There’s been a lot of ink spilled—er, pixels fired—about Canonical’s decision not to offer a graphical interface in the server edition. The debate is understandable. After all, given Canonical’s professed commitment to ease of use, it might seem a bit strange that Ubuntu Server Edition should not come with some kind of desktop environment by default.
The reasons for making the server edition command line interface (CLI)-only are logical enough. Above all, it’s ideal for experienced system administrators who want their machines to be as lean and secure as possible. Graphical interfaces waste disk space and RAM and are a liability—they represent one more thing that can go wrong to bring the server down, and one more potential gateway into the system for attackers to exploit.
By Your Command
On the other hand, a CLI-only interface is next to useless to most modern computer users, including many skilled system administrators trained in the Windows tradition. This has led to accusations that Ubuntu has no real product to compete with Windows Server, especially in the small-business market, where IT staff tend to be less experienced than those managing an enterprise environment—see the comments on Alan Pope’s post on this site regarding Ubuntu Easy Business Server for examples of such charges.
Existing data regarding Ubuntu Server Edition use tells a different story, however. A survey by Canonical from last summer indicates that, at least among the respondents (who were drawn only from those who requested Ubuntu Server Edition on CD, which by Canonical’s admission skews the data), Ubuntu enjoys wider use on servers among small to mid-sized businesses That’s the kind of environment traditionally dominated by Microsoft products like Windows Small Business Server.
The most popular use for Ubuntu in these organizations, moreover, is for serving files. This is a bit surprising, since one might expect to see Windows (with native samba and a pretty GUI to manage it) deployed in this context more than Ubuntu.
Nonetheless, this statistic, combined with Ubuntu’s popularity for other small-office tasks like print-serving and data backup, attests to Ubuntu Server Edition’s ability to compete with Windows despite lacking a GUI in its default configuration.
Small Business Momentum?
Naturally, this single survey is no concrete proof that Ubuntu, despite claims to the contrary, is a real player in the small-business-server market. But it suggests that it might be, and a lengthier survey regarding Ubuntu Server Edition currently in progress will hopefully shed more light on the question.
And it may well turn out that, despite what Microsoft has urged us to believe for two decades, life without a GUI is possible, even for those of us who aren’t hardcore hackers.
WorksWithU Contributing Blogger Christopher Tozzi is a PhD student at a major U.S. university. Tozzi has extensive hands-on experience with Ubuntu Server Edition and Ubuntu Desktop Edition.
WorksWithU is updated multiple times per week. Don’t miss a single post. Sign up for our RSS and Twitter feeds (available now) and newsletter (launching January 2009).
Don't miss Charlene O'Hanlon's weekly columns...
A server with a GUI is _just wrong_. I can understand why a new admin might want it but I think in this case well thought out and scripted wizards in a Webmin like tool are a far better use of resources than a full blown GUI, even something as light as Xfce, or even lighter. Server editions of both OS X and Windows have the ability to drop down to headless mode these days, and MS itself is moving away from GUI tools. A fair quantity of the AD tools in even 2003 require CLI knowledge especially if you go on and certification (netdom etc.). Windows Server 2008 will be even more so.
Ubuntu is starting in a strong position in the fact that even with a GUI on the Desktop, in reality it’s just driving pre-existing CLI tools. More sane default setups and autodetection, some more polishing of the debconf configs and a https interface and it’s a winner IMHO.
Felim: I respect your opinion. But do you want Ubuntu Server Edition to eventually compete head-on with Windows Server? If so, you’re gonna need that GUI to appease resellers, integrators, certified NT pros, and the geek squad folks who run around fixing Windows servers.
Well, I got a Ubuntu server as a VPS for one of the open-source projects I work on. I already have a built-in GUI for manipulating files – just use the places -> connect to server tool.
Probably would be nicer if Synaptic worked in this “remote” mode, but the resource waste is understandable :-/
However, there is this very big point that quite a lot of people would be expecting a GUI, and curse if there is none.
You should have the option for the GUI. In the install process it should ask you if you want a GUI or Headless and go from there.
Sometimes using a GUI for moving files and renaming stuff is just more easy when you are in a pinch. Also without a GUI Ubuntu server will never reach the small business and workgroup market that MS SBS has.
Webmin is good but most people are used to using Windows and can’t get the hang of Webmin.
Also some guy that just need a workgroup server for file sharing and print sharing etc wants the ease of point and click that MS and Apple offer. Xandros has this down and I would use Xandros server in place of Windows if it were not for the cost.
Xandros server asks you in the install process to set up your workgroup (Domain) like Windows and then asks you if you want the GUI to run at start up. You can say no to save the resources but you can run it from the CLI later if you need it.
On places where I have Xandros server running people really seem to like it. It’s as easy to use as Windows and and Bridgeways is slick.
Joe Panettieri: You ask the question: “do you want Ubuntu Server Edition to eventually compete head-on with Windows Server?”
