View Full Version : Ubuntu Server :)
Hi all,
building a file/minecraft server at the moment and I'm going to be running Ubuntu Server on it. So I thought I had better trial it out on VirtualBox.
Logging in
1759
Logged in, by default the server has no GUI.
1761
More pics V :)
Preparing to install the GUI
1765
Getting the GUI packages
1763
Will have the pics of it running a GUI when its done :)
GUI :D
1767
This is rather fun :)
I've been tinkering with MineOS for a bit - seems to work but I like what your doing better :)
DanielWilliamson
16-01-12, 00:13
Moving this to the Linux section and tbh ewwwww Ubuntu Server with a GUI!
Lol :) gotta agree with DW though, server should use console. Man up!
gray.woodford
16-01-12, 08:12
agreed :)
agreed with others. Why install Ubuntu Server only to whack a GUI on it?
You might as well have gone for OpenSuse, CentOS, or one of the many other decent enterprise distros that have GUIs bundled.
Be fair, it's not like it's going to explode or something because it has an xorg.conf on there. Sounds like it's a fun project for personal entertainment and learning purposes, this is not enterprise computing, lighten up! :P
Be fair, it's not like it's going to explode or something because it has an xorg.conf on there. Sounds like it's a fun project for personal entertainment and learning purposes, this is not enterprise computing, lighten up! :P
Fair enough. that's probably my bias showing through as I hate Ubuntu Server :coat
Nowt wrong with it really. All the this-linux-distro-vs-that-linux-distro polarisation is something i've never really understood, 99% of the software is just standard GNU anyway, it's just the package manager and installer which varies really. Have used ubuntu server with np at home, it's fine. I use debian at work where stability REALLY matters though.
DanielWilliamson
16-01-12, 11:42
Nowt wrong with it really. All the this-linux-distro-vs-that-linux-distro polarisation is something i've never really understood, 99% of the software is just standard GNU anyway, it's just the package manager and installer which varies really. Have used ubuntu server with np at home, it's fine. I use debian at work where stability REALLY matters though.
Nothing wrong with a bit of facism (Arch is the best...) Terminal and Vi or your not a MAN :D (uses Nano and thus unmanly...)
Ninja edited before you quoted :P.
Arch is just for johnny-come-lately wannabees who feel like they are 'pro haxxors' because they have compiled something. I got bored of typing ./configure && make && make_install a long time ago, tyvm :P. I'm quite happy to use apt-get instead.
Actually that's a bit harsh, I've nothing really against Arch. Although the undeserved smugness of many of it's advocates does annoy me at times.
Ninja edited before you quoted :P.
Arch is just for johnny-come-lately wannabees who feel like they are 'pro haxxors' because they have compiled something. I got bored of typing ./configure && make && make_install a long time ago, tyvm :P. I'm quite happy to use apt-get instead.
Actually that's a bit harsh, I've nothing really against Arch. Although the undeserved smugness of many of it's advocates does annoy me at times.
Clearly you've never used Arch because you never need to compile software like that (there is AUR, but that integrates right into your binary package manager via yaourt). Arch is just another binary distro like Debian - except it uses tar balls rather than .deb's and pacman rather than apt-get. (I actually prefer pacman to apt-get because it's output is cleaner and easier to use. But that's purely personal preference though; I'll happily use either as both are excellent). Thus I suspect what you're thinking of is Gentoo or Slackware - both of which are source distros.
Also, (and this was probably just a typo on your part), there's no underscore in "make install" :p
Nowt wrong with it really. All the this-linux-distro-vs-that-linux-distro polarisation is something i've never really understood, 99% of the software is just standard GNU anyway, it's just the package manager and installer which varies really. Have used ubuntu server with np at home, it's fine. I use debian at work where stability REALLY matters though.
It's not elitism - there's very real reasons why I dislike Ubuntu Server (not least because I think disabling root and having sudo < [user password] is just the worst security policy you could have for super user access).
I have used arch, but not for long. Think I was mixing it up a little with gentoo there. Slackware I'm very familiar with, that was where I started out on linux :).
