Do you install GUI on your Linux servers?

[katit]

I'm learning Linux hard way. Mostly I'm playing with CentOS7 because I need Linux for server apps and I need it to be stable, not cutting edge..

Anyway. I already setup stuff like Asterisk, basic Samba, basic Apache all with CLI on CentOS7 minimal install.

I also tried to install GUI version. From what I see many tasks can be greatly simplified (like firewall config) with GUI. However, I want server to be as stable as possible and with not much overhead.

So.. I'm thinking. What about init 3? I don't think it's a novel idea, but what if I install server with GUI and then set it to boot to level 3. This way it will be light-running server and if I need GUI - I can always start it, right? Do I miss anything?

Also, I know how to SSH to server. If I install with GUI, is there anything like RDP? And how would it work? First I would SSH, run startx, and then connect with other tool?

P.S. I understand GUI will take some space on drive, but other than that if it's not running, what do I miss?

 

[swerff]

Joe window manager is the lightest out there I think.

Xfce or lxde is next. Yes there's remote desktop software. I used vnc back in the day. But the links I had to manage over we're stupid slow, and I needed to get things done instead of watching pictures. So ssh it was.

I wrote alot of firewall scripts on an openbsd box with pf. All I used was vi. Wrote and configured rule sets all command line.

You really have no advantage, other than maybe surfing Web? And as far as bandwidth, you'll be pumping a lot of data just to look at dialogs. Professionally management rarely uses remote gui. Just too many downsides. Easier to ssh and execute your work remotely via a shell thats stupid simple and fast.
Combined with screen its all I need.

You need to understand the power of piping before you realize how powerful command line is...

You could take a bootable USB of Linux onto someone's laptop and dd and gzip ion the fly their entire hdd remotely to a 2nd box via encryption over a link and later snoop the contents.....

Do that on m$ or a gui? One single command with pipes.....

Having a piped stream of data into/out of programs can be powerful, useful or destructive.

Not to mention using Linux with a gui hides ALOT to learn and actually understand and realize what's going on behind the scenes.

Personally I've been using debian stable, and unstable for at home play.

 

[Patrick]

STH and the forums run on CentOS 6.x. Most of the servers I use in the lab are Ubuntu 14.04 LTS. I do use the GUI in a VM I use to download drivers/ documentation from URLs I do not trust fully. Easy to roll back a VM. I also have one box I use just as my Linux desktop box.

 

[swerff]

Patrick, Wget downloads urls?
I'm sure in the documentation it can use ssl too.

 

[Patrick]

Patrick, Wget downloads urls?
I'm sure in the documentation it can use ssl too.

Certainly do-able. I use it for virtually all driver downloads even trusted sources that I need to login/ click accept to access so they cannot be wget easily. Certainly not necessary, but is useful.

 

[swerff]

Yah, I link the session file from the gui box with:Firefox so the non gui box with Wget can mimic the session and grab the url without user/pass authentication.

 

[PigLover]

With Linux administration I've always found the first thing I do with the GUI is launch a terminal to do all the work in the CLI . So for servers I don't bother with a GUI any more. But then again I have a VERY old school Unix/Linux background. Newer learners might well be more comfortable with GUI-based tools.

There's also a lot of application-specific reasons to load the GUI. For example, Myth's configurator is GUI based - even if you are just running a Myth backend server you pretty much have to have the GUI available to configure it.

 

[swerff]

Myth as in myth TV? So does plex, I just use a box other then server itself to connect to plex and configure .

 

[TeeJayHoward]

I frequently use a GUI. I use a Windows box for my workstation, and I open multiple PuTTY windows with it!

I've not done it in over a decade, but you can direct X output to another server, or use something like vncserver. VNC's not as nice as RDP, but it's supported by just about everyone. It's "good enough" for a home network, but I wouldn't recommend it over a WAN.

 

[Patriot]

With Linux administration I've always found the first thing I do with the GUI is launch a terminal to do all the work in the CLI . So for servers I don't bother with a GUI any more. But then again I have a VERY old school Unix/Linux background. Newer learners might well be more comfortable with GUI-based tools.