I think you have that backwards – Windows has been trying to gain on the Linux server market for years. No experienced admin, in any corporation would even THINK of having X loaded on a server – if Ubuntu did it by default with no easy way to disable that, Ubuntu would surely fail in the Server market for sure.
Just look at Windows Server 2008 – they FINALLY give the option to install in “Core” mode (sans GUI) – they FINALLY realized that admins do not want nor need a GUI on a server – just as Linux servers have run for years.
Basically – in a nutshell, if you don’t know the CLi, you shouldn’t be the admin of a Linux system (especially in an corp. environment) PERIOD!
Really, I don’t understand the fuss about the GUI, it’s perfectly possible to have a desktop with GUI tools installed and only call for it when you need it… via startx. After you finish what you’re doing just kill X and voilá!!! … the die-hard UNIX purists won’t even notice your sin! …and at the cost of a couple of hundred more MB of disk space in, let’s say, a terabyte setup.
In my humble opinion, the user should have the option of a GUI at the time of installation (of course you can always install it afterwards), and I’ll bet that we will see a lot more of Ubuntu server installs, and therefore, a lot more jobs for GNU/Linux capable people.
I would prefer that Ubuntu Server includes an option (like they do for which services to install) to include a basic GUI; Gnome, a few system admin tools and no desktop-orientated applications.
They could probably do it without taking up a lot of space and it is up to the installer to choose.
I think that would probably be better than the one-app-for-all-configuration approach that SUSE uses with Yast (which isn’t bad overall).
I agree with Nelson. Just because a GUI is available doesn’t mean it runs full-time. Ubuntu should cater to the market as it exists, not try to reshape the market to match its beliefs about what should or should not be installed on a server. Leave that up to the admins. Give them the option to install the GUI. Options are good, right?
An option during installation sounds like the best idea (ie. when your picking if you want a LAMP or DNS server installed, etc..). Tools like eBox I think is the way to go though (kind of like webmin, but webmin, in my experience, sucks for non-redhat based systems). eBox is built specifically for Ubuntu and you connect to it through the browser. The perfect solution for small business’s would be to sell a pre-built box with Ubuntu & eBox installed, basically you tell people to plug it in and go to https://ebox from their browser — for some small businesses this server box could be an mini-itx style case which will only use up about 12w, have no display to eat up power, and the 1 or 2 gigs of ram can be better used since there is no GUI.
Like I said though maybe having an option for a GUI is an alright idea, but having it out of the box they can say goodbye to most their current server users. Seriously you think Wikipedia would have thought about using Ubuntu Server if it came out the box with a GUI? What use would that be when 99% of the servers aren’t even hooked up to monitors?
JJ @5: I still think the GUI is critical, but I appreciate your perspective.
No GUI. The option is always there via “sudo aptitude install x-window-system-core gnome-core”. ANY respectable admin knows this. ANY haff-a**ed descent admin knows how to look it up on the web. Otherwise, do you really want this person handling you servers?
I agree that it leaves something to be desired when compared to Windows Server. Possibly Canonical could do this:
- Ubuntu Server Edition – as is
- Ubuntu Server GUI Edition – server + gnome
I think it is pretty silly to do this, but if it works, then why not?
What I really think Ubuntu needs an “Enterprise” Edition, just like the Desktop edition, but customized for work environments, with support for connecting to the Server. I think if Canonical or a 3rd party came out with this it would make huge inroads into the business arena.
I really like Dragonbite’s suggestion. Add an option to install a GUI, with default no GUI. This could be very flexible, to install minimal X+GnomeCore, ubuntu-desktop, xfce, kde, etc. All these would not fit on a CD but it could download them from the net.
I hate to say it, but if Ubuntu wants to make inroads with Windows Admins, they will have to have a gui option to least install it.
I”m thinking something more XFCE with some basic tools to configure shares and LAMP and what ever else.
I remembered about this young project, a GUI for managing Apache: https://launchpad.net/rapache
don’t really understand the issue, if you want a gui, its very straightforward to install it after booting up the system…keep it as it is please.
“do you want Ubuntu Server Edition to eventually compete head-on with Windows Server?”
Ubuntu Server Edition doesn’t have to compete with Windows Server. Period.
“you’re gonna need that GUI to appease resellers, integrators, certified NT pros”
Ubuntu Server Edition does not have to “appease resellers”, its Free Software. Or “integrators”, or “certified NT pros”. No GNU/Linux distro owes any “certified NT pro” anything.
Frankly if you can’t handle a bash command line, then I don’t consider you qualified to administer any GNU/Linux server, graphical or not.
And Ubuntu Server Edition does not have to “make inroads with Windows Admins”. Windows admins need to learn some new skills and stop whining like illiterate users.
Its Free Software, it does not owe you anything. So stop with your whining people and get some skills that go beyond point and click.
The funny thing here is all the most popular server platforms use GUI’s. One of the reasons Novell Netware died was lack of GUI.
