XO-Lite beta
-
@travisdh1 said in XO-Lite beta:
I think the big difference between what XO Lite will be and the web TUI is that you don't need console access, just hit the IP address via a web browser. With how so many other things are moving to the web browser to work or manage, I think it's a good thing for them to be doing.
You don't need console access for the TUI, you have the exact same interface over ssh. You start it by running
xsconsole. -
@travisdh1 said in XO-Lite beta:
I also think having XO Lite available will make XCP-NG more approachable for less experienced techs. I'll still use XO to manage my XCP-NG servers, but XO Lite will make that initial server rollout and XO install more approachable.
For the home lab crowd it will probably be better for sure. But why mess with xcp-ng at all when they can get a full featured web interface with proxmox?
Which is kind of my point. Why even put the effort into a simplified web interface running in dom0 when XO is the real thing and can be deployed with a one-liner? And it comes in a free version.
For me at this point all this is more of an theoretical question though as we are moving to pure KVM instead. I feel that the world is moving towards automation and away from pretty web UI. And also away from self-hosting and towards services that someone else will be responsible for.
-
@Pete-S said in XO-Lite beta:
And also away from self-hosting and towards services that someone else will be responsible for.
This I don't feel is true. And when it is, that's still IT managing it, just under a different organizational structure. So all of the needs, whatever they are, remain the same just... elsewhere.
-
@Pete-S said in XO-Lite beta:
I feel that the world is moving towards automation and away from pretty web UI.
This for sure, BUT the pace is like a snail. The number of shops still arguing that they don't want virtualization, or to work with IT pros, is extreme. The MAJORITY of the market won't even talk about best practices or minimum standards.
Heck, we're still supporting 2012 R2 physical machines out there!
Yes, people are moving towards modern systems, but.... we've got decades to go.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XO-Lite beta:
Heck, we're still supporting 2012 R2 physical machines out there!
Yes, people are moving towards modern systems, but.... we've got decades to go.
I have a customer running Epicor's P21 solution. When it was installed in 2014, Epicor intentionally put it on Server 2008 R2. Still running.
-
nah...
-
@Pete-S said in XO-Lite beta:
@travisdh1 said in XO-Lite beta:
I also think having XO Lite available will make XCP-NG more approachable for less experienced techs. I'll still use XO to manage my XCP-NG servers, but XO Lite will make that initial server rollout and XO install more approachable.
I feel that the world is moving towards automation and away from pretty web UI. And also away from self-hosting and towards services that someone else will be responsible for.
Having automation doesn’t preclude having a web ui. A lot of times (most of the time) the web ui uses the same API as the automation.
There are a lot of cases where you will have people interacting with the ui instead of automation so it’s still a valid option. And having a lighter weight version of the old xen orchestra stuff would be nice.
-
@stacksofplates said in XO-Lite beta:
@Pete-S said in XO-Lite beta:
@travisdh1 said in XO-Lite beta:
I also think having XO Lite available will make XCP-NG more approachable for less experienced techs. I'll still use XO to manage my XCP-NG servers, but XO Lite will make that initial server rollout and XO install more approachable.
I feel that the world is moving towards automation and away from pretty web UI. And also away from self-hosting and towards services that someone else will be responsible for.
Having automation doesn’t preclude having a web ui. A lot of times (most of the time) the web ui uses the same API as the automation.
There are a lot of cases where you will have people interacting with the ui instead of automation so it’s still a valid option. And having a lighter weight version of the old xen orchestra stuff would be nice.
That's exactly what they're doing. XO-Lite is using their API to manage XCP-NG.
-
Hey there,
To answer @Pete-S ' question about the "why" of XO Lite:
- addressing the chicken-egg problem when you bootstrap your infrastructure (easier to have nothing to install to start doing very basic stuff).
- answering some cases where you lose access to your XOA (so as a "second choice", as it's better than the TUI for many operations, also don't need to plug a screen, any machine in the network could display the web UI, even a tablet/phone where SSH access isn't optimal vs a browser)
- prepare XO 6 new web UI, since it will share many components with it (so the work done for XO Lite will be "recycled" at 90% for XO 6 on the "basic" management features): kind of a head start on XO 6 if you prefer. Also helped us to develop new ways and process while building the new UI.
- giving XCP-ng a "visible" interface out-of-the-box with our brand identity
- finish to kill the last reasons for using XCP-ng Center
-
A good illustration of what I said: https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xo-lite-components/
Next article on this: the design system that will be useful for all our apps (XO 6 included).
-
@scottalanmiller said in XO-Lite beta:
Heck, we're still supporting 2012 R2 physical machines out there!
It keeps going and going and going.......
Installed November 12, 2004
-
@JasGot said in XO-Lite beta:
@scottalanmiller said in XO-Lite beta:
Heck, we're still supporting 2012 R2 physical machines out there!
It keeps going and going and going.......
Installed November 12, 2004
OMG!!!
