Its unlikely that sausalito will "replace" webmin. Webmin is focued alot
more on helping the sysadmin simplify management of config files. If you
look at most of the webmin modules out there, they are basicly UI's to
provide a template around what is esencially the same functionality as
typing in [vi|pico|emacs|ed| <file> or <command> <arguments>. Cobalt/BQ's
initial focus was/is more on providing services to end users. I.E. adding =
a
new site by default will populate that machine's dns server with default
entries for the host. Letting the end users then manage their own sandbox,
it becomes more about removing the sysadmin from the equation, at least whe=
n
it comes to managing config files at all, and leaving those sysadmins to
tend to the deeper problems/issues/improvements on the network. This is
more in line with what I have seen out of cPanel/Plesk. Not sure about
WHM. Last time I looked at both cpanel/plesk, I was unimpressed with the
level of intergration. As of yet, nothing has been able to duplicate the
elegance or security potentiality of BQ. But then again I am a bit biased
:)
As for adding new functionality to BQ, one can typically develop a new
module in a few days to a few weeks, depending on the level of difficulty.
base-overflow and base-portscan were both built in about a month, and that
included rebuilding all network facing services with the customized
stackguard protector. There still are copies of the sausilito developers
guide floating around the net, or just pick up a simpler module as a basis
to learn from.
As for the UI contest. Would the hello kitty qube win? (cobalt devs, anyon=
e
remember that email :P).
- Jesse
On 4/13/06, Bruce Timberlake <brucetimberlake (at mark) gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This has been my concern all along from the days when I ran
> Raq3's. Where
> > are all the add-ins that will allow a web host to compete with all the
> > cPanels, Plesks and WHMs of the world?
>
> The Sausalito UI is more customizable, and supports "plug ins" better
> than the old RaQ 3/RaQ 4 Perl-based UI ever could hope to. And the
> more modern, less customized OS will enable the basic apps to stay
> up-to-date or be replaced/etc easier as well. So you _should_ see
> developers able to add more functionality to the BQ systems more
> easily.
>
> Whether it will incorporate/replicate Webmin etc, I can't say. A lot
> of the features from those systems are, to some degree, included
> already (DNS, virtual hosting, etc). Others, like reseller accounts,
> etc., could certainly use some work.
>
>
>
4783_2.html (attatchment)