Also, (and this was probably just a typo on your part), there's no underscore in "make install" :p
True, I really meant ./configure && make && make install && make modules_install - but as I said it's a long time since I've needed to compile the kernel, and I don't really miss doing it :P.
It's not elitism - there's very real reasons why I dislike Ubuntu Server (not least because I think disabling root and having sudo < [user password] is just the worst security policy you could have for super user access).
sudo passwd root
First thing I type on any ubuntu box, not having full root access gives me the shakes :P.
DanielWilliamson
16-01-12, 12:20
Ninja edited before you quoted :P.
Arch is just for johnny-come-lately wannabees who feel like they are 'pro haxxors' because they have compiled something. I got bored of typing ./configure && make && make_install a long time ago, tyvm :P. I'm quite happy to use apt-get instead.
Actually that's a bit harsh, I've nothing really against Arch. Although the undeserved smugness of many of it's advocates does annoy me at times.
Are you confusing Arch users with Gentoo users there Andy? 4 days of compiling hell etc, never again. I use Arch because it's stable and you don't have to do anything, it sustains itself. I must admit the only thing I miss in Arch is Aptitude as Pacman does feel slightly more 'geeky' and I have to remember more.
OMG you're a ninja :(
Yeah as I said above I was thinking of gentoo. I'll probably try arch again, but tbh for servers I'm very happy with debian, and for a linux workstation which to me is just a pretty background on which to paint terminal windows, they are all much of a muchness, so I'm quite happy with mint at the moment as a simple-to-install distro. Moved away from ubuntu desktop because of unity, rather than any problem with it in the wider sense.
Will probably have to hop distos again in a while though in order to move back to xfce or some other non-gnome3-or-unity desktop environment.
DanielWilliamson
16-01-12, 12:30
First thing I do on mint is: sudo apt-get install xfce
I just can't get used to GNOME3.
I have used arch, but not for long. Think I was mixing it up a little with gentoo there. Slackware I'm very familiar with, that was where I started out on linux :).
I used to run Slackware for a good number of years too. These days I pretty much just run Arch and FreeBSD, but Slack I love(d).
True, I really meant ./configure && make && make install && make modules_install - but as I said it's a long time since I've needed to compile the kernel, and I don't really miss doing it :P.
I'm with you on that one :)
sudo passwd root
First thing I type on any ubuntu box, not having full root access gives me the shakes :P.
You still have the broken sudo account that needs fixing plus (and christ only knows why) Ubuntu's odd method of having user's group being the user name.
I know it can all be fixed, but I'd sooner work with something that wasn't broken to start with.
I've tried Ubuntu Server before and (in my opinion at least) pretty much everything it does is completely backwards from how a server should be set up. At least with Ubuntu desktop, it's intended to be a dumbed down OS (which again isn't to my tastes but at least that's just personal preference rather than a professional disagreement)
and heres me just thinking ..linux was well... linux...lol...
Casual Mint for me lol....
You may well be right, I've never used it in a serious context, I just ran it on my home fileserver for a couple of years, so beyond getting it installed and getting samba working etc I probably didn't pay much attention :P.
Edit: Joker, hehe nah it's a little more complicated than that:
http://www.totalprograms.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/linuxdistrotimeline.jpg
:P
DanielWilliamson
16-01-12, 12:41
and heres me just thinking ..linux was well... linux...lol...
Casual Mint for me lol....
I think 90% of the Linux stuff is good, because it's basically a bunch of thinkers and hackers and developers making their own stuff, changing stuff and allowing proper freedom of choice which is something you can't get with Apple/Microsoft.
Unfortunately as with anything it also comes with a lot of elitism in the *nix community. I remember back in 2006 when I first used Linux I recursively deleted everything because I was told it would install my wi-fi driver. Yeah that was fun.
I think 90% of the Linux stuff is good, because it's basically a bunch of thinkers and hackers and developers making their own stuff, changing stuff and allowing proper freedom of choice which is something you can't get with Apple/Microsoft.
