Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

cockpit-project.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 199 posts

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#181

Post by worksonmine »

kristopolous wrote: post #162
worksonmine wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God I hate these comments. "X exists so why would anyone ever build Y". Why not? Competition is good, think about it for a minute and I'm sure you'll figure out how.

Because open source is about collaboration, not wasting time with redundant effort

I disagree, options need to exist. Some full featured, others with a more minimal approach. Different languages, and different flavors. True democracy rarely works and catering to all users more often than not ends up in unmaintainable spaghetti.

People are allowed to create their own X even if thousands of options already exist.

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#182

Post by gbraad »

LanternLight83 wrote: post #73
gbraad wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be hosted without Systemd: sudo runuser -u cockpit-wsinstance -- /usr/libexec/cockpit-ws --port=9090 --for-tls-proxy

Thanks! Funnily enough, I don't think this matches the approach I tried from some GH issue back in the day :p And of course, we'd still need to reimplement many of the existing systemd-based modules. I wonder if the creation and maintenance of these modules (given the existing size and status of the ecosystem) is less-than-trivial in comparison to something like a set of NixOS config bindings. At the end of the day,…

This is also what is used by development and allows you to use codespaces or gitpod. I am pretty sure this is on GH also, as Martin and I recently discussed this.

Note: Not understanding the concerns with systemd or dbus. This works for major distros.

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#183

Post by all2 »

9dev wrote: post #175
all2 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong is the config file moved. If a sysadmin is used to a config file being somewhere they know, and then it disappears that can be extremely frustrating. Especially on a production system.

Which the sysadmin knows, because they reviewed the changelog for the major system upgrade they just did. You wouldn’t install a new major version of a database without any precautions either, right?

> because they should have reviewed the changelog

I.. uhh.. Yeah.

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#184

Post by [deleted] »

9dev wrote: post #177
serf wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I get there is an important reason to have choice, but bragging about how you don't use systemd is just meme-y and comes from a place of (misplaced) elitism usually. I think you're projecting. No one bragged about such a thing, they just merely mentioned their specific situation. It's not all text-editor-wars and squabbles, as stated and even acknowledged before : there exist reasons aside from nerd elitism to choos…

> there exist reasons aside from nerd elitism to choose something other than systemd. name one.

[deleted]

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#185

Post by [deleted] »

9dev wrote: post #177
serf wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I get there is an important reason to have choice, but bragging about how you don't use systemd is just meme-y and comes from a place of (misplaced) elitism usually. I think you're projecting. No one bragged about such a thing, they just merely mentioned their specific situation. It's not all text-editor-wars and squabbles, as stated and even acknowledged before : there exist reasons aside from nerd elitism to choos…

> there exist reasons aside from nerd elitism to choose something other than systemd. name one.

[deleted]

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#186

Post by k_roy »

serf wrote: post #70
k_roy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we still fighting systemd? Why beyond being different? Proudly announcing "but I don't use systemd" seems less like a humblebrag and more like an old man "get off my lawn"

it's not a statement of pride, it's a statement of fact : this doesn't support systemd. there are a lot of decisions that go into using older/obscure/specific software aside from 'pride', and simply wishing that some software supported other stuff is by no means 'fighting' anything.

No projection here:

"Love it-- but since I'm not using systemd, it's a no-go. Would love to see it support more diverse systems"

That poor lack of diversity.

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#187

Post by dralley »

dingi wrote: post #161
_joel wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why to hell with podman? I'd rather use something not encumbered by shady licenses.

Because docker works and I know it. I don't want to change my infra just because some corporation had NIH. Besides they all are just OCI runtimes.

> because some corporation had NIH

It was the opposite of NIH. Red Hat had a bunch of features that their customers wanted Docker to have, like custom image registries and daemonless, but docker wouldn't accept the pull requests adding them.

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#188

Post by 9dev »

all2 wrote: post #183
9dev wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which the sysadmin knows, because they reviewed the changelog for the major system upgrade they just did. You wouldn’t install a new major version of a database without any precautions either, right?

> because they should have reviewed the changelog I.. uhh.. Yeah.

No, seriously, my point is: can you blame anyone else if you don’t?

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#189

Post by [deleted] »

9dev wrote: post #175
all2 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong is the config file moved. If a sysadmin is used to a config file being somewhere they know, and then it disappears that can be extremely frustrating. Especially on a production system.

Which the sysadmin knows, because they reviewed the changelog for the major system upgrade they just did. You wouldn’t install a new major version of a database without any precautions either, right?

[deleted]

Re: Cockpit: Web-based graphical interface for servers

#190

Post by xupybd »

belthesar wrote: post #128
jameshart wrote: post #107

People who decry graphical admin interfaces in favor of command line are missing the wood for the trees. Sure, clickops is no way to run a server - but neither, if we’re honest, is ssh. For a working machine, server state should be reproducible from scratch. Install an OS, add software, apply configuration, leave well alone. If you’re going in with ssh or cockpit you’re just going to screw something up. So the only r…

This assumes that you're running in an environment where your servers are cattle and not pets, and in all fairness, not everyone is running large scale web platforms on some orchestration platform. I don't disagree that, even in a pets world one should know how to restore/rebuild a system, because without that, you don't have a sound BDR strategy.

I maintain 3 servers. It's not worth automating the deployment.

I'll spend less time just setting them up by hand.

The company will survive a few hours of downtime.

Post reply on HN