A Run Through Windows Server 2008

amcdiarmid writes "Tom's Hardware has a review of Windows Server 2008 RC0 up on their site. It has a few good points, and at 19 pages is certainly 'in-depth'. From the article's conclusion: 'Microsoft has used the time since the release of Windows Server 2003 very well. The new Server Manager simplifies system administration immensely. Unlike Windows Vista, whose new dialogues still confuse even experienced users, Windows Server 2008 makes the admin feel right at home and in control ... However, it's not all sunshine, either. Although our test system used a beefy Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 with generous 2 GB of RAM, the Server's user interface felt sluggish with Windows being drawn very slowly ... Microsoft also gets low marks for failing to include SSH support in the operating system. On Linux servers, working without SSH is simply unthinkable. At least the Redmond company includes its encrypted remote shell WinRS. However, secure FTP is still a missing feature. The FTP client is being treated like an unloved stepchild, to the point where it is not even included in the Server Manager.'"

Comments

Wall building?

[ktappe]

Without SSH and SFTP, does it seem as if Microsoft is trying to build a wall between itself and Linux? To what end I'm not sure, but this is starting to seem deliberate.

Re:Wall building?

[Alioth]

Not Linux, but the rest of the computing world. Every other OS, including router operating systems like Cisco IOS, comes with ssh these days. Solaris has it. OS X has it. Cisco IOS has it (even their wireless access points have ssh). BSD of course has it. So does Linux. Microsoft is the only OS vendor that doesn't have an ssh server by default.

Re:Wall building?

[Stamen]

It is true, that there should be different options for different people, I'd hate a world where only OS X or Linux existed. Ideally, a few major players would exist that had equal market share; this would be good for everyone as it fosters competition (like what happened when Firefox started to takeoff, people who like IE enjoyed Microsoft's renewed interest in adding new features to it).

But really, Microsoft guys are safe in not ever needing to cross over. I have a few problems with this:

* One is I started out as Microsoft developer, some VB, but mostly Visual C++. I also worked at a company that did a lot of FoxPro and some Visual J. You're to young to remember this, as you're just starting out, but the problem with knowing non-standard technologies, is they can and will be taken away from you. I mentioned FoxPro and Visual J, because those were, and those developers were left high and dry. Heck, I know plenty of VB developers that complain bitterly about Microsoft dropping them (and no, VB.NET isn't VB, other than in appearance). VB was one of the most popular languages, and Microsoft just dropped it. Once you've been around for a while, you see this happen time and time again; your .net knowlege, in the future, will be just as useful as FoxPro knowlege is now. Sure c# is a standard, but it won't matter when Microsoft decides to switch to Foo++ language and none of their tools support c# anymore.

* The other problem I have is that the world is far from black and white. And even all Microsoft shops will have 3rd party tools come into their domain and they will have to work with them. Plus companies need to work with other companies, and you can't control what they will have. You WILL be exposed to non-Microsoft technology, and your boss WILL expect you to make it work, NOW. After years and years of this, you start to change your mind about what you should be learning.

Microsoft can make excellent tools that support industry and de-facto standards. And they would be very good at this, and they would make lots of money. But they refuse too, because "lots of money" isn't "all the money", and thus isn't good enough for them. I supported them for a long, long time; but like an abusive father, one day you start to punch back, and then you leave; because you realize, it's just not worth it anymore.

... at 19 pages ...

[trolltalk.com]

> "and at 19 pages is certainly 'in-depth'."

19 pages - more pages to serve adverts. A few paragraphs on each page, and on "print" so you can't just read the whole thing in one page.

Come off it - take away the pictures, and the whole articles is a couple of paragraphs. In-depth? For people who never read anything harder than a comic book, maybe.

Not surprised

[JK_the_Slacker]

Although our test system used a beefy Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 with generous 2 GB of RAM, the Server's user interface felt sluggish with Windows being drawn very slowly

That's what happens when you try to use beefy hardware with a cheesy interface to a porky OS.

Understandable.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is kind of explainable, given that most MSFT managers grew up in the era where WYSIWYG was the greatest thing since the sliced bread. They have always believed in GUI and never liked CLI much. So the tradition continues, less emphasis on anything script oriented and CLI oriented. Their idea of great script is a vbscript with its own GUI. We might not like it, but that kind of explains part of MSFT's way of working/thinking.

Lacking support for ftp, ssh etc are some vague attempt to create "value" to the non portable skill set developed by the windows admins. If the sys admins develop these skills and could easily run either linux or windows, then the switching cost for corporations to switch from windows to linux will decrease. Since the maximum revenue MSFT can extract from its existing installed base is capped by what it would cost its customers to switch to an alternative system, this is a very rational business strategy to keep them following a straight and narrow road to Redmond. And let us not blame just MSFT for this attitude. It is the customers who should realize the value of reducing their switching costs and demand better support for ftp, ssh and other linux side expertise they have in house. If customers don't demand it, why would a profit centered corporation deliver it?

Re:Understandable.

[RKThoadan]

What's really strange is that the MS PowerShell is actually pretty impressive. It's a lot like most *nix shells except that it passes objects around instead of strings. It feels vaguely similar to Interactive Ruby to me. There are actually tasks in Exchange 2007 that can only be done in the shell (not in the gui) and many tasks are easier in the shell. They've even mimicked most of your standard bash commands. It knows what ls, ps and man are (among others).

It appears to me that MS is quite committed to letting people run gui-less servers now, and their doing a pretty decent job of it so far. They're doing a lot better job of that than they are with Vista.