On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:46:02AM -0400, Jim Tarvid wrote:
> One of the issues I would like to see addressed is differentiating
> types of servers.
Agreed. As a starting point, we have a specification[1] about something
like this.
The idea is to define a set of tasks that makes installing the necessary
packages for something really easy. E.g. a telephony server would
install asterisk, ser, siproute or whatever we choose to standardise on.
A web mail server would install the LAMP stack, Postfix, dovecot and one
of the countless webmail systems.
If you'd like to help define these tasks, all you need to do is come up
with a (very) short name for the task and a list of packages that is
needed to fulfill the task. The spec above does not deal at all with
configuration at this time. It's all about the packages.
> About to put together a media server for home. Ubuntu Studio looks
> promising.
I'm not sure what you mean by "media server", but if you mean, what I
think you mean then Mythbuntu or similar is likely closer to what you
want. Ubuntustudio is a Ubuntu derivative focused on the needs of people
who want to use Ubuntu in a recording studio like setting.
> Specialization seems a necessity at the moment. I have trouble
> imagining a one server serves all approach.
I agree 100%. What has lead you to believe we wanted "One server setup
to rule them all"? If it says so anywhere, that needs to be fixed right
away!
[0]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuServerTasks
--
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Server Team
http://www.ubuntu.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|