There's also a lot of application-specific reasons to load the GUI. For example, Myth's configurator is GUI based - even if you are just running a Myth backend server you pretty much have to have the GUI available to configure it.

I do, but I also tend to have multiple terminals open when using it. And keep it logged out to get rid of overhead when I am not. All of the hard work is done at the cli.

 

[Biren78]

You're telling me nobody has a Linux desktop instance with web browsers just to check stuff works right?

 

[swerff]

Wait, you must check things on the same server box with a browser? Isn't tcp/ip routeable?


My Web server has a..... Web server....

2nd box with gui with browser...
Connects to the server to check things....

I can then ssh and edit configuration files, and once again, use gui client to hit the webserver to test....

Once again, I don't think a user interface is needed on a server.

Microsoft spoiled that scenario.

 

[katit]

OP here. As I said, I'm new to linux but not new to windows. So, all this command line stuff is hard. I do feel that I need to learn it just so I can feel "better" on the "other" side. And don't worry if I need to start a Linux server.

I realise (as I'm developer myself) that first people make services and then they might do GUI for it. But it's a Linux world. It's cool to create program. But NOT cool to program interfaces So, logically, GUI will be behind no matter what.

I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time in FS area. Copying files, creating folders, etc. I do get better, but still, I feel like I'm blind when I'm using CLI. Also, remembering all the command line tools is impossible. I won't be in Linux all the time and will forget stuff even if I learn it.

So, I don't mind using CLI, but I see real benefit in GUI for base stuff like:
1. Firewalld (I know how to deal with CL, but GUI works as good from what I see.
2. File system, moving, copying, sharing, useage, volumes, etc.
3. Services control (systemd) - see what's running, CPU/memory use, etc - all nice with a GUI

Just those things alone will speed up my use of Linux I think.
But I do not want to trade off system performance for GUI. So, I was wondering if I can somehow run GUI when I need it, and then "init 3" and make server run headless. From what I see there is no drawback or security issues in this approach. Maybe some extra space of hard drive, but that is no big deal.

 

[swerff]

Sounds like a want more then a need.

Services control, system monitoring, and file and folder administration can all be done at the command line.

Man pages are your friend. Tab tab (on a recent system with correct shell environment variables configured ) lists all available commands on the system.

Tab auto completion is the only way to really zip through 3ft wide command strings. Then if it gets to be a daily call, echo it to a file and then call a script to do the dirty work.

Installing on an old 486 with 32mb.ram, yeah killing x server was #1 on a dedicated headless box. These days no but if it's not needed, I don't waste the time installing it. I've never installed a gui on any of my server boxes that have no monitor.

Laptop and desktop are the only rigs with grfx call.


Again, more of a want then a need, back then or today.

Knock yourself out.

 

[TeeJayHoward]

Another option for you is to use the terminal-based GUI stuffs.
For example, on a SuSE system, type in "yast". You can perform most administrative functions inside that GUI, and you can do it remotely via SSH. Red Hat has something similar called "setup". You may need to install it if you do a minimal install, though.

 

[T_Minus]

I've been hosting customers, and managing my linux servers for ~16 years.
Never, not even once have I ever used a GUI for these. Locally, yes. But not daily or for servers.

The nearest I've gotten is the cPanel/WHM interface for the hosting server with multiple tenants.

Mostly launch putty, and go to town

 

[mstone]

this one time, I had to log in to a server that someone had installed a GUI on, but I was able to ctrl-alt-F1 to a console

 

[OBasel]

Don't distros like Ubuntu only have a livecd based on a GUI? I thought the 14.10 and 14.04 server images were install only.

I do a lot with livecds so that is a good reason to have a GUI up.

 

[TuxDude]

I always keep all my servers as slim as possible - I think one has a full GUI install because of a requirement that some users could get VNC sessions occasionally but otherwise they are all command line only. I use core edition on windows servers where possible as well.

One other option for remote GUI management of linux servers is to use X forwarding over an SSH connection. You can run the odd GUI application from the server without running an X server on the server. It's kind of like VNC or RDP but for just a single application.

 

[canta]

NO gui running on server, wasted cpu cycles and memory.