Desktop to authenticate your Linux clients using PAM-LDAP. The Linux clients will be able to access the shares via samba as well.
-
What I think needs high priority is to make the complete Zentyal network be as transparent in USE as possible. As a (former) Windows administrator, I think the availability of true roaming profiles is very important. In an environment where pc's are just standard workingtools, every user needs his/her OWN desktop. Therefor it shouldn't matter what kind of pc you log on, youn always get the same desktop. For windows clients this is easy enough.
What I sense in this thread is that ubuntu desktops are still treated like islands on their own. IMO in a networking environment this is not acceptable. I would highly prefer ubuntu desktops over windows IF al the windows networking features like roaming profiles are available for ubuntu too, especialy seamlessly integrated in Zentyal.
-
I do agree with robb, I am trying hard to completely switch over to Zentyal and Ubuntu combination (but currently having few windows, which I can not immediately convert). Where as it would be easy for me to convert normal user to Ubuntu, If I can provide features similar or better than windows networking.
I have read, NFS which pointed me to NIS, than Samba, OpenLDAP, which finally zeroed to Zentyal Desktop. But Zentyal Desktop is in beta version and no further development is there. Still I am planning to Implement it in production ....(in the way jsalamero suggested)
We are waiting for SSO ...
-
We are waiting for SSO ...
Well, a lot of you are waiting for SSO, fine... but it has nothing to do with above debate about roaming and NFS vs. CIFS (SMB), at least for what I uinderstand.
I believe these is a mix between various features and (end-)users as administrators are asking for some features that will make at, the end, Zentyal+Ubuntu Windows like mainly because it's free :P
It's fair but not that simple 8) Please let me explain the way I see it.
SSO stands for Single Sign On
This offers capability to authenticate once and then have this credential validated and reused for multiple services. No more nor less. e.g. you authenticate first time while accessing mail and access to browser requiring authentication will not prompt you for login / password. One of the standard mechanism is to implement Kerberos (like Windows) that will, once authenticated successfully, provide user with ticket that can be reused to show that authentication was successful.
NFS. vs CIFS (SMB) is "only" remote (network) file access protocol.
Windows implements CIFS but can also implement NFS while Linux world can do the same with NFS and Samba. This doesn't make any assumption on the fact that user's data is stored "centrally".
...then roaming ;D in the above debate, meaning capability, for users, to move from one personal computer to another while keeping its "environment":
this means that accounts are centrally managed, first ;) and also that all user's data are stored elsewhere that on personal computers. This doesn't mean in one single location but at least this (these) location(s) must be store somehow with user's profile. Same for user's "desktop", preferences and so far and so on...
This is, although not perfect, pretty well achieved in Windows world and also achievable in Linux world. Former NIS and NIS+ services were targeting, at least partially, this. Now NIS is over (not enough secure) and NIS+ is too much complex. LDAP replaces one part of NIS features. I personally doubt that roaming is a must for SMB. Accounts and computer management (i.e. backup/restore) must be addressed. Perfect "roaming enabled" infrastructure will partially answer to this need but is it really a must?
To make a long story short, all the stuff required to achieve and manage this kind of implementation is far form being in the SMB (not CIFS but Small & Medium Business ;D) scope.
To me, the only realistic way to achieve it it to have ALL services web based, including applications.
You provide users with light, almost disk-less computers and everything is centrally managed. This is what more and more companies are offering, kind of... look at Google.
Cloud based services are also pushing in this direction: put virtually "everything" in a cloud and the you can walk, move, change... easily 8) because you don't own anything anymore :o
I'm joking a bit with such wording but this is nevertheless the concept.
Back to this thread, SSO is on component required to reach the holy grail, network file sharing is potentially another, some more are required but:
- when you ask for new feature, keep in mind the whole landscape to be sure you don't ask for SSO while you mean roaming
- do not think that SSO alone with provide everything
- ask ourself if this is really what you or your company needs because in front of potential added values values, there is a cost: there is not such thing as a free lunch :P
NB: I really hope Zentyal team will intervene in this debate and explain their view. How does Zentyal fit with SMB market and how does this fit or compete with Cloud landscape? Is there also e real need for roaming in the SMB world?
-
To me, the only realistic way to achieve it it to have ALL services web based, including applications.
You provide users with light, almost disk-less computers and everything is centrally managed. This is what more and more companies are offering, kind of... look at Google.
OR....... drumsound.... implement LTSP. YES! Does my vote count for 10000 now?... :)
-
OR....... drumsound.... implement LTSP. YES! Does my vote count for 10000 now?... :)
;D ;D I don't know. Like you, I'm Zentyal user, not Zentyal team member ;D
Yes, LTSP in one of the "diskless like" implementations that may suit.
