Slashdot Mirror
New Remote Configuration App For Linux
Whyte Wolf writes: "Olympus is a new remote administration suite for Linux. Its currently in development by Mount Linux a company based out of Calgary, Alberta. This is a really neat little product, with some cool ideas (I especially like the NetMessage class) and ofcourse, it's Open Source. They're looking at developing a Windows client to allow Win32 users to administer a Linux system remotely."
-John
So, I can get back orifice on the windows machine and, thus, have acces to the linux machines from my l33t boxen ;) ?
A truth that's told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent. -- William Blake
Now if they would only invent a Linux clinet that allowed me to administor my Win32 box remotely...
Doh!
Are there any real advantages over Linuxconf. Unless there is a REAL significant advantage over linuxconf, I don't see this beinga good thing. Sure the cryptographic channels are cool but that could be added to Linuxconf. This seems like just more fragmentation of the Linux market (like having GNOME and KDE). Granted, both have pushed the other to be better, but it seems like some serious duplication of efforts. What do you all think?
Any thoughts?
The obvious sarcastic comment is..."Who wants a win32 user to admin a linux system?"
:)
cheers
Uhm, why does "linuxconf.com" bring up BestOfTheWeb.com, with no Linux-related links in sight?
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
This seems to be pretty interesting. With web (https) clients and the ability to make a change global across a homogenous bank of machines, this could be a admin's dream.
It's already bad enough when you edit stuff in /etc by hand and Linuxconf chokes on it. Having different admin tools disagree on the proper formatting for these files would drive the inexperienced administrator up a wall.
The veteran admin is so accustomed to using a text editor via telnet he won't consider any other option. Even in situations where it is faster.
Yes such situations do exist.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Geeze, this isn't NT we're talking about here. You've been able to remotely administer linux since it got network support. Have these guys ever heard of telnet? Or, for the security minded, ssh? If a shell isn't good enough for you, then how about ssh + linuxconf. Happy now?
:)
Maybe if it was an SSL http interface to linuxconf, that would be something... just so you could administer your machine from a web cafe, if for some reason you felt a need to do so.
The enemies of Democracy are
They're looking at developing a Windows client to allow Win32 users to administer a Linux system remotely."
/me blinks.
Eh? Do any Linux SysAdmins really want/need to use Windows to admin their server? Heh.
I can just see this:
PHB: Give NTdude more access on your Unix server.
SysAdmin: huh?
PHB: He has a Win32 client to allow him to administer your server.
SysAdmin: He's an NT administrator.
PHB: All you geeks are the same!
For the record, my Linux remote admin program on my Mac is called MacTelnet.
\//
This is not an attempt to make Linux into a desktop OS or something that idiots can use. This tool is being made for systems administrators in order to make it easier to keep your servers in the back end where they belong. Especially once the Win32 client is out, then Linux need never be touched by human hands.
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
...another thing to worry about some skript-kiddie exploiting .. no thanks .. i think i'll stick to my ssh admin...
They're looking at developing a Windows client to allow Win32 users to administer a Linux system remotely.
Kinda like Bo2K for dummies that really want to cause some real damage...
--www.mp3.com/kruhft--
This software is so far from being complete that they don't have much of anything except a few shots of mockups. They mention that it should not be used for production and that it's nowhere near complete.
This is all part of Linux's slide into the mainstream, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a step in the right direction. All the software does is put a Windows-style GUI on top of an encrypted channel - something anyone with an ssh client and UNIX competency has anyway.
In places, the 'GUI-on-top-of-CLI' is even more apparent, such as the "olympus ping" which simply opens a window with a text box and displays the result of a ping in a different format. That's very helpful, in case you forget how to spell 'ping'.
As a UNIX sysadmin, the notion that this could actually catch on frightens me. This could breed a whole new set of clueless [l]user/admins who don't know what traceroute is, or how to configure a firewall without their precious GUI. What's next, Linux Certification? Linux Certified Engineers?
