Re: [cobalt-users] Features [WAS: administration - web or manual? ]

[Kris Dahl <kris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 1/5/00 12:57 AM, Daniel Osser at daniel@xxxxxx wrote:

> I would like to remind you all about the usage for cobalt products.
> 
> An easy to install, appliance which gives you the basic features needed in a
> microserver. Anything else is up to the user/administrator.

This is the product, yes.  But it HAS to support normal everyday things that
are expected for the web hosting business.  If its not implemented in the
interface then it has to be done manually.  Its not a choice, like "Oh, I
think that I'll go and create a backup utility for the Qube and the Raq that
actually work.  Seeing as I can do that currently with the web interface."

A server having a largely unusable backup interface?  What the hell is that?
It isn't called the "easy to use, easy to install server applicance that
will work always and never have a hard drive crash."

> Is it possible that just because it's a Linux machine a lot of people thinks
> that it should have all the features in the GUI that you have in shell???

No, but it expected that if Cobalt is suggesting that this can be used as a
serious server to compete with a stand alone server, that it needs to have
the features that allow it to do wo.
 
> You can hack away in shell, and make it do almost anything you can expect
> from a Linux server, but to have all this in the GUI would make it a lot
> more advanced than necessary for a wide range of users (and more expensive).

If I personally can make these interfaces, I think that a company with
Cobalt's resources can do it.  Unfortunately, I think that the technical and
development staff is tied up with supporting their products, and don't have
as much time to actually improve stuff that much.  Perhaps the allowing of
'plug-ins' that work with Cobalt's Interface would be a good idea.  Allow me
to create a tape backup system that plugs right into the admin interface?

> A lot of people don't buy a toaster to make tea or boil eggs, but everybody
> expects the Qube to do it all...
> 
> My own thoughts about the subject....
> 
> A qube is a qube, and a toaster is a toaster...

I'm not so much talking about the Qube... The Qube is a very good product,
and I don't use them for much more then they were designed for.  (Because
most everything was thought of--with the exception of a good backup util).
The Qube is a GREAT Intranet server.  The Raq2 in the current settings is a
GREAT server for hosting several small, not very complicated standard-type
sites.  It isn't, however, a fully featured web server--but I think it could
and SHOULD be one.  Perhaps the Raq3 is closer to what I want, but I don't
think that it really hits the price-performance mark the way the Raq2 did.

Don't get me wrong about all this--I am a fan of all the Cobalt products.  I
just find myself pounding my head against the table over the Raq2's
sometimes.  So close to being really great, yet not quite there for
demanding users.

-k