Windows server (GUI)
Red Hat Enterprise (Optional GUI)
Solaris (Optional GUI)
Apple Leopard Server (GUI)
Xandros Server (Optional GUI)
The other thing is all of the servers that have GUI’s or optional GUI’s also have GUI tools for managing not only the server but also the services on the server.
Eruaran: I’m not suggesting that Ubuntu Server Edition should try to compete head-on with Windows on all fronts. However, a GUI is a basic check mark … the most basic of features … that will allow Canonical to push Ubuntu beyond niche status.
I welcome your opinion but strong disagree when you say Ubuntu Server Edition does not need to appears resellers, integrators and certified NT pros.
The key for Ubuntu’s long-term health in the business market is a big ecosystem of certified partners that evangelize applications on Ubuntu for business.
Ty: You took the words right out of my mouth.
Personally I think this debate is a waste of time and energy. If you need a GUI in a Linux environment, server or desktop, then you can add one. If you don’t need it you can remove it.
It’s just not that big an issue.
Just having a GUI, though, isn’t enough. One thing CentOS (thus Red Hat) has included with their GUI is a couple tools for managing things that I haven’t found the same for in Ubuntu (general) or openSUSE.
You’re right. An OS without applications is like a car without wheels.
Seldom do I run a GUI on a USE. Most of the admin is done via Webmin. But do so from time to time because the underlying application requires it for administration. But even then, I use LXDE rather than Gnome. Its lighter weight and more responsive.
Although traditionally Linux servers do not have a GUI, as Linux (and Ubuntu Server) makes its way into the Datacenters of formerly MS only shops, with former Windows admins using it, I think we will see it more and more commonplace.
What we’ve been doing here is just installing “gnome-core” – just enough to get a workable GUI accessible via VNC.
For my customers that want to do some simple admin-work themselves, a GUI has to be there. Not all customers have the financial means to have a fulltime admin for their servers. So as long as Ubuntu does not offer a server edition with a GUI, I will install a desktop system, strip it a bit and install all server-software that I need on it. So my customer can be halfway selfsupporting.
I work for a large NGO in China and we never… and I mean NEVER… see IT candidates that can handle the command line… even after a few years of experience working at it I still have to write up commands for them to go execute on the servers. (after explaining apt-get and mount for the umpteenth times in 3 dialects, I’m just vpn’ing everything so I can sit my rump at my desk and do it all in one quick and easy go)
I’ve grown to love that wonderful little bash prompt, I hate installing a gui on a server (other than the webmin or ebox type). I just think the gui is one extra thing to break and/or suck resources; however, a server is only any good if you as the IT supervisor can take a vacation and leave the servers under the control of your staff. In the interest of being able to sit on a beach in Thailand I vote for a gui option, but by no means should it be mandatory. (assuming I don’t just sit on the beach and wifi any commands the servers really need over the vpn)
What would be so difficult to add a little blurb to debian-installer saying, “If you really want a gui to go with this, then after installation type sudo apt-get install gnome-desktop” ?
Or prompt for add-on packages?
I don’t see why a server installation package has to be all-encompassing. Then again, I don’t put gui’s on my servers.
You’d think that it’s just not acceptable to force someone to put a one-line command in to add a gui! Come on now, we’re lazy, but not that lazy!
@Jayson Rowe: I’ll have try out gnome-core next time!
Greetings to all self-centered sysadmins who set things up for themselves and not their customers – no doubt in fear they will lose their jobs! I want sysadmins who will put themselves in my shoes, use tools that I use, enable me to do routine chores myself and be more independent – If I can be empowered as a small business person to do all the routine things, I have more money for sysadmins to do more interesting things. I like webmin, I don’t find it any more difficult than XP stuff, and all I need the sysadmin to do is set it up! I don’t need X or a dumned down GUI, but I need to spend my time selling and marketing and paying the bills, something sysadmins can’t do. So if I fire some slacker for incompetence, I want immediate access to webmin to shut him out, I don’t want to wait for a sysadmin to do it. And, yes I want to shut out a nerdy sysadmin too. Aftrer all, it is my business, not his.
I agree for the most part with SourceView. In the end the server is there for the enhancement of user productivity in a business. I’m an IT consultant and I have used Windows, Apple, and Linux. Personally, I hate them all equally. They each have flaws but in the end, the product I recommend is the one that most effectively meets my clients’ needs and business goals. I like Ubuntu a lot but I’m not going to recommend it to someone who needs to use Adobe products or AutoCAD. As far as GUI on a server goes, its a personal matter. IT admins need to be familiar with the command line. It is a very scalable and in depth admin tool but to say no GUI is ever necessary is ignorance. Do what works for you and your users. If your users aren’t benefited by a product then its the wrong one to use.
I have used a product in the past called NetMax by CyberNet. It was an HTML interface that worked really well for Admin functions. This could be a solution to a Graphical Interface