The last thing the Linux world needs is abstraction of administrative functions via a GUI.
this is a sig.
Telnet is now a generic term for opening a text window into a remote machine's command line. SSH is seen as simply an encrypted and secure telnet on the wrong port :)
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Now instead of having to use RAQs when you want to have an easy-to-admin server remotely you can use any hardware you choose. That's great! Especially since this shouldn't actually remove any functionality anyway. Nice!
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I belive it's called SSH. =P
----
the pr0n-o-matic http://www.phatmax.net/
It seems to me that one of the things that will forever dog linuxconf is it's inability to keep up with server changes. The manner in which they build modules has them constantly changing a rapidly moving target. It seems that this concept these folks are working on may fall into the same category.
.conf files.
.conf files would still be editable from a text editor or be got at with this somewhat more automated process. Instead of having the author of this API be responsible for keeping up to date with every possible daemon out there, it would be up to the daemon writers to provide a definition file to this API.
This is something I proposed in a Slashdot article a while ago, but it was way late in the conversation. Since this appears to be on topic again, gonna try once again to see what you guys think of it.
The concept revolves around a similar notion to linuxconf in that the idea is to provide a GUI tool for configuring network properties. Instead of trying to develop a unique graphical module for each possible daemon, build an API that looks to definition files. Each of these def files (most likely XML) would contain what text file is used to config a service, what are the possible attributes of that service, and what are the valid values of those attributes. I imagine one could also include the same kind of help text you would normally find in most
Rather than trying to reinvent the GUI for all this, instead provide this API as a means for config GUI's to be written. So whether you're writing a config file for KDE, Gnome, or just X they all call to the same API. The API would handle reading the definition files, and writing to the config files as defined.
From what I'm thinking, the
Good idea, or am I full of it?
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I guess this is what Microsoft means about encouraging innovation; third-party stuff like this is actually useful on Windows. Try to sell it to Linux people, and everybody shrugs and says, "I don't need it. I've got ssh." (or whatever simple, elegant tool fits the task in question)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Where can I get some?
Intelligent Design Theory is not Creationism
Go with Caldera. They already have Webmin, which is far more robust (and user-friendly).
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Struggling back to the point, I'm afraid that as head tech of an IT department that uses Linux boxes, the perils of everyone and their dog (including my boss's PA (who wants to 'get into IT and learn Linux' - oh dear). In fact, as an aside, my boss has decided that she's going to be our new first line support (two week trial). She's never used anything apart from Word in her life. Sweet Jesus help me) wanting to be a sysadmin are very apparent.
I hate to sound like a snob, but people should really keep away from Linux (or any other proper operating system) in a production environment unless they know what they're doing. This does not lend itself to click kiddies fucking everything up because they think they know what the difference is between RAID1 and RAID5.
It may catch on elsewhere, but not in my department...
--- If something doesn't feel right, you're probably not feeling the right thing.
And then you have the issue of nomadic machines like laptops and PDAs. When they use your network, you need to assert some administrative control over the resources they use. Has anyone attempted tools to help with these?
Don't suppose anyone even remembers cfengine? Or has looked into GUIs for PIKT? Or any of the other tools that already exist?
Webmin is currently at 0.8, and is also cross platform. And, for the corporate minded, it falls under the BSD license.
It can be found at http://www.webmin.com/webmin
And no, I do not work for them. I have used the product, and have found it to be really cool. Server administration thru a web browser, using SSL!
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Are you dense? Right in the /. article it says it's Open Source!
You can setup a shared session with another client.
. html
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/winvncviewer
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
WebMin (www.webmin.com) is a full remote configuration tool for Linux (and full UNIXes as well) via a web browser. It's cross platform, open source and much more mature IMHO. Since I started using Webmin, I never even touch Linuxconf any more. I just have no need to - WebMin does EVERYTHING.
Why not just use eXceed on win32? It's almost exactly like being at the console.
This sounds more or less like a pressrelease for a piece of software nobody really wants... /. turning into freshmeat.net ok, but I more or less expected to see 'this advertisment was payed for by ...' under this item...
my favorite thing about the *BSDs is that most of the damn 16 year old to 31337 for windows script kiddie wannabes are starting to see linux as to main stream and switch to one of the BSDs. I am more and more seeing Linux chat rooms switch back to a slightly more mature conversation while *BSD advocates are seeming to get the "We rule!! Everyone else Sux!! w3 4r3 t0 313373 4 U" attitude.
Thank U BSDs
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
OpenBSD AND OpenSSH. And many others I'm sure I've never heard of
When Back Orifice, billed as a remote system administration tool for Windows, was released, it did not take Windows users long to cotton on to the fact that it was more useful as a hacking tool than a remote admin tool.
I wonder how long it will take Linux users to realise this ?
What I would love to see for Linux is rconsole. Imagine being able to reboot your machine, go into the bios and make changes, then bring it back up, all remotely. Unfortunately, Linux alone can't do this. This would require a bios capable to handling the rconsole itself. The high-end Unix platforms can do this. How long until we can get this capability on our PCs?
Just a thought.
--
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
1. We want more people/companies to use Linux as servers
2. People need to administer servers
With those assumptions in mind, let's look at the people who adminster servers. There are 4 potential categories of server admins.
1. *nix geeks
2. MC*E winders types
3. "other" (isn't Banyan Vines still in business?)
4. Newbies and aspiring server admins
Now, given assumption 1, that we want to see Linux expand, we will need to see a lot more admins be Linux savvy and Linux friendly. All of those future Linux admins will have to come from the 4 categories above. We've got category 1 wrapped up, so if we want more Linux admins it will have to be at the expense of 2, 3 and 4. Ignoring the VMS hold-overs from category 3, this boils down to acheiving 2 things:
1. Converting MC*E types to Linux
2. Convincing new admins that they would really rather do Linux than Winders
Olympus helps in both these cateogries. For the MC*E type, the ability to have access to the Linux box from a Win rig will make them more amenable to setting up a hetrogenous environment. Really, if I had a dollar for every WinAdmin who said they wouldn't consider incorporating Linux in their network because it was too tough to integrate... well, I'd have enough to go see a movie, but damn are movies expensive these days! And don't rattle off at me about Samba. Rattle off at those WinAdmins. Olympus will help gain converts from category 2. Mock MC*E's all you want... but keep in mind they can be converted and "see the light". Olympus will go a long way towards that.
Category 4, new admins, is much more fertile. Lots of aspiring admins go the MCSE route. There are a number of reasons for that, the biggest being that MCSE is an instant credetential. We have responded to that in part with the Red Hat cert. Another major reason for the continued success of NT is the illusion that it is easy to admin (it's an illusion because the troubleshooting of inevitable failures, in the long run, more than make up for the crunchy point-and-click ease of setup). By giving a straighforward config interface to Linux servers we provide newbies with real ease of use. I like to think of this in terms of "total ease of ownership". Once Linux runs, it runs. Easy. Making the config easy is step two.
2 1337 4 u!
The only remote admin tool you need. Well, except for an SSH tunnel to encrypt it.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
it's called ssh
'nuff said
oh, btw, I do not know whether to be amused or alarmed by the win32 comment.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Alrighty! Someone's making a decent Telnet/SSH Client for Windows.. Right on....
I have often questioned the need of a GUI.. I mean can't we just have a svgalib based netscape? I'm sure it'd be a hell of a lot faster and more reliable then x-netscape.. it'd lower the hardware curve, not having to run X just to use some graphical programs.. put your console into vgatext mode and away you go..
"And how can this be? For he is the
Sadly, though, Calgary is located on "Aspen Parkland" and "Montane" land and not prarie.... and I doubt "Silicon Aspen Parkland" would catch on.
2 1337 4 u!
Ssh. Don't tell anyone.
Association of people who give more money to Bill Gates than Chruch?
NT hermits?
WinBaters?
Blue Screen Cult
Eternal Patience Society
VB users group?
Office Inductees?
Meditation through disk grinders?
Modern Quakers?
Really. Pointing out windows flaws around some people is like talking bad about the pope.
Windows has it's uses, but security is not a feature. Why would I use my potentially compromised game box for things that I should do at the console? It will be nice if the authors can get this to run through a secure shell or some other encryption, but it's like plugging a hole in a strainer.
As a former founder of Mountlinux, i find it sad this being posted on /. now.
If anyone wants to know the full story of how/and/or what Mountlinux is all about from someone that has worked with these guys let me know.
.HIghoS
--
Jesse Tie Ten Quee - tie@linux.ca - highos@highos.com
http://highos.dhs.org
I looked at the screenshot for the inetd configuration. All the settings are just as cryptic as in inetd.conf, only they're in GUI dropdown lists instead of columns in a text file.
How is it any easier for somebody to know what it means when there's an option called "Wait?" with options of "No wait" and "wait". You still have to know what it means; throwing a GUI around it doesn't help that.
\\'
Linuxconf is the tool for this job. I see a lot of people make negative comments about Linuxconf, it just reminds me of negative comments about Linux. I have been using Linuxconf since 1996 on redhat 3.0.3 (linuxconf was not included then) and linuxconf version 1.08 I think. I have also admined many Unix boxes since 1985 by hand. I can tell you that linuxconf is an incredable tool. I use it daily on over 70 remote systems. I can teach a non-computer person to add/change/delete user accounts thru a web browser in about 5 minutes. I have a web server with over 200 virtual domains with each domain having its own usr list for email set up and admined completely with Linuxconf, with a different admin person for each domain, all done thu the web interface, thru a SSL server. I can archive the configuration and restore it to another machine in minutes. There is also a lot of mis-information about Linuxconf spread by people who never really looked into it, people who looked at it 4 years ago, and people (who I can only guess) dont like the guy who wrote it.
This is useless, I have disagred with many projects that have came about, but almost all of them were origional (new functionality) These guys are trying to rewrite ssh with some kind of scripting with a tcl/tk gooey slapped on it to let a MCSE drool his way through mucking it up. (I admin NT boxs and servers, i DONT have a MCSE, and am vey proud that I DONT, as I have had several MSCE morons muck up my stuff)
SSh is all you need, if you cant understand vi, ssh and the text interface.... what the hell are you doing configurin anything!!! RH 6.1-6.2 braindead's the whole system for you now.... why do we need to make it more braindead?
Linux is popular because it is HARD! why cant you people get that through your heads.
Gawd, if I wanted to drool like a moron, I'd use a microsoft product.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It would be very useful, especially for Linux newbies, if an admin program such as this documented the changes it was about to make.
It's a long while back (memory's going), but I seem to remember AIX's system admin tool doing something like this (as well as having the excellent running man).
All it would need would be a small window listing the commands it would run to carry out a particular change, and a diff-style list of the changes to be applied to any config files.
This would help beginners find out what was going on "under the hood", and how the things they are configuring actually work - especially if an integrated help system was used, with easy access to context-sensitive help. No more digging around for the correct HOWTOs - learn what you need to learn, as you need it.
Experienced system admins would be able to use this to check that they agreed with the changes being made (perhaps with some sort of "edit" option if they disagree with the proposed changes in some way). It would also be useful for the admin tool writers themselves, as experienced SAs might be able to suggest any better ways of doing what the tool is trying to do.
Well, since Windows isn't supposed to have multiple simultaneous users anyway, I'd think that's OK...
I thought that was called "telnet" (ok, "ssh") or "xterm".