-
There's so much more to this discussion if we think about where Windows XP-powered SMBs are at and the options available to them going forward. Because of the hardware ramifications, I personally think the Wyse-Citrix team-up is going to play a significant role as a solution provider for a lot of SMBs thinking through XP EOL. I think Zentyal needs to be intentional about it if it wants a piece of that action.
But I've launched into lengthy versions of this conversation before and really should keep it shorter. I'll just say that sometimes people are missing my point when I talk about where I think Zentyal needs to be strong. (The whole UPS support discussion is a classic example of people not quite understanding what I'm saying, which just means I'm not too good at getting my point across. :-[ )
The vast Windows XP-driven SMB market is, or soon will be, in aggregate motion out of necessity. It will head somewhere out of necessity. The size of what has to happen is really unprecedented in Windows computing history. Solution providers understand better and better that IT consumers have several good options both on the desktop and in the back room--including closing up the back room almost altogether. Open source software continues to have an opportunity here if providers can think clearly about the end user experience and what that will generally look like in the near future. (Apple gets this better than some.) This is a time like none before for the open source community, developers and users alike, to think very carefully about the future.
Just sayin' ...
-
I do agree that the Win$ driven SMB market will soon be a history (and I will be happy as soon as this will happen :) ), but the current fact is that, linux Administrator (to be) are facing problem in transformation, which is an ultimate setback to the 'open' movement in network server :-\.
This is also a fact that small and medium organizations will continue with their network and provide their internal resources to the users in this manner. (it will take time that everything / process will be on cloud, where small organisations are more concern about their security) Or Zentyal provide an innovative mode of providing so, by technology leapfrogging ..
This is also a fact that many of the network will have win$ and Linux users, working together (atleast for coming few years :( ).
And as far as I know, Zentyal is most appropriate for such organisations, thus we should focus on this issue ...
-
LTSP keeps being mentioned on a few threads now and I hope very much that it will be included in 3.0.
http://www.networkupstools.org/download.html NUT is in the repository. I was supposed to spend some time with alfresco and NUT this weekend with NUT looking the simpler. http://tldp.org/HOWTO/UPS-HOWTO/x142.html#AEN187
It has been demoted to sometime this week but I will post my results when installed.
Alfresco is just an application but LTSP has a strange crossover as it provides some solutions to infrastructure problems that are in no-mans land until samba4.
-
Alfresco is just an application but LTSP has a strange crossover as it provides some solutions to infrastructure problems that are in no-mans land until samba4.
Could you explain relationship between Alfresco (or any CMS) and LTSP? I'm a bit lost...
And I also don't understand how Samba4 will interfere with LTSP :-[
To me Samba4 is one (big) step toward "Windows like" infrastructure or potentially better Windows world integration implementing its own directory service.
This is, although I might be wrong, just the opposite of what I would target with component able to rely on "standard" infrastructure block (if one assumes that standard is not Microsoft Windows only but what IEEE and RFCs describe)
-
Oh I only mentioned Alfresco (DMS) as I was supposed to be having a go at seeing if it would co-exist with my zentyal server and how easy it was to configure. My plan for the weekend was NUT & Alfresco but it changed to a girl and serveral bottles of wine ;)
There are several hurdles with later versions of windows in respect to samba3, roaming profiles, account lockdown and general win client / zentyal as a PDC.
LTSP could provide thin clients that would provide an alternative to the above.
Also the only problem with Samba4 is that we are still on Alpha releases and until a release candidate turns up I doubt many will be employing it in production environments.
-
I hope you enjoyed ;D
Back to business 8) you're correct looking at Alfresco as DMS, although I see it as a mix of DMS, CMS plus much more features too. This being said, I still don't understand how this can be compared with LTSP.
LTSP is basically "terminal server" meaning container for application running centrally. It doesn't make assumption on application exposed. Sure it could be DMS or whatever else but the is NO relationship, at least for what I understand.
I'm elaborating on this because I would like to avoid people voting for LTSP thinking that is will solve issues they may face with DMS. LTSP could be one component of target design assuming another application or service is centrally provided.
I my view biased or wrong ???
Then Samba4 is another story ;D or >:(
-
to comment on what rob says.
we allready HAVE ldap.. we have radius we have lots of other stuf..
we dont have zentyal desktop ... we should build our own desktop version of ubuntu based on a subset of ubuntu repositories, and the base install using pam-auth-ldap for loging in... or for example using radius to enforce settings like most users are familiar with when using windows..
in my view.. that same ubuntu subset desktop could be the base for any future ltps plan...
idd be willing to document this.. but i would require some help in a few aspects allong the way...
