[Freedombox-discuss] FBx Configuration Management

[Michael Williams]

I don't think we should start trimming features just because we think
heavy usage might be too much for the hardware. If we make a per-user
solution now, it doesn't really add overhead for single user cases
that we can use now on dreamplug servers, and it would be really
useful to have good multi-user configuration management on
non-dreamplug servers or future plug servers.

Michael

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Brian Drake <Brian at drakewolf.net> wrote:
> My experience with the dreamplug/ et all devices and having multiple power
> users is not great.  I really don't believe they are powerful enough to hold
> multiple virtual hosts (would love to be proved wrong)
>
> It was fine for lightweight use but as soon as any kind of heavy IO activity
> kicked in there was none of the good shared resource capability of a full
> powered desktop/server.  One person doing a lot of IO and the thing would
> pretty much halt and wait for it be over before moving along.  One person,
> when you are the one telling it to do X, will be patient with the occasional
> slow down.  When you don't know that X is happening it gets really
> frustrating, really quickly.
>
> Brian Drake
> Austin Texas
> 512.850-6326
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/brndrakeecoit
> Schedule a Meeting:  http://tungle.me/briandrake
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:46 AM, <bnewbold at robocracy.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Michael Williams wrote:
>>
>>> To add to what you said, I think we should definitely have fine
>>> grained access control to system-wide configuration. The idea of a
>>> shared server resource between individuals has been dawning on me, so
>>> I really want a way for people to share their FBx with other people,
>>> and still let everyone configure their own services. This same concept
>>> should expand to any type of server, not just plug servers.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the reply!
>>
>> To me the most appealing way to have multiple hosted individuals on a
>> single box would be to create lightweight virtual machine containers for
>> them so that each user gets a proper login and can fully customize their
>> environment. I don't know if this is feasible on the DreamPlug hardware, I
>> ran in to trouble getting LXC up and running.
>>
>> I don't know anything about existing strong access control mechanisms for
>> systems configuration (windows registry? d-bus? something gnome? android?),
>> and it seems like too much to build in a day or two, so next week i'll
>> probably just go ahead with a single user system.
>>
>>
>>> About the current Plinth set-up, I'm interested in making a per-module
>>> platform using zeromq (http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all) and zerorpc
>>> (https://github.com/dotcloud/zerorpc-python) instead of python
>>> modules. I like the idea of allowing services to be written in any
>>> language they want, as long as they abide by a common message-passing
>>> protocol. I can imagine the topology being:
>>>
>>> client -> front-end -> per-user service -> per-user/per-module service
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> client -> front-end -> system-wide/per-module service.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand the motivation. I guess I assumed Plinth modules would
>> be very small user interface wrappers around existing services or tools
>> which are already written in many languages.
>>
>> -bryan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
>> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
>