Re: [Computerbank] CBAUS BUILD

["Greg White" <glwhite@netconnect.com.au>]

Getting down to a number of basic installs for differing architectures and
needs, makes sense.  Rather than doing custom installs all of the time.

greg


----- Original Message -----
From: Raul <rauly@bigpond.net.au>
To: Dale Long <dalel@loftuscomp.com.au>; computerbank
<computerbank@lists.linux.org.au>
Cc: CBSA <cbsa@linunix.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Computerbank] CBAUS BUILD


> > Feedback from everyone is important and all input is valued.
> >
> > Options and issues include, but are not limited to:
> > Distribution to base CBAUS build on.
> > How we deal with low end and mid range hardware - do we do different
> >   installs or just say "only run Abiword on your 486" when Star Office
is
> >   installed as well (just an example).
> > Do we focus on the same apps as teh environment they are built for.
> > How do we handle printing.
> > How do we deal with document compatabilities.
> > What file system we use.
> > How we partition a hard disk (/ and /home - for system and recips'
data?).
>
> We're already arguing such issues of distributions elsewhere, so I don't
> want to add to that with discussions of ext2 and one root partition. We
can
> vote of stuff like that if necessary anyway.
>
> The bad news is that I disagree to your approach and think we should
tackle
> it from a different angle. Namely I think we should work at getting a
> higher-level idea together of the key systems and then work of the low
level
> details. The idea is not fight over detail now, but once we have more
> detail.
>
> I will explain where I am comming from. This may not be directly related,
> but hopfully will offer some background to what I am proposing.
>
> Firstly, the process will require a few different players:
>
> 1. Clients make requests for Computerbank assistance
>
> 2. Meeting between clients and a Computerbank solution architect to work
out
> how we can best serve the client. The solution architect works with a few
> basic system components and constructs the required system from that (they
> know nothing of hardware, software, or any distribution issues. They know
> that it is free, linux, and what it will allow them to do). They come up
> with ideas like "you need a few workstations to share an Internet
> connection".
>
> 3. System builders get a request from the solution architect to put
together
> the machines. Making best use of available resources they load base
systems
> and do site customisations (eg. hostnames, ip's, hardware config). If any
> additional development is required (eg. login scripts, integration work)
can
> be performed there and onsite.
>
> Such an approach says that you don't tell end users that they are getting
> "Abiword, Galeon, on KDE", but rather a computer with a "word processor
and
> web browser".
>
> ** Ideally we should have a look at all of the machines CB has built so
far
> and work out how much diversity and functionality is required. **
>
> Ignoring that smart idea, I will just have a crack at it myself.
Ultimately
> I have a sneaking suspicion we could get away with just a handful of
> standard installs to work from! ;)
>
> My guess would be:
>
> Internet Gateway (self explaining)
> => (LRP?|smoothwall?)?, squid, modem+ppp dialing, webmin, caching DNS,
email
> server?, apache (Internet hosting?), DHCP?
>
> Internet machine/kiosk (dumbed down for just web surfing)
> => X, web browser, email client, news client
>
> Stand alone X (general workstation for browsing and simple word processing
> etc.)
> => X, Abiword/gcalc/email client -> lightweight office, web browser, print
> services?
>
> Office (for actual business workstation use?)
> => X, (Gnome|KDE), OpenOffice, web browser, print services
>
> File server (for more business style scenarios)
> => samba, apache (intranet), maybe NFS boot/X client setup/VNC host?,
> Internet proxy, DHCP, print server
>
> I'm not sure if such a decision has been previous made, but if we could
> agree on such high level configs, we could then get down to the issue of
> exact packages to install and what is in/out.
>
> That's my contribution for now. Other notes is to just keep it really
simple
> with stable packages, only one version of things, and no unecessary tools.
>
> Implementation would be to have package lists that we simply apply for
each
> machine type and keep a record of those for maintenance/urgent upgrades.
>
> So let me know how crazy an idea that is!?!?
>
> _______________________________________________
> computerbank mailing list
> computerbank@lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/computerbank
>

_______________________________________________
computerbank mailing list
computerbank@lists.linux.org.au
http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/computerbank