-
RADIUS is good to do AAA but not for storing users&groups policies, LDAP is the best solution for this...
-
RADIUS is good to do AAA but not for storing users&groups policies, LDAP is the best solution for this...
You're perfectly correct and it's worth to make it clear, there is definitely no doubt regarding this!
If you look closely at Radius based solutions, you will notice that some are (and more and more for what I noticed although I do not work with Radius any more since a while) implementing Radius protocol using Radius service which relies on LDAP in the back-end for users and groups (and policies) management.
One may even imagine to have LDAP authentication based on Kerberos using GSSAPI, therefore stacking Radius, LDAP and Kerberos ;D
This shows that Radius, LDAP, Kerberos are not covering same perimeter.
There is a lot of confusion here ::) like when we discuss CMS vs. DMS vs. file sharing...
-
radius if im informed correctly is a way to authenticate serveral kind's of services via user + password with any database backend possible (thus also ldap)...
what i think must be done is building a simple lightweight desktop based un ubuntu witch should be logging in against the zentyal ldap db...
if you want roaming profiles it should also mount mount a remote directory as its profile dir in /home/$username$ but thats not part of the SSO ...
while reading this (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LDAPClientAuthentication) document - creating a ubuntu iso with these packages preconfigured ..??? should be able to fix all the problems stated here above without near to no changes to the server...
i think that a think-tank post / forum / wiki or whatever should be installed to think over these kind of features.. selecting packages for sucht a desktop and remastring an iso to accomplish this. and after that proposing a specefic list of functions that should be added to zentyal to accomdate this intergration...
the lot of us really should start on telling developers what to code rather than what idea to come up with... i know many of them are really smart but even they only have 2 hands and 1 brain...
-
what i think must be done is building a simple lightweight desktop based un ubuntu witch should be logging in against the zentyal ldap db...
if you want roaming profiles it should also mount mount a remote directory as its profile dir in /home/$username$ but thats not part of the SSO ...
while reading this document - creating a ubuntu iso with these packages preconfigured ..??? should be able to fix all the problems stated here above without near to no changes to the server...
I think this could be an immediate and handy solution ...
-
there is one more thing that im considering...
when i read the proposal to intergrate a dms a lot of people was calling for.... dont bloat the server it will get to slow etc etc etc.. and though i did not agrea with that statement in that usercase BUT it was a valid warning..
and i think it applies to the here and now... ergo "lets think hard about ever installing ltsp on the same box as zentyal server. since ltsp is kind of tought on system resources it might be better to have it installed on special equiped servers. my point is 'when designing a zentyal desktop' make it as lightweight as possible, build an ltps server that can join your zentyal network via a setup wizard (or something in that spirit).
and only put the management interface on the zentyal box...
-
when i read the proposal to intergrate a dms a lot of people was calling for.... dont bloat the server it will get to slow etc etc etc..
I don't think you got such feedback... ???
I mean "slow" is only matter of hardware, memory sizing and stuff like this. Nowadays, you can add almost as much CPU and/or memory as you need for almost peanuts.
Performance is definitely not an issue yet.
The real drawback while integrating additional components is that it increases complexity at the cost of less manageability (because of more constraint) and less reliability that is the key criteria for such box, far ahead hundreds of potential features, at least from my standpoint.
Furthermore, most of you guys are asking for products or technical implementations (in term of component, protocol...) while we should start with feature we want to cover.
This ends up with strange long thread mixing DMS, CMS and terminal server within same topic... Confusing isn't it? :-[
So I will never tell developers "what to code" neither ask up front Zentyal to implement "product" but rather think about adding feature covering specific need.
Then up to Zentyal team to select component fitting best with their platform and develop, if needed, specific code.
This doesn't prevent to discuss low level technical stuff (e.g. I would like lighter HTTP server ;) ) but this is not the same "dimension" :)
-
christian - though i can emagine your view point, im not completely agreaing...
lets first set 2 type of users...
1st: end users (this can be end users, or unskilled system administrators).
with these types of users i would most definetly agrea,
but there are also power users... these users ar allways trying to implement stuf in a non standard way...
these are the guy's who would install joomla on a server and make it talk with ldap... these are the guys creating nifty winshell scripts to fix a requirement not met by zentyal yet...
the problem with these kind of users is often that they can, or maybe even allready did fix a certain problem.. but they just dont because its to mutch work.. what i want is to find these users in the crowd and encourrage them to help me creating documentation.. building quick fixes that could be later intergrated into zentyal..
take ltps for example... we all seem to want it... but no-one as of yet has posted a tread like...
"hey so if we go for ltps, maybe we should build it based on.... %desktop% $browser$ and set_office-client - %package% could be configured to do $action$ thus creating &result;
you might be reluctant to tell programmers what to do or not to do... but here is the deal... if you dont
they'd have to start from scratch and it will take %time% to organise test and practice software... this is tast that anyone could have done...
if you do five of these projects changes are 1 or 2 (or maybe 4) will never be implemented for reasons only known to the zentyal staff.. or maybe some other forum member had better luck with a different app..
but if you document the steps you took to set it up... there will allways be so many people benefitting.
-
... "slow" is only matter of hardware, memory sizing and stuff like this. Nowadays, you can add almost as much CPU and/or memory as you need for almost peanuts.
Performance is definitely not an issue yet.
I agree completely with you're point. I do think we need to keep in mind that some segment of the community runs Zentyal on older server hardware or on PCs, perhaps by necessity. That said, you're right; it's true that Zentyal runs easily within the resources of low-cost commodity servers.
The real drawback while integrating additional components is that it increases complexity at the cost of less manageability (because of more constraint) and less reliability that is the key criteria for such box, far ahead hundreds of potential features, at least from my standpoint.
This also is my chief concern. I think of the work involved in moving Zentyal to the next Ubuntu LTS release, for example. And the more complex and diverse the package set alone, the more likely we are to run into various kinds of problems for everybody. We already have run into that sort of problem (eGroupWare), so this isn't hypothetical even today. Such things are inevitable, but let's not compound the problem unnecessarily, I think, or get in over our heads.
the problem with these kind of users is often that they can, or maybe even allready did fix a certain problem.. but they just dont because its to mutch work.. what i want is to find these users in the crowd and encourrage them to help me creating documentation.. building quick fixes that could be later intergrated into zentyal..
... if you do five of these projects changes are 1 or 2 (or maybe 4) will never be implemented for reasons only known to the zentyal staff.. or maybe some other forum member had better luck with a different app..
but if you document the steps you took to set it up... there will allways be so many people benefitting.
I think this is true. It would be nice to get more coders and system administrators interested in contributing to Zentyal. Everybody would win, it seems like. Zentyal is almost certainly a better product today because of past contributions by knowledgeable people, I think.
-
I rather like the way the thread has gone. It demonstrates widely varying idea's on what a Zentyal server should be.
I think the UPS situation is sorted and disaster recovery is stuck slightly as the solution is there through subscriptions.
I also think that the combination of Zarafa, Alfresco and LTSP makes Zentyal a much better alternative to MS SBS.
The technologies to provide a CMS are already there and Joomla is a simple, Wordpress also and Drupal. They don't need to be intergrated in a similar way that the above do. I have been working with Joomla for a while and will create some documentation on the easiest way to install. If anybody would like to contribute then I would be happy to grab a brain.
Joomla can authenticate against an LDAP server as my current sites do. I just haven't worked out how to create users from Joomla and that is on my wish list.
With Apache, MySQL, PHP5, LDAP and the various libs already included most web applications will run with very little admin work.
It would be nice to be able to have Forum sub catagories for web applications / (LAMP) style admin, Zarafa and exchange replacements, Alfresco and sharepoint replacements and LTSP and terminal server replacements.
My server could run all these with no problem and cost £700 in fact the server isn't my problem. I have twenty clients that cost £20,000 which is my main fiscal problem.
I have mentioned this before as I like the way the Joomla repository works and I believe Zentyal could work in a similar way.
All Zentyal functionality is modular which allows us to choose how we load the server and what we run on a single box.
It is a falacy that this will make Zentyal cumbersome or unmanagable.
I would like to see a domain subscription system where a server can be registered with a core selection of services.
Then provide a cost for each module and a years subscription on that module. This allows the current blanket subcription to be split so that users with small narrow requirements can have small payments.
It gives the user a cost effective way to choose how he wants to run the server and pay.
This would also give Zentyal more feedback to what modules are worth supporting as payment would indicate this.
So basically I am saying I want more from Zentyal in choice. I want to be able to cherry pick what services I provide and pay a relatively small subscription charge on this.
Many will have relatively simple requirements and may only pay a couple of euro's. In my case I want a large selection and if this increases say what is a current subcription by 50% this is still excellent value for money.
Anyway this thread has been excellently diverse. Think it is about time to split it to Community headings of, Zarafa, Webservices, DMS, terminal services and possibly more options on subscription and module purchase.
Stuart ;D
-
All Zentyal functionality is modular which allows us to choose how we load the server and what we run on a single box.
It is a falacy that this will make Zentyal cumbersome or unmanagable.
Zentyal is modular but it is a managed, integrated solution. Just because a jigsaw puzzle is modular doesn't mean we can add and remove pieces at will and still have things come out right in the end. :)
We can agree to disagree on this part; I find Christian's argument pretty solid not only from a hypothetical point of view but also from my experience:
Without even getting into the idea of what a cumbersome Zentyal might look like, consider just the Quality Assured Updates service offering and its purpose. If the Ubuntu repositories inject some risk into maintaining a managed solution like Zentyal (and they do, because they have), then it seems to follow that the wider the range of modules (and their underlying packages and dependencies), the greater the potential risk to the whole. It can be quite serious for everybody if updates introduce regressions or conflicts, especially if they isolate the machine.
Then consider the work involved in maintaining Quality Assured Updates if they grow only in simple number and not in interactive complexity. I could go on, but I'm just trying to illustrate reasons why I think Christian's argument makes sense. This isn't just a geek-ish matter, but also a business and productivity matter. Obviously, that's just my own take on things and really means nothing to anybody but me--and those to whom I have to answer at work. :)
-
Apache
PHP
Zarafa
Squid
Snort
Dans guardian
Postgres
Dovecot
Bind
Asterisk
Roundcube
samba
redis
z-push
ClamAV
Layer-7
OpenLdap
xjabberd
Just a list of current applications with dependancies from memory as there are lots more.
Your argument just doesn't make sense to me as zentyal is already complex but still works and is quality assured. Alfresco and LTSP are not going to make much more impact. Alfresco practically zero additional with LTSP prob needing more work.
The advantages of providing those two items make Zentyal a rounded small business server that can take on MSSBS.
I understand what you say about complexity but fail to see how you don't feel that it is already complex. Why do you not call for the removal of Zarafa for example?
-
the problem with these kind of users is often that they can, or maybe even already did fix a certain problem.. but they just don't because its to much work.. .../...but if you document the steps you took to set it up... there will allays be so many people benefiting.
I think this is true. It would be nice to get more coders and system administrators interested in contributing to Zentyal. Everybody would win, it seems like.
I'm convinced we all share this 8) which means to promote and support initiatives from community. Doesn't mean to focus "only" on "adding one more component to Zentyal to extend the scope"
My experience, as IT guy having worked or still even working on rather large, world wide, deployment it that:
- the simpler, the more reliable
- do not club together "by design" services that are not tightly linked.
Zentyal must be somewhat different because target is SMB, therefore it must be capable to run on one single platform.
Try to think about this in term of corner stone. It has to be strong and reliable. Then if you can use it to build your customized house because it's also flexible, it doesn't mean that all houses must be the same neither that all components used to build your neighbour's house must come with Zentyal box the day you want to build your ;)
This is where community can help, documenting "howto" to add DMS, CMS or whatever "on top" of Zentyal. This should really help Zentyal team to make the right decision.
In the meantime, they can improve what exists ;) we are not yet at the stage were every thing is rock stable and easy to deploy and implement, even if it's already great.
I will definitely open a new thread in the features request section to discuss this and not jeopardize any more this topic :-[ because I'm confused with the way "SMB" market is perceived. I'm not saying that my view is the correct one (I work only for large to very large companies since years so your view is for better than mine) however this willingness to achieve the "all-in-one but simple and secure" holy-grail without any border makes me very uncomfortable. Let's discuss it elsewhere in the right section :)
-
Your argument just doesn't make sense to me as zentyal is already complex but still works and is quality assured....
I understand what you say about complexity but fail to see how you don't feel that it is already complex. Why do you not call for the removal of Zarafa for example?
In the past, I have called for a product with less emphasis on "Office" capability :) . In practice, I eventually ran eGroupWare separate from eBox, because it was too hard for me to properly maintain within eBox (hard to recover from disaster, and Ubuntu was a little too far behind the eGroupWare version curve).
The community version of updates isn't quality assured. It was a DansGuardian update that left several people with an eBox install that could no longer connect to the Internet, if I recall correctly. That's the benefit and value of the quality assured updates, but those are available via subscription only and would have to be maintained separately.
Zentyal is complex, but would you not agree that in a managed server product, there is a "must have" level of complexity and a "would be nice to have" level of complexity? And again, I'm not asking for simplicity, but reliability and sustainability. Those two things, and those two things only. If we can have those two things along with the kitchen sink, I'm all set. :D
Let's discuss it elsewhere in the right section :)
Quite right.