FOG Status
-
[quote=“StylusPilot, post: 18377, member: 441”]
or take the approach from other embedded distro’s like FreeNAS or pfSense choose one underlying rock solid base (FreeBSD) and allow easy upgrades including the entire OS via the web UI.[/quote]
That still implies running an dedicated server for FOG. FOG is just some software that needs to be packed for the some of the ditros out there and that flaky installer dropped. Concentrate on the core business, please. -
[quote=“Adrian Zaugg, post: 18233, member: 3427”]I will love to have another server with another distro I have to learn again. And I am sure it will save a lot of time to the FOG developpers… No sorry, wrong way.[/quote]
Im prolly missing what you all mean by distro, but I am reading this as:
the FoG team pre-package a running fog install on Ubuntu 13.10 (or watever).OPTION 1
I download the new FoGuntu (FuBuntu, FogBuntu etc etc) as an ISO.
Install FogTu on new PC.
During install, fog asks a few questions (IP address, pretty much the current questions)
BAM. You have a running Ubuntu distro with Fog running.OPTION 2
Download an appliance. (An already sorted VM of the above.)Adrian Zaugg if youre already using Ubuntu, you wont need to “learn” anything else.
Or have I misread this?
The words “wrong way” are probably not the most accurate choice, as there isnt a wrong or right way for anyone do anything in these areas. Id say the Fog Devs can do what they want, and if we like it, we will use it…one man’s “right” way is another man’s taboo.
Its good you have strong opinions tho, keep up the active participation!
-
[quote=“drjam, post: 18414, member: 16842”]Im prolly missing what you all mean by distro, but I am reading this as:
the FoG team pre-package a running fog install on Ubuntu 13.10 (or watever).[/quote]If you read it as pre-packaging, then it is what I would call the right way. The contributers above wrote something from a distro like pfsense. A distro is not just packaged for a distro.
FOG should not make an asumption on what Linux- or *nix-System it will run, then there are many admins out there, that have this or another distro preference, some use Solaris or *BSDs. To release a distro for FOG also means, to have a dedicated machine for it, or you aren’t no more free to chose your beloved system.
Also it should be up to the admin to chose if in his scenario a dedicated machine does the job, or if it will run on an existing server, which does already other things. FOG is not a firewall, which should be on a dedicated machine. Also it should be up to the admin if he wants to have it in VM or not. With the suggestion of a distro or appliance you cut one or another of the ways to run FOG for an admin. This is in my opinion wrong.[quote=“drjam, post: 18414, member: 16842”]
The words “wrong way” are probably not the most accurate choice, as there isnt a wrong or right way for anyone do anything in these areas. Id say the Fog Devs can do what they want, and if we like it, we will use it…one man’s “right” way is another man’s taboo.[/quote]
Basically yes, but as it would be stupid and thus wrong to let pfsense run as a service on your internal auth and file server it is stupid and superfluous to bloat FOG to an appliance. The temptation of an appliance is it’s easyness of installation. But imagine apt-get install fog… (or rpm, emerge or whatever). If FOG is well prepared for packaging, it is not a big deal no more to do it for the different distros. -
However, it wouldn’t hurt having FOG as a distribution package (think .deb, .rpm) rather than having to maintain its own install script. But hey, let’s have more people on board to do that
I’m actually thinking about having it packaged, so that we can just do apt-get install fog, but there are many other issues to be fixed, and the 0.33 version to be worked on first…Cheers
Gilou -
I was referring to someone making a TurnKey Linux Patch
Fair enough but, I agree on a .deb / .rpm but would also require package maintainers.
Maybe the current approach of install via script is still the correct path for now and allows maximum flexibility.
On a slightly different topic, what are you guys thoughts on the Windows Agent?
What if, FOG server was made to be compatible with the Fusion Inventory Agent instead, and change the entire SFX deployment over to the Fusion/OCS deployment method.
Pros are you already have people developing this agent seperately, once the initial headache of making FOG compatible is over then the devs can focus on other areas and not the Agent.
The biggest benefit is the improved inventory capabilities, rather then with the current FOG where you are required to boot linux to gather inventory, fusion/ocs will be collecting updated inventory all the time.
The downsides are from what I can tell fusion doesn’t install printers like FOG does (does anyone actually use this and not GPO?)
all other portions of the FOG agent can then be replaced with fusion inventory.
/ot Anyone know if Fusion Inventory can display toast notifications in windows 8?
thoughts?
-
hmm, that’s not stupid, the OCS thingie, as it’s anyway probably usually used in such environments where FOG is interested, but can you make the ocs agent report to, and be setup via FOG easily?
Anyway, afaict, the FOG service works quite nicely… -
Can this Fusion Inventory Agent join AD, with the same ease of use, etc? I know that is a loaded question, but I could not find an easy answer on Google.
I do not mean to keep beating a living horse here, but I really think that some kind of AD integration is crucial to the system, overall. I understand that many folks do not use AD, or even Windows, but one of the main reasons I have stuck with this platform (Windows, AD, FOG) is the integrated “auto-naming”, “auto-joining” capabilities - I know that there are many, many alternatives to this system, but I have never seen one in action that works so damn well, and is so user (and entry-level tech) friendly! I just have a hard time contemplating switching to another way of doing this that is LESS good and MORE complicated, like so many of the alternatives out there…
Also, I totally agree about the [I]“Multi-Site improvements and site replication built in with no mods” - [/I]I forgot to mention that in my previous post, and that would just be great!
Thank you for reading,
D.L. -
Completely agree with you on the AD part, that’s the best drawcard to the Windows Agent!
However,
Since the computer naming component is no longer done via the Windows Agent in 0.33b as far as I know its done during the init image process.
Joining the domain could then be done as part of sysprep (as the name would already be right by this stage) thus making that part a moot point.
The only issue from then on, in order to rename the PC, a re-image would be required in FOG, unlike the windows agent which would just rename it, although then a domain re-join is required. How often does this scenario happen though? just re-image it!
Pretty sure OCS/FusionInventory has no such capabilities, it’s just for detailed inventory and software deployment
-
[quote=“andyroo54, post: 18229, member: 267”]
I love this idea, and agree with all of your points.I love the idea of a Fog distro.[/quote]
Just wanted to chime in, this is actually in the works. I’ve recently moved and had to put this on the back burner for a bit, but i’m getting ready to pick it back up and get moving forward with a distro. Though, it will start as a virtual appliance first (which I have the first one completed), more of a proof of concept, before a live distro is made.
There are still some challenges with an appliance and distro that i’m working through, like being able to change the OS IP address after FOG has been configured. I’m slowly making progress through that. It’s just taking a lot of tweaking and lots more testing.
-
Fog distro would be really nice… to be able to quickly spawn a storage node without all the trouble of WGET and APT etc…
Also to be able to show up with an ISO or disk and quickly have a working server would be nice.
But… wouldn’t having an APT based install (and equivalent for other types of Linux) be less work?
Additionally, if you use Debian/Ubuntu, someone will probably moan that you didn’t use CentOS or OpenSUSE, and if you use one of those someone will probably moan that you didn’t use Ubuntu/Debain… -
This post is deleted! -
Hi guys i know its a little late in the game to be offering help, but i have access to lots off brand new systems from oem complete builds to 3rd party efi mobos (asus, intel,msi) i would be willing to test out what ever you would to on these systems if it can help out.
-
any news on when a beta for the fog distro will be available
-
There’s a beta already available
Tom has been working really hard to keep up with all the bugs we can throw at him too.
-
That’s right
-
can you link me to the distro?
-
I’m not creating the distro, so maybe communicate with Kevin directly, if he’s so willing he can give you the link.
-
I was misunderstanding you… there currently isn’t a “Fog Distro” of linux, it’s in talks, really I feel it is counter productive to limit people to a singe distro, I think the current installation process of FOG is simple and doesn’t need the added headache of building a distro. BUT TO EACH HIS OWN!!!
As long as I can still install FOG on my choice of Liunx flavor, I will remain happy.
BUT if you are looking for the installation files of the current 0.33 beta
direct traball download, must be decomperssed
[url]https://mastacontrola.com/fog_0.33b.tar.bz2[/url]or check out the svn
[code]
svn co https://svn.code.sf.net/p/freeghost/code/trunk fog_0.33b[/code] -
This may not be the place to discuss this, however I’m going to throw it out there.
Any interest in building in config management abilities?
For example, Puppet? I know Razor is out there for baremetal, but I feel that FOG still has a place in terms of usability for helpdesk etc. My dream FOG setup would be such that a manifest in fog could configure the install (correct subnet + desired services). Rsync the images/kernals, and perhaps other bits and pieces. I have always strayed away from the node setup, as with multiple sites things get messy (all computers in one db).I am probably missing something, but I think that would be pretty sweet.
-
updog: I agree, but that approach would be Linux centric… Though it’s a not so ugly way to think of snap-ins for linux hosts
