On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 10:44 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 10/28/2013 10:26 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 02:18 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> Sorry I am not sure what you mean here. If you mean the Server
>> image will never have a graphical UI I don't think we are all on
>> the same boat.
> For the first we dont have any graphical tools to manage our
> application stack secondly we should not be delivering products
> that allow for larger attack surface on servers then need be.
>> Not that I want to install such UI by default, but not all people
>> are comfortable managing headless servers, so the option almost
>> certainly needs to be there.
I agree that there will be situations where an administrator will want
to install a GUI on a server (even if it's just because they have one
machine in a rack that they use to fix things up when things go
Not only that, there are some applications that although they are
'server apps' they require a GUI even if just to install them.
stupid example but IIRC I remember things like game servers install
programs that would run only with the Graphical UI.
I also remember proprietary packages that would have a server component
that would need X to install.
Yes stupid things, but you can't discount them.
I am also thinking that installing openoffice in order to do server-side
rendering (doc conversions and so on) is going to drag in at least X
And even just the ability to run GUI + Browser some times may be needed.
Of course you can try to export the browser via X but it probably is
better to have a full desktop you can access locally or via VLC or
whatever will be used with Wayland in the future.
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York