More focus should be put on server installations
Trisquel at this point is pretty much a desktop only OS that cleans out the Ubuntu install and changes around some packages while blacklisting others. Its nice to have a libre desktop and all, but the developers should take the server space more seriously too.
I'm talking maybe a server ISO (like Ubuntu) and some official Docker containers. Since most of computing is moving "to the cloud" with our data being used and processed on the server, it would be nice to have the Trisquel team take that seriously. I would love for hosting companies like AWS, Digital Ocean, and Rackspace to deploy server images of Trisquel alongside CentOS and Ubuntu. Maybe they would consider it if the effort was put in by Ruben and others here to sustain it.
I have Trisquel on my own email/web server and I installed it using the network installer. The server is a KVM virtual server and not a cgroups jail.
Good for you. I can do the same thing, but hosting places want autonomy and simplicity with a pre-built image.
On 2014-11-12
name at domain wrote:
> Good for you. I can do the same thing, but hosting places want autonomy and
> simplicity with a pre-built image.
That's exactly why we have our own home servers - we can control what we put
there. Ruben already does a lot of work, I wouldn't add more burden. If you
feel what Trisquel offers isn't enougn for servers - maybe talk to your VPS
provider.
Personally I'm against the movement to the cloud and against centralization, so
to me Trisquel is an excellent server solution just like Debian.
If hosting providers want simplicity - they are free to get it for themselves
using their full-time paid developers :-)
I agree with fr33dom,
We should shy away from cloud-based computing because by promoting it, we are promoting the control over others. Setting up one's own server and own personal "cloud" is a way to fight this.
Peace,
grimlok
I swear most of you free software evangelists are stuck in your ways with viewpoints that are over a decade old. What is wrong with deploying a Docker container on a hosting company if you have total control of that container?
I don't think people need help (i.e. hosting companies) putting their e-mail, photos, videos, calendars, address books, messages, documents (and whatever else they might put on their server) to third parties. The Internet-using public already seems exceedingly efficient at doing that. Rather, self-hosting is the solution to the problems we experience of today (reference NSA), not continuing to outsource it. Please remember that such outsourcing is one of the two critical things that made mass surveillance possible. Despite this, some seem to think there is some magic way, that if it can just be done "right" somehow that a way could be found to both outsource their stuff and respect people's freedom, autonomy, and privacy all at the same time but it just isn't true. You can't both give your data to someone else and keep it at the same time.
I would never use cloud services for my personal files, but I see the value for web sites that may benefit from potential scalability.
Yeah, just don't expect privacy.
And having said that there are a lot of uses in which on is fine without it, just like how CCTVs might not be in one's house, but the police have a right to put them in public places. The important thing is users have the right to privately store it and thankfully that can still be practiced. Practicing that right isn't exactly a 10-year-old outdated thing.
Having said that, regarding the, ahem, server thing, yeah...I think there should be a server ISO.
Can you explain what a 'docker container' is? Never heard of it.
https://www.docker.com/whatisdocker/
There are containers for Ubuntu and would be nice for Trisquel as well.
> I swear most of you free software evangelists are stuck in your ways with viewpoints that are over a decade old.
Like time-sharing and main frame computers?
> What is wrong with deploying a Docker container on a hosting company if you have total control of that container?
The point is you never have total control if somebody else is hosting it.
Well, someone has to host it as most ISPs will not allow you to host a website from your home.
A self-hosted cloud isn't the same as a self-hosted website since you're the only one accessing it from outside and hence traffic is lower. Most isp allow it i guess.
The real problem is that it's a pain in the neck setting it up und maintaining the cloud in a secure way.
You have enough problems in your daily life and don't want to bother with updates for your cloud installation, server security, bugs and last but not least hardware issues of your server.
If you're privacy concerned, why not use encryption instead.
Deleted.