Unfortunately as with anything it also comes with a lot of elitism in the *nix community. I remember back in 2006 when I first used Linux I recursively deleted everything because I was told it would install my wi-fi driver. Yeah that was fun.
Funny enough yesterday someone on IRC was trying to detach a remote login (someone who is Linux-savvy) so I jokingly suggested init 0 only to be followed by him disconnecting from chat.
Not that I'm in any position to comment as last week I accidentally deleted everything in /dev because I forgot to add a prefixing dot when trying to remove an old web development directory on a works dev server. :picard:
So we all fall for stupid mistakes. :o
You may well be right, I've never used it in a serious context, I just ran it on my home fileserver for a couple of years, so beyond getting it installed and getting samba working etc I probably didn't pay much attention :P.
Edit: Joker, hehe nah it's a little more complicated than that:
http://www.totalprograms.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/linuxdistrotimeline.jpg
:P
http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/uploads/11.10/gldt1110.svg
^ this is well worth a look too (plus has clickable links to read more)
The thing about Linux that annoys me ....is the fact it does have a Geek/UberNerd reputation...... when in fact as an alternate OS its bloddy great!! as far as i was concerned I need to install an OS onto my surfing DL PC and got Mint off a Mag cover disk.....My thoughts were Ooooo that will do until I can get hold of a proper OS.....that was over 12 months ago....and its still there doing exactly what I want it to do.....
In my opinion for what most of us want to do with an OS some varients of Linux are not a million miles away from what we have been brain washed into with Microsoft....
/mytuppenceworth.com
The thing about Linux that annoys me ....is the fact it does have a Geek/UberNerd reputation...... when in fact as an alternate OS its bloddy great!! as far as i was concerned I need to install an OS onto my surfing DL PC and got Mint off a Mag cover disk.....My thoughts were Ooooo that will do until I can get hold of a proper OS.....that was over 12 months ago....and its still there doing exactly what I want it to do.....
In my opinion for what most of us want to do with an OS some varients of Linux are not a million miles away from what we have been brain washed into with Microsoft....
/mytuppenceworth.com
I completely agree.
Also the vast array of different and largely incompatible distributions are a complete nightmare for all but the uber nerds.
Yup this was the good thing about ubuntu really, it was doing good work in producing an accessible UI which was familiar to people who had got used to windows 95/XP/7. I think it's a shame they decided to be 'uber trendy' and force the whole distro into 'tablet-friendly' mode, but Mint is now gaining a lot of users from them, and is another good straightforward distro, pretty much carrying on where ubuntu left off.
Yup this was the good thing about ubuntu really, it was doing good work in producing an accessible UI which was familiar to people who had got used to windows 95/XP/7. I think it's a shame they decided to be 'uber trendy' and force the whole distro into 'tablet-friendly' mode, but Mint is now gaining a lot of users from them, and is another good straightforward distro, pretty much carrying on where ubuntu left off.
Ubuntu wasn't the first to do this. There's been loads from Lindows (which tried to emulate Windows) through to Mandrake (which was very much Linux but simplified).
In fact in it's day, Mandrake was a million times better than Ubuntu is/was. Sadly Ubuntu had the capital (aka Mark Shuttleworth) that the other beginner Linux's never had.
GSVRasputin
16-01-12, 14:07
Mandrake in the form of Mandriva is still about and still very good. I used it on my laptop until about a week ago and I am sorely tempted to go back to it. The only issue is that Flash Player is not in their repos, which could put new users off it.
Yeah I know it (ubuntu) wasn't the first. Can't really argue with the fact that it was by far the most successful, however, and even if that was only because it was backed by a company prepared to spend on the PR, it still got linux on the desktop of a lot of new people.
Mandrake in the form of Mandriva is still about and still very good. I used it on my laptop until about a week ago and I am sorely tempted to go back to it. The only issue is that Flash Player is not in their repos, which could put new users off it.
It's not a patch on what it used to be and is very likely to go bankrupt (http://www.osnews.com/story/25490/Mandriva_Faces_Bankruptcy_-_Again) (again)
Yeah I know it (ubuntu) wasn't the first. Can't really argue with the fact that it was by far the most successful, however, and even if that was only because it was backed by a company prepared to spend on the PR, it still got linux on the desktop of a lot of new people.
Could afford the PR, more like. From what I've read Shuttleworth runs Ubuntu at a huge loss, but as he's a multimillionaire, he has deep pockets.
But yeah, it does brink Linux to the masses - for which I appreciate :)
GSVRasputin
16-01-12, 14:29
Yeah I know it (ubuntu) wasn't the first. Can't really argue with the fact that it was by far the most successful, however, and even if that was only because it was backed by a company prepared to spend on the PR, it still got linux on the desktop of a lot of new people.
That is a very good point, I am not a fan of ubuntu. I don't like the look and feel of Gnome and find Kubuntu a little buggy for my liking, but you can't argue with the fact that Ubuntu brought Linux into homes that Fedora, OpenSuse, Arch and Debian just couldn't.
Yeah Shuttleworth made most of his money from Thawte I think, an SSL Cert company which he founded then flogged to Verisign. Like you I don't agree with everything (or even much) of what he does, but at least he's pushing to improve takeup of linux. I'm even prepared to accept that his 'tabletisation' of the desktop with Unity might be a good thing in the long term, it's just that for me as a user running two high-res monitors it's bloody useless :P.
Yeah Shuttleworth made most of his money from Thawte I think, an SSL Cert company which he founded then flogged to Verisign. Like you I don't agree with everything (or even much) of what he does, but at least he's pushing to improve takeup of linux. I'm even prepared to accept that his 'tabletisation' of the desktop with Unity might be a good thing in the long term, it's just that for me as a user running two high-res monitors it's bloody useless :P.
I will say this: the early previews of UbuntuTV look awesome.
I might hate Ubuntu on both the server and desktop, but the slides of UbuntuTV made me giddy :D
GSVRasputin
16-01-12, 14:39
Yeha I watched Nixie Pixel's preview of Ubuntu TV and it does look interesting. OpenSource TV, whatever next :)
It's not entirely new, MythTV has done all that kind of stuff for ages, and XBMC etc can be coerced into working with DVB tuners etc. However, mythTV is unfortunately held together with hope and double-sided sticky tape, and has a nasty habit of being horrendous to manage and get working (thinking particularly of horrible problems relating to client/server version number incompatibilities when I ran it last) so it will be good to have someone with resources getting behind a project like that.
It's not entirely new, MythTV has done all that kind of stuff for ages, and XBMC etc can be coerced into working with DVB tuners etc. However, mythTV is unfortunately held together with hope and double-sided sticky tape, and has a nasty habit of being horrendous to manage and get working (thinking particularly of horrible problems relating to client/server version number incompatibilities when I ran it last) so it will be good to have someone with resources getting behind a project like that.
I run XBMC on all of my media centres and have dabbled with MythTV in the past (nothing serious mind). More recently though, I've seen MythTV plugins for XBMC, which look rather interesting.
I have very few complaints about XBMC (I absolutely love it), but UbuntuTV does look fab.
Yeah also generally happy with XBMC, but I would certainly slap UbuntuTV on a thumb drive and give it a try, at the very least.
GSVRasputin
16-01-12, 15:09
XBMC is very pretty, I only had two issues with it first and most important, it always opened on my primary monitor and not the secondary one (TV) and secondly I could not see a way of seperating one group of video files from the others(if you get my meaning). Other than that I had a great out of the box Xp. But due to the issues I reverted back to SMplayer.
I had never heard of MythTV, is it worth to look into once I am home from work?
MythTV is less of a media centre (although it does provide some of that sort of functionality) and more aimed at handling TV channels for a PC with tuner cards in. It can act as a PVR, recording shows for you on a schedule you set up, etc. It's good but it's a lot less pretty and a lot more 'clunky' to set up than XBMC. If it works then great, but if it doesn't it can require a fair bit of technical knowledge to fix.
The clever thing about mythTV is that it runs on a client/server model and can stream TV/recordings to other devices in your house. Unfortunately the windows clients are (or at least, were) all third party and a bit rough and ready.
XBMC is very pretty, I only had two issues with it first and most important, it always opened on my primary monitor and not the secondary one (TV) and secondly I could not see a way of seperating one group of video files from the others(if you get my meaning). Other than that I had a great out of the box Xp. But due to the issues I reverted back to SMplayer.
I'm very fussy about how my content is organised so I have my videos sorted by file system hierarchy rather than video file meta data. This would get around your issue too. The only drawback is you then cannot use media centres like Boxee which demand content be organised by meta data and ignore file system hierarchy :(
Yeah also generally happy with XBMC, but I would certainly slap UbuntuTV on a thumb drive and give it a try, at the very least.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/01/how-to-install-ubuntu-tv-right-now-via-ppa/
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/01/how-to-install-ubuntu-tv-right-now-via-ppa/
You are a legend!
You are a legend!
At least you and Andy might know what to do with a PPA lol..... I never heard of it until now...and if as I think its looking at the integrated TV market....I would get that in a heartbeat...looks so much easier than the likes of Samsung SmartTv or whatever its called...
Read through all of this very interesting. I know its a GUI but I was intrigued, I prefer it without a GUI tbh, and I will run it like that on the server (this is through VirtualBox atm)
Anyone know how to set it up to automatically back up computers?
So the server will be running, and then I want it to back up all of the computers in my house (all running Windows 7 except my Dad's which is Lubuntu.) at a set time, but only the files that have been changed. How would I do that through the command line? And how do I get rid of the GUI?
Generally you'd do that from the client. You'd want to have samba set up on the server with a 'backup share'. Then on the clients you would mount the 'backup' share using windows 'map network drive' mechanism. Then you'd run either a simple script or a more complicated backup tool on the client to copy everything you want to back up onto the servers share. Simplest strategy is to just do a full backup each night, more advanced strategies involve incremental backups.
To do it the way you describe, you'd do the reverse - share out the relevent drives from the windows clients, mount those shares on the linux box using smbfs or similar, then run a regular script to copy files from the shares.
There are also probably open source applications which will do this in a more sophisticated way similar to enterprise backup software, I'm just outlining a rough-and-ready solution really above.
I don't really do backups like this, I just train myself and my family to keep anything they really don't want to lose on the shared drive, which is RAIDed and therefore not likely to die due to drive loss. And anything we REALLY, REALLY don't want to lose (family pics etc) gets burned to DVD also.
I don't really do backups like this, I just train myself and my family to keep anything they really don't want to lose on the shared drive, which is RAIDed and therefore not likely to die due to drive loss. And anything we REALLY, REALLY don't want to lose (family pics etc) gets burned to DVD also.
^ this except remote backup (a box in a datacentre somewhere in France) rather than DVD
Generally you'd do that from the client. You'd want to have samba set up on the server with a 'backup share'. Then on the clients you would mount the 'backup' share using windows 'map network drive' mechanism. Then you'd run either a simple script or a more complicated backup tool on the client to copy everything you want to back up onto the servers share. Simplest strategy is to just do a full backup each night, more advanced strategies involve incremental backups.
To do it the way you describe, you'd do the reverse - share out the relevent drives from the windows clients, mount those shares on the linux box using smbfs or similar, then run a regular script to copy files from the shares.
There are also probably open source applications which will do this in a more sophisticated way similar to enterprise backup software, I'm just outlining a rough-and-ready solution really above.
I don't really do backups like this, I just train myself and my family to keep anything they really don't want to lose on the shared drive, which is RAIDed and therefore not likely to die due to drive loss. And anything we REALLY, REALLY don't want to lose (family pics etc) gets burned to DVD also.
I understood that sort of (just starting out with Linux command line tbh). So I could set up the computers to mount onto the server and then I can set it up to just update the files that are there?
Sounds possible, will